As I said, the Wikipedia article is what the words "native Brits" links to.

Here's the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

Here's what the article says:

> In 2011, it was reported for the first time that White British people had become a minority within the city

How could you possibly come to the conclusion that it's not about race? Do you think he linked to the wrong article by accident?

No, not an accident, but you didn't get his key point. If he had wanted to say about skin color, he would have said that. Is culture linked to skin color? Kind of, whether you like it or not. It's not racism though as it's about social groups in the end. Let's say immigrants from Pakistan (replace with any other country) bring Pakistanian culture to London, is it because they have different skin color? Most Pakistanians are not White, so it must be racist to oppose their culture, right? How about Russians? They are White (it's complicated, but let's simplify), but their culture can be opposite to British values. Association is not a causation.

Hilariously he's talking about Londinium, a city founded and administrated by non native non British people as part of a foreign beachhead of control by a non British empire. "Native Britains" were excluded as residents or in tiny numbers for four centuries.

London has always been a hive of culture, he's just pining for the nostalgic times he wore onions on his belt and was blind to the depth of culture in London.

There have been Russians in London since before the USSR, not that DHH would have noticed unless they spoke given so few of those Russian were Asiatic or from the steppes.

His point was that he has now finally noticed changes and that he's had his eyes opened by the likes of Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris, Wayne King, and Tommy Robinson.

Of course he is nostalgic, as many people when they get older and talking about his image of London, which probably never existed in real life. My point is I don't see a racism, even less fascism in his post. Cancelling somebody for his nostalgic opinion does remind me of fascism though. In any case I personally am nostalgic of times when professional side was kind of separate from politics and Ruby was about programming, not about politics. Or am I imagining this too?

As a fun fact, both me and my wife can detect ex-USSR immigrant from afar (even those who have been living here in the US for some time). There is something different in how we look, walk, behave etc. Not wrong, just different, and not everybody of course. Humans are very observing when it comes to cultural code and a big part of it subconcious, you don't even realize it.

I think you're not getting his key point, or you are but you're being coy about it. He did say skin colour, in the form of "native Brits". How do you know that? Because of the article he linked, defining the terms he was using. The article is called "Ethnic groups in London", not "Cultural groups in London". He quotes statistics about "native Brits" that match the article's demographics for "White British". There is zero ambiguity here.

If I say "I love a [sweet treat](wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_cream)! It's so refreshingly cold on a nice hot day", there's just no intellectually honest way to claim maybe I meant apple pie. Do you understand? He's not talking about Russian immigrants because they're white. He is talking about Pakistani immigrants because they're brown. He's literally telling you what he means and you're choosing to ignore it. Why?

Perhaps there are, in fact, reasons to not say skin colour even when that's what you mean.

He talked about Pakistani immigrants because they were raping girls and British police did nothing. Maybe "native Brits" are doing the same and getting away with it? Again, you are noticing what you want to see. We can discuss if it's because they are from Pakistan and their culture allows it, or maybe criminals have no nationality and that would be a valid discussion, but bringing skin color here is an obvious distraction.

There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits.

>How could you possibly come to the conclusion that it's not about race?

It has nothing to do with race, everything to do with ethnicity. Austrians are racially White, but are not native to London.

There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits.

His specific words were "it's no longer full of native Brits" with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

Then he goes on to point out more than sixty percent of the city were "native Brits" in 2000, but that number corresponds to the White British categorization.

Ergo he's conflating White British with native British.

He also said "A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now." Maybe he is extremely observant, but I don't think that follows unless he is talking about skin color.

You don't need to be extremely observant. Many years ago I observed a black man peeing on a tree right in front of Rotterdam Central Station in Netherlands in a broad daylight. While it doesn't necessary mean that native Dutch wouldn't have done the same thing, something tells me he was not from Dutch culture and you don't need to be an expert to guess. Was it about skin color or his behavior?

Time of year, at a guess.

Zwarte Piet pissing on a tree is more of a Dutch Christmas tradition.

It wasn't Christmas, not even close.