NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:25 am**

Jinwoy wrote:Turks are not from Turkey. They stole the land from Byzantine Greeks. Only Greeks can be Turks!

Anatolia Turks are a majority Greek and other Anatolia ethnicites in ancestry. The Turkishness of the people is mainly cultural.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:26 am**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:They're Africans, and they a legitimate right to their land in South Africa. They've been there longer than many Black South Africans.

Land reform is a complicated issue that is far more nuanced then that. The arguments against any land reform are the same racist ones as those made by people singing Shoot the Boer.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:54 am**

If for whatever reason they are expelled by angry natives, we in the west should be prepared to take them in.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:58 am**

Why shouldn’t they be considered African?

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:00 am**

Aureumterra wrote:Why shouldn’t they be considered African?

No real reason, but whites are not the only ones who can be racist.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:16 am**

The Reformed American Republic wrote:If for whatever reason they are expelled by angry natives, we in the west should be prepared to take them in.

The original natives of South Africa are incapable of expelling anybody. I think at last count the aboriginal population numbered less than half a million.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:16 am**

The Reformed American Republic wrote:If for whatever reason they are expelled by angry natives, we in the west should be prepared to take them in.

I would rather they not be expelled. There's already too many refugees worldwide.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:17 am**

Krasny-Volny wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:If for whatever reason they are expelled by angry natives, we in the west should be prepared to take them in.

The original natives of South Africa are incapable of expelling anybody. I think at last count the aboriginal population numbered less than half a million.

It took me a minute to get this.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:46 pm**

Krasny-Volny wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:If for whatever reason they are expelled by angry natives, we in the west should be prepared to take them in.

The original natives of South Africa are incapable of expelling anybody. I think at last count the aboriginal population numbered less than half a million.

I meant the black people currently living there. They can expel them, as whites are a minority there.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:50 pm**

Yes. Also European. Just like African-Americans are African and American.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:53 pm**

Neanderthaland wrote:Yes. Also European. Just like African-Americans are African and American.

African Americans are hardly African, what are you talking about? If you were to put an African American in the middle of Accra, they would hardly understand any of the native languages, even the English creole would be basically unintelligible, and many of the practices Africans follow would seem alien to African Americans.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:54 pm**

In the same sense that African Americans are still Americans, I'd say yes. The difference however is that while Africans were forced to come here as free labor the Afrikaners came of their own free will and were still insulted that the locals dared to exist. While I'd say that they are african, they've been hilariously ungrateful about it.

Korea1993 wrote:Theyre Anglo-Africans, just like in my country we have pakistani norwegian, afro norwegian etc, culturaly norwegian not genetic

Technically they're mostly Dutch.

Jinwoy wrote:Turks are not from Turkey. They stole the land from Byzantine Greeks. Only Greeks can be Turks!

What about the Hittites?

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:56 pm**

Aureumterra wrote:
Neanderthaland wrote:Yes. Also European. Just like African-Americans are African and American.

African Americans are hardly African, what are you talking about? If you were to put an African American in the middle of Accra, they would hardly understand any of the native languages, even the English creole would be basically unintelligible, and many of the practices Africans follow would seem alien to African Americans.

African Americans are of African ancestry.

I mean, so are the rest of you Sapiens, if you want to get technical, but in this case it's more noticeable and immediate.

Being born in a new land doesn't mean you have to ignore your ancestry, any more than ancestry should force you to ignore the land in which you were born. You can be both. You are vast. You can contain multitudes.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:01 pm**

Generally I consider anyone born in a place to be from that place irrespective of what their ancestry eventually leads to. And conquest, resettlement and expansion has been a general hallmark of humanity in general for millenia my response to anyone who wants to limit this to "natives" only by drawing some undefined line of what a native is that I need to then know exactly how many generations does someone need to be there to be "native". I mean, even for example native America tribes are not honestly native in the absolute sense as the tribes that were come to known during the European colonial period had themselves displaced or replaced even older tribes.

Irrespective of a Dutch Descendant Afikanner in South Africa, or a Blond Spanish descendant in Cuba, or a black descendant of slaved in America. And frankly to me it doesn't matter if its multigenerational like the aforementioned or if its someone whose parents immigrated and they were born there. They are therefore of here.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:09 pm**

Xmara wrote:Are white Americans true Americans? Because, I mean, we weren't the first ones there.

Geographically, yes.

In my eyes, Afrikaners, much like the European-descended peeps who inhabit the Americas/Australia/Aotearoa, are geographically from Africa/the Americas/Australia/Aotearoa.

Now, are the Afrikaners indigenous to Africa? No, given they're descended from Dutch settlers. To say that they are indigenous would be like suggesting that the Mormons are indigenous to the United States: sure, they may have developed their identity in Africa or in North America, but they are fundamentally of European descent.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:27 pm**

Luziyca wrote:
Xmara wrote:Are white Americans true Americans? Because, I mean, we weren't the first ones there.

Geographically, yes.

In my eyes, Afrikaners, much like the European-descended peeps who inhabit the Americas/Australia/Aotearoa, are geographically from Africa/the Americas/Australia/Aotearoa.

