[throwawaypath]

Not surprised that I'm not going to get a response, that happens when people lose after being called out on their delusional claims.

Would you look at this, "non-indigenous minorities" [0]. Lists all the nonnative groups to England, ethnic groups that were not "birthed" in England, nor Europe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe

[tovej]

Here's your own "source" (wikipedia) on neolithic people on the British isles.

"Recent genetic studies have suggested that Britain's Neolithic population was largely replaced by a population from North Continental Europe characterised by the Bell Beaker culture around 2400 BC, associated with the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe."

And you can't use the fact that wikipedia uses the term "non-indigenous" for a group to prove a point about "non-native", when what your arguing is that they mean the same. That's a circular argument, the premise is only true if the conclusion is true.

There's also a category error here, whether a group belongs to non-indigenous minorities says nothing about indigenous majority, which is what you're claiming the English are. They would not be present in "non-indigenous minority" because they are not a minority.

Again, you're the only one bringing up "indigenous" as a relevant concept. Something that neither DHH nor anyone else but you in this discussion is arguing about.

[throwawaypath]

>Here's your own "source" (wikipedia) on neolithic people on the British isles.

Yes, the source that literally proves my point.

>"Recent genetic studies have suggested that Britain's Neolithic population was largely replaced by a population from North Continental Europe characterised by the Bell Beaker culture around 2400 BC, associated with the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe."

And if you continue reading, the English are the descendants of that population, the mix Neolithic and Northern European peoples, even though most of the Neolithic were replaced, the English descended from both.

Thanks for proving my point?

>And you can't use the fact that wikipedia uses the term "non-indigenous" for a group to prove a point about "non-native", when what your arguing is that they mean the same. That's a circular argument, the premise is only true if the conclusion is true.

Those groups are non-indigenous to Europe, which means they are de facto not native to London. There are indigenous groups in Europe and the UK that are similarly not native to London. These two words mean different things.

>There's also a category error here, whether a group belongs to non-indigenous minorities says nothing about indigenous majority, which is what you're claiming the English are. They would not be present in "non-indigenous minority" because they are not a minority.

The only category error here is you trying to claim non-indigenous foreign groups are "native" when by definition, and all sources I've provided, show they are not.

>Again, you're the only one bringing up "indigenous" as a relevant concept. Something that neither DHH nor anyone else but you in this discussion is arguing about.

The only native group to London are the English. The English are White Brits. DHH claimed "native Brits," and "native Brits" are those who are indigenous to the area, the English.