[pkd]

I see you created the account to just post this so you're highly likely to not be worth the response but "native brit" is vague not because British people don't exist - there is a legal definition for that - but because Britain has been invaded and seen migration for millenia. Are Normans less native than Anglo-Saxons? Are the Celts the most native? Why do the Vikings and Franks get to assimilate into nativity but not the non-white? The answer to that is very clear - however people tend to hide it behind terms like "native".

[blackbell]

>but "native brit" is vague not because British people don't exist - there is a legal definition for that - but because Britain has been invaded and seen migration for millenia.

but "native african" is vague not because African people don't exist - there is a legal definition for that - but because Africa has been invaded and seen migration for millenia.

>but because Britain has been invaded and seen migration for millenia.

So has practically every other nation including those located in Palestine, Australia, and the Americas.

>Are Normans less native than Anglo-Saxons? Are the Celts the most native? Why do the Vikings and Franks get to assimilate into nativity but not the non-white? The answer to that is very clear - however people tend to hide it behind terms like "native".

Are Afrikaners less native than Bantus? Are Khoisans the most native? Why do Khoekhoen and San get to assimilate into nativity but not the White? The answer to that is very clear - however people tend to hide it behind terms like "native".

[jleyank]

Given the British empire, it can’t be British people because they spanned the world. All of the empire -> commonwealth had mobility. It’s skin tone, not culture. Unless this is the celts wanting to get the British isles back.

[petralithic]

I mean you can say that about literally every other peoples on the planet, so it's not very convincing.