Visual appearance is the main indicator to identify the perceived culture of some random person on the streets, so it's a justified assumption the writer was talking about this.
> Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
I personally don't see how it could be "as evident as day" simply by walking around and observing without bringing skin color into it. Walking the streets of London doesn't reasonably include the activity of investigating the citizen status of everybody one sees so he's presumably not observing "native or not". And if he's not observing that, then it seems reasonable to think he's observing their skin color. At least, it does without him clarifying what he was otherwise observing.
But some of the words also link to a wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London) which doesn't actually support his point unless you look at numbers that explicitly concern race. More specifically, I can't find the race-agnostic numbers which corroborate the specific (approximate) numbers he gave. There's a "White British" row in a table that has a value of 36.8% for the 2021 census. It shows 59.79% for the 2001 census.
It's hard to compare strictly with citizenship using the numbers he linked to, which seems another reason to assume he was thinking in terms of skin color. On top of the fact that the wiki article is titled "Ethnic groups in London", which is not relevant to citizenship status, nor whether they "natively" got their citizenship. I mean, seriously, what evidence could he even be using to make the claim that a mere 1/3 of London's population is comprised of "native Brits", if we start with the assumption that it's not what he observed of others' skin color? (Not rhetorical despite the tone, please answer if you have an idea.)
pelagicAustral|4 months ago
slightwinder|4 months ago
zvmaz|4 months ago
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF|4 months ago
> Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
I personally don't see how it could be "as evident as day" simply by walking around and observing without bringing skin color into it. Walking the streets of London doesn't reasonably include the activity of investigating the citizen status of everybody one sees so he's presumably not observing "native or not". And if he's not observing that, then it seems reasonable to think he's observing their skin color. At least, it does without him clarifying what he was otherwise observing.
But some of the words also link to a wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London) which doesn't actually support his point unless you look at numbers that explicitly concern race. More specifically, I can't find the race-agnostic numbers which corroborate the specific (approximate) numbers he gave. There's a "White British" row in a table that has a value of 36.8% for the 2021 census. It shows 59.79% for the 2001 census.
It's hard to compare strictly with citizenship using the numbers he linked to, which seems another reason to assume he was thinking in terms of skin color. On top of the fact that the wiki article is titled "Ethnic groups in London", which is not relevant to citizenship status, nor whether they "natively" got their citizenship. I mean, seriously, what evidence could he even be using to make the claim that a mere 1/3 of London's population is comprised of "native Brits", if we start with the assumption that it's not what he observed of others' skin color? (Not rhetorical despite the tone, please answer if you have an idea.)
freehorse|4 months ago