AHC: Australian or American "Boers"

[VictorVanBakker]

What are the possibilities of "Boer" societies popping up in other parts of the British Empire? that is to say Dutch speaking colonists who lose their colony to the British Empire But retain a separate identity to the modern day and resent the British. It is also required that a large portion of these Dutch have a version of the Great Trek to avoid British rule.

This of course challenging since it requires a larger Dutch presence before a British takeover, I believe Australia might be a candidate if say a small settlement was stranded because their ship ran aground the reefs, the group manages grow somewhere near Queensland. Because the settlement is fairly inaccessible and British colonisation began in New South Wales, the Dutch are left to grow for a long period in isolation. Eventually British come and rather than lose their independence some Dutch retreat to the Outback to form independent "Boer Republics".

Is this plausible?

 

[Umbric Man]

I think for America the closest way to get Boers was to have Dutch Brazil be kept and a bunch of New Netherlanders *decide* they want to move there - the Dutch population was pretty small in New Amsterdam as it was and that is counting a great bit of growth before the English capture. And the Dutch colonists may be like OTL and go 'welp' and stay anyway.

 

[Tripledot]

Aren't the Quebecois a French example of this?

 

[Umbric Man]

Aren't the Quebecois a French example of this?

French-Canadians have stayed within their homeland since first settling it.

 

[dovibear]

I think Australia might be much more possible than the United States in that regard, since the Dutch explored all around Australia in the 1600s and could have very easily landed in a spot with at least a halfway decent environment and could have proceeded to found settlements of long duration. In the present-day United States, by contrast, the Dutch only had New Netherland (present-day New York City, the Hudson Valley, New Jersey, etc.), and that was for only 40 years until the English took it over in 1664. New Netherland was surrounded by English colonies on either side anyway (plus, for a time, New Sweden right to the southwest - in present-day Delaware and southeast Pennsylvania).

 

[dovibear]

French-Canadians have stayed within their homeland since first settling it.

Some French-Canadians did move out of Quebec, many to Ontario or the Northeast US, around the turn of the 20th century. Earlier, some others moved out west, particularly to the Prairies, and many of them intermarried with the First Nations (indigenous peoples) to produce the Metis population. Had the Metis rebellions of 1870 and 1885 not been suppressed, perhaps Manitoba and/or Saskatchewan would be French-speaking provinces. But you're right that most French-Canadians stayed within Quebec. A totally separate French-speaking white population in Canada is the Acadians of New Brunswick (and, to some degree, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island).

 

[Germania09]

Australia or America would definitely be doable they both have all the set conditions for an ATL "Great Trek" and the ensuing Alt. Boer Republiks

 

[NCW8]

Aren't the Quebecois a French example of this?

French-Canadians have stayed within their homeland since first settling it.

Cajuns might be a better example - they moved from Arcadia (now part of Canada) to Louisiana.

Cheers,
Nigel

 

[Viriato]

The Boers are unique because the Dutch/Afrikaans speaking population was and remains the majority of the white population. In 1820 there were some 43,000 Afrikaners, and by 1911 there were just under 700,000 or 54% of the white population, and although there was some Dutch immigration, it was more than offset by Afrikaner emigration to Rhodesia, Angola, German Africa and Kenya. The numbers of Afrikaners grew at a rate of over 3% per year due to their large families. By 1960, they were 58% of the white population at 1.8 million, still growing at an impressive rate of 2% per year.

So are we speculating a scenario where Australia or America's English-speaking white population is a minority?

 

[TinyTartar]

Have the Dutch end up settling the low country South Carolina region heavily around 1615.

When the British come in and kick them out, probably sometime in the 1660s, the Dutch settlers, who are far more numerous than OTL for some reason, decide to pack up and walk west until they form a quasi-state stretching roughly from modern day Greenville to modern day Columbia, where they dispose of or ally with the local natives. The population grows like crazy because of them being Dutch Calvinists, and they grow rich from trading with the low country British using the navigable South Carolina Rivers. The British accept their relative independence, as they do not settle South Carolina as much as OTL, using it as more of a buffer against the Spanish, who the Dutch are vehemently opposed to and ally with the British against. This does not however last.

