Before reading the rest of the article from there the paragraphs about native brits seems a bit weird regardless of the good or bad of what's implied with it. 'Why doesn't he say white brits instead of native brits.' Because he doesn't mean that? I know Belgians more pasty white than me. wouldn't call them native flemish or native belgian. They're culturally romanian and turkish and even selfidentify as such, champion their sports teams and talk about their cultural issues. They're not indigenous even if born here and retain strong ties to the respective relevant countries and communities. They can't be subconsciously tied to a local area by dialect, name or cultural elements or the like.

If he had said indigenous i don't think the writer would have liked it any better tho.

Similarly many comments in the original thread who take great issue with the term who i don't expect to see reeling when native americans or palestinians, etc, etc are refered to.

Yeah - I read it. My comment stands.

Nothing in that article is evidence to the claim that DHH is far-right. Not wanting unlimited immigration is not a far-right stance. Nothing wrong with wanting a homeland with historical ties for indigienous people.