That article spends a lot of words in trying to paint DHH's "native Brits" in a positive light but never mentions the following sentence from the article:

> A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.

How is DHH able to determine nativity as defined by "being born and brought up" simply walking the streets of London if it has nothing to do with what you look like?

Plus he even links to a Wikipedia page about white vs non-white British population in London and uses the non-white number. If he wanted to, he could've referred to the foreign-born vs local-born numbers too but he did not.

I don't think DHH is racist, but he's so infected by the anti-woke mind virus that he's happy to parrot racist talking points to "own the libs". Whether that's any better, I'm not sure.

It seems like the author has infinite rope to extend to DHH. That's not being nice, that's being oblivious.

It seems unlikely to me that DHH wasn’t referring to white people when he said “native Brit”. Certainly, if that’s not what he meant, he could clear that up pretty easily. Has he?

I don't think this drivel helps explains anything that's not stated in very plain English in DHH's blog.