Afrikaner Assimilation of South African blacks and Coloreds

Just get the Afrikaaners to conquer everyone else before the British come do that when they do the SA blacks speak Boer and have boer culture. :cool:
 
I can believe that some of them have small amounts of non-European ancestry but I am skeptical that most do. It seems to be a popular myth for those with long roots in a settler society (whether it's the USA, Canada, Australia etc.) to claim that they have some "native blood" but DNA studies actually usually disprove this. Those of actual mixed ancestry frequently formed parallel societies, like the Métis or Coloureds.

There has been no study of Afrikaners DNA unless its new to me, however Apricity (international white nationalism website) has last I checked about 100 DNA profiles and all of them have non-european ancestry.

If I remember correctly since it has been a couple years the owner of the website has Angolan and Malaysian ancestry which changed his tune towards mixed race people.

But basically yes 23andme has shown this common thread.

Exactly, those are not myths.

Similarly, A recent study has shown that more than 10% of whites of Louisiana and South Carolina have some African blood and most French Canadian have some Indian blood. Miscigenation is in every colonial society.
 
Exactly, those are not myths.

Similarly, A recent study has shown that more than 10% of whites of Louisiana and South Carolina have some African blood and most French Canadian have some Indian blood. Miscigenation is in every colonial society.

I'm not saying that there are zero white people in these countries that have indigenous blood, just that it's exaggerated in a lot of people's minds. Frequently, where people are racially mixed, it's with other non-indigenous groups.

The case of the American South is interesting: it seems that both white and black people claim "Indian blood" as a way of denying their ancestry from the other group.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that there are zero white people in these countries that have indigenous blood, just that it's exaggerated in a lot of people's minds.

The case of the American South is interesting: it seems that both white and black people claim "Indian blood" as a way of denying their ancestry from the other group.

Well, people claimed otherwise throughout most of our history and even today in some circles. However, the articles mentioned here are pretty straightforward IMHO, why do you particularly think that there's an exaggeration?
 
Well, people claimed otherwise throughout most of our history and even today in some circles. However, the articles mentioned here are pretty straightforward IMHO, why do you particularly think that there's an exaggeration?

Among anglophone settlers, in particular, there is a marked tendency to exaggerate or simply invent indigenous ancestry. I don't have a link offhand but I'll see if I can find one.

Even in the case of French Canadians, as your link notes, the genetic contribution of Amerindians is absolutely tiny, less than 1% of most people's genetic heritage. That's not indicative of widespread racial mixing. Rather, as the founding population was so small, there may have only been a handful of intermarriages at the beginning to create this genetic contribution.
 
Last edited:
Among anglophone settlers, in particular, there is a marked tendency to exaggerate or simply invent indigenous ancestry. I don't have a link offhand but I'll see if I can find one.

Even in the case of French Canadians, as your link notes, the genetic contribution of Amerindians is absolutely tiny, less than 1% of most people's genetic heritage. That's not indicative of widespread racial mixing. Rather, as the founding population was so small, there may have only been a handful of intermarriages at the beginning to create this genetic contribution.
Sigh

Think about it for a moment.

Americans and Canadians lived side by side with a bunch of natives who died if you sneezed on them and had a far smaller population. The mixed raced group was also far smaller and they both saw far larger admixture from new immigrants in the 19th century. So why should the same rule count for them as for a minority group dwelling among a non-White majority, a minority group which are mostly descendants of under a thousand settlers.
 
Honestly if you just have the Dutch that arrive have a racial hatred towards Bantu you could have them strongly utilize Khoi, Bushmen and the heavily mixed eastern cape Xhosa as extensions of their ranks.

Insure the Oorlams and Basters and Griqua do not face harsh realities of the VOC which banned heavily mixed race people.

Or just push more young european men into the colonies, by doing this it ensures all successive daughters marry into European male communities while the son's of increasing European ancestry and being pushed in the frontier marry Khoi women from the inevitable wars and raids

Or like have a Coenraad De Buys man lead and alter Cape Colony frontier society. He basically fucked and married his way around a number of chieftains and has an entire town of his descendants in Limpopo
 
The truth is uglier than most imagine: Interracial relationships in European colonies were relatively accepted in sparsely white populated colonies (and in the 18th century many were). But only white male-native female. And as soon as there was an influx of white women, the general attitude changed. White women needed to be protected against the wild lust of the indigenous males. White settlers therefore started to live in separated areas. And the numbers of interracial relationships declined. I have read independent studies, all describing this phenomenon hapening in 19th century colonies like South-Afrika, India, Congo and Dutch India.
 
The truth is uglier than most imagine: Interracial relationships in European colonies were relatively accepted in sparsely white populated colonies (and in the 18th century many were). But only white male-native female. And as soon as there was an influx of white women, the general attitude changed. White women needed to be protected against the wild lust of the indigenous males. White settlers therefore started to live in separated areas. And the numbers of interracial relationships declined. I have read independent studies, all describing this phenomenon hapening in 19th century colonies like South-Afrika, India, Congo and Dutch India.

Yup
 
The truth is uglier than most imagine: Interracial relationships in European colonies were relatively accepted in sparsely white populated colonies (and in the 18th century many were). But only white male-native female. And as soon as there was an influx of white women, the general attitude changed. White women needed to be protected against the wild lust of the indigenous males. White settlers therefore started to live in separated areas. And the numbers of interracial relationships declined. I have read independent studies, all describing this phenomenon hapening in 19th century colonies like South-Afrika, India, Congo and Dutch India.

Exactly. The non-European genetic component of these white settler populations is almost always from the earliest days of settlement. Once there were sufficient numbers of white women, racial mixing then mostly happened in a context of slavery and the mixed-race children were not usually accepted into white society.
 
Top