Now, are the Afrikaners indigenous to Africa? No, given they're descended from Dutch settlers. To say that they are indigenous would be like suggesting that the Mormons are indigenous to the United States: sure, they may have developed their identity in Africa or in North America, but they are fundamentally of European descent.

That’s the point I was trying to make. Nobody is contending that white Americans cannot call themselves Americans because they’re ancestrally European, so why should we say that Afrikaaners can’t call themselves African? They may be ancestrally European too, but the ones who are there now were born and raised in Africa.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:28 pm**

Rojava Free State wrote:What makes a man one with the soil he resides on? His loyalty? His genetic origin? His language? His religion? For countless eons we have asked what makes a person part of a nation and part of a people, and into the present day we continue to wonder. One good example of this is the Afrikaaner people of South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, descendants of Dutch, German and French immigrants to Southern Africa. The Afrikaaners have lived in the region for hundreds of years, their population centered around the country of South Africa, and they have etched out a living as farmers in the African savanna. Their ethnic name literally means "African," and their culture has been heavily influenced by the time spent on the continent. However, some would argue that due to the genetic lineage of the Afrikaaners as Europeans, they are not truly an African people. In my opinion, the Afrikaaners are indeed Africans, having resided in Africa for hundreds of years, and they are a part of the continent. Their genetic lineage from Europe changes nothing. So what are your thoughts NSers? How long must an ethnic group reside on a continent before it can claim the continent as a home? And is homeland determined by genetics or by the soil one is born on?

If they conquered land to live there then they are African. Otherwise they're just settled immigrants

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:28 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:If that's how they choose to identify, sure.

This pretty much.^

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:29 pm**

Afrikaans is a language, not an ethnicity

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:29 pm**

Krasny-Volny wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:If for whatever reason they are expelled by angry natives, we in the west should be prepared to take them in.

The original natives of South Africa are incapable of expelling anybody. I think at last count the aboriginal population numbered less than half a million.

The Khoisan were in the process of getting of getting genocided by the Bantus by the time the Europeans showed up.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:34 pm**

I'd say for mostly anyone, you're a true XYZ if your family's been there for 3 generations or more. That isn't to say 1st/2nd generations are fakes/frauds/outsiders/not welcome, just they're perhaps not fully integrated, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rather by the 3rd generation you can usually solidly say they're just XYZ as opposed to ABC-XYZ (i.e. Swedish-American). But it also depends on how much of the host(?)'s country's culture they've adapted and how well they otherwise "fit in" in rough terms.

....Yeah, there's no real good sounding way to put that, is there? By my own mathematical conclusions, my parents aren't exactly American either, since both of their parents came from other countries, meaning I'd be the first (note the "") """"""""real"""""""" American in the family.

Edit:

Major-Tom wrote:If that's how they choose to identify, sure.

This too.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:36 pm**

As an Afrikaner myself, I'd like to offer my own opinion.

Yes, we are. But, more importantly, who's questioning it? Never have I nor anyone I know been made to feel otherwise.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:They're Africans, and they a legitimate right to their land in South Africa. They've been there longer than many Black South Africans.

This is bull. Black people have been in SA for thousands of years. Long before van Riebeeck ever set foot in the Cape.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:37 pm**

Azania- wrote:As an Afrikaner myself, I'd like to offer my own opinion.

Yes, we are. But, more importantly, who's questioning it? Never have I nor anyone I know been made to feel otherwise.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:They're Africans, and they a legitimate right to their land in South Africa. They've been there longer than many Black South Africans.

This is bull. Black people have been in SA for thousands of years. Long before van Riebeeck ever set foot in the Cape.

Black Bantus arrived in Southern Africa around the same time as the Europeans

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:39 pm**

Azania- wrote:
Jack Thomas Lang wrote:They're Africans, and they a legitimate right to their land in South Africa. They've been there longer than many Black South Africans.

This is bull. Black people have been in SA for thousands of years. Long before van Riebeeck ever set foot in the Cape.

Not necessarily. A good chunk of South Africa was uninhabited when the Dutch first showed up, and the Dutch were the first people into those areas. So who's really native?

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:39 pm**

Xmara wrote:
Luziyca wrote:Geographically, yes.

In my eyes, Afrikaners, much like the European-descended peeps who inhabit the Americas/Australia/Aotearoa, are geographically from Africa/the Americas/Australia/Aotearoa.

Now, are the Afrikaners indigenous to Africa? No, given they're descended from Dutch settlers. To say that they are indigenous would be like suggesting that the Mormons are indigenous to the United States: sure, they may have developed their identity in Africa or in North America, but they are fundamentally of European descent.

That’s the point I was trying to make. Nobody is contending that white Americans cannot call themselves Americans because they’re ancestrally European, so why should we say that Afrikaaners can’t call themselves African? They may be ancestrally European too, but the ones who are there now were born and raised in Africa.

Definitely.

That said, to claim that they're indigenous to Africa... no they're not.

If people say Afrikaners are indigenous to their bit of South Africa, then clearly the Mormons are also indigenous to their bit of the United States, given they had their ethnogenesis in South Africa/USA, have a distinct culture from their original cultures, are united by a common language and religion (Afrikaans and Calvinism for Afrikaners, and English and Mormonism for the Mromons), and so on.

NationStates

Are Afrikaners African?