Eventually, the British come knocking like they did in 1899 and takeover the territory using much cruelty to do so. This occurs roughly 85 years after the trek west. It'd be just like South Africa. However, the Dutch still rule South Carolina and to an extent, Georgia, by virtue of their massive birthrate advantage.

 

[zeppelinair]

1. Dutch settlers stronk in New Amsterdam area
2. Englishers attack Dutch harshly
3. Dutch move to Mississippi River basin
4. 1 century later US independent
5. Dutch stronker in Mississippi
6. ????
6. profit

 

[Clarior]

I've got a fun idea; have a mormon-esque religion pop up in French speaking lands with a french speaking prophet-leader and have them take their religion out west where they will be less persecuted. Have part of the founder's inspiration be the capture of French Canada, possibly as a rejection of a "Church of Quebec" being instituted as was considered.

To be truthful, I think this would be a very small movement, but so was Mormonism and it's one of the top 4 branches of Christianity in the United States today. If 1/20 Canadians were "French Mormons" at any extended point in history that could still be a fulfillment of the pod in my mind.
A)Independent identity based on a foreign language and culture orented around religion
B)moving beyond the initial "homelands"
C)likely living mostly off farming and depending on the flavoring of the religion possibly assimilating/becoming part of Metis culture

This religion may rely on Hugenot conversions, as I do consider that the conversion of Catholics to a new, non-pope adhereing religion may be more difficult, though again flavoring of this theoretical religion could use a pope-like figure like Mormonism does. Either way, I imagine this would be a minority religion even when just cos idering French Canadians, but being at least 1-5% of the entirety of Canada by "modern day".

Edit: I admit this depends on your defitinion of "American Boers" but the flavor of the religion could begin OR shift to resembling Boers despite religion differences. I guess it depends on whether religion or language are important to your definition.

 

[Viriato]

The American South would have been one of the worst places for the Dutch to settle, as the infectious diseases and malaria of the region kept the natural growth rate of the white population region negative until the 18th century (it was even worse for the slaves). Between 1630 and 1680 the growth rate of Maryland, Virginia and Carolina was -1.1% per year. The only thing that kept the population from declining was a net of 81,000 white immigrants. Between 1680-1730 another 111,000 European immigrants arrived and as whites moved further inland their rates improved to 0.3% per year. Between 1730 and 1780 a net of 136,000 Europeans arrived, and their growth rate was 1.3% per year, but remained around 0% in Georgia and South Carolina.

By contrast, New England and New York received far less net migration from Europe, but their white population had an annual growth rate of 2.5% per annum during much of the colonial period. Dutch migration to the Americas between 1600 and 1760 amounted to 20,000, most of that was to the Caribbean including Suriname and the West Indies. Economic conditions in the Netherlands were generally good and the country attracted large numbers of immigrants from France, the Spanish Netherlands as religious refugees, in addition to these were economic migrants from Germany and Scandinavia. Many of the men recruited for the VOC were in reality Norwegian and Swedish.

To make a lasting settler colony in North America, it would have to be in the North and perhaps have more Germans and Huguenots recruited early on. The problem is that the New Netherlands was regarded mainly as a source of furs, agriculture was just a necessity to provide for the company officials and their families. A mere 4,000 European immigrants settled in the New Netherlands, and of those half were not Dutch. The WIC was mainly a for profit concern and was more interested in short-term profit than settler colonies. The other main settler colony being at the Cape and here too a mere 2,000 settlers were recruited during VOC rule. Fundamentally you have to alter Dutch colonisation so that companies merely interested in profit are not governing the temperate territories.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

The Dutch had been the most friendly to Iroquois, willing to sell guns to them when French refused and English also wouldn´t.

What if a sizable body of Dutch does, in 1664, instead of submitting to English in their homes of Hudson Valley, retreat and take refuge with their friends the Iroquois?