• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




Similarities Between Afrikaners and the Northern Irish

SJMcMahon

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
457
I just had an epiphany of sorts. I realized that there is a similarity between Afrikaners and the Northern Irish; but I also realized I'm a huge hypocrite as I'm absolutely fascinated and enthralled with Afrikaners and their accents, culture and history, yet I am decidedly negative to a degree in my view of the historical settlement of Northern Ireland.

In both regions, given centuries of besieged (or so they felt) existence and a pioneering spirit (eh, probably Afrikaner than NI) there has been a process of ethnogenesis in which the settlers took on a new ethnic identity. While the Northern Irish are comprised of Scottish and English settlers, they have sunk down deep roots into Northern Ireland which has led to the creation of a new identity, which is tied to the land. The Afrikaners have been molded from their own experiences in South Africa. They are no longer Dutch, French, German and Portuguese; they are Afrikaners. Their blood and ties are deeply into the soil. In both cases, the roots go back some ~400-500 years.

It makes me wonder that at what point do colonizers become the natives? Even the former head of the ANC called the Afrikaners Africa's only white tribe. Now, I bring Northern Ireland into this as the people there are unlikely to ever want to move to Scotland or England. Northern Ireland is their home.

Then, well, there's other similarities in regards to minority rule, discrimination, ect...

Would you agree that there are similarities? And if so, do you believe that both populations have become naturalized and belong to the land as much as the 'indigenous' populations?
 


ItsEvolution

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
3,490
I just had an epiphany of sorts. I realized that there is a similarity between Afrikaners and the Northern Irish; but I also realized I'm a huge hypocrite as I'm absolutely fascinated and enthralled with Afrikaners and their accents, culture and history, yet I am decidedly negative to a degree in my view of the historical settlement of Northern Ireland.

In both regions, given centuries of besieged (or so they felt) existence and a pioneering spirit (eh, probably Afrikaner than NI) there has been a process of ethnogenesis in which the settlers took on a new ethnic identity. While the Northern Irish are comprised of Scottish and English settlers, they have sunk down deep roots into Northern Ireland which has led to the creation of a new identity, which is tied to the land. The Afrikaners have been molded from their own experiences in South Africa. They are no longer Dutch, French, German and Portuguese; they are Afrikaners. Their blood and ties are deeply into the soil. In both cases, the roots go back some ~400-500 years.

It makes me wonder that at what point do colonizers become the natives? Even the former head of the ANC called the Afrikaners Africa's only white tribe. Now, I bring Northern Ireland into this as the people there are unlikely to ever want to move to Scotland or England. Northern Ireland is their home.

Then, well, there's other similarities in regards to minority rule, discrimination, ect...

Would you agree that there are similarities? And if so, do you believe that both populations have become naturalized and belong to the land as much as the 'indigenous' populations?
I was born in the north I'm Irish not norther irish my family came from the west could you cut out your generalisation
 

SJMcMahon

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
457
I was born in the north I'm Irish not norther irish my family came from the west could you cut out your generalisation
My use of the term "Northern Irish" is because I lack a better one to describe the people who descend from Scottish and English settlers. I could use Ulsterman, but I don't like the term. Don't be so dense.
 

ItsEvolution

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
3,490
My use of the term "Northern Irish" is because I lack a better one to describe the people who descend from Scottish and English settlers. I could use Ulsterman, but I don't like the term. Don't be so dense.
They are British Irish or Northern Irish, simple
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Your definition of 'Northern Irish' excludes approximately 45% of its population who may have some Norman/English/Welsh/Scottish ancestral element, but who are primarily of Irish descent and who consider themselves to be Irish, not British.

Perhaps you should refer to Unionists or descendants of British colonists instead of 'Northern Irish'?
 

Diawlbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
10,461
Janee, maar hoekom is dit vir enigiemand wat die Ulster rugbyspan gesien het nuus...?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,845
Your definition of 'Northern Irish' excludes approximately 45% of its population who may have some Norman/English/Welsh/Scottish ancestral element, but who are primarily of Irish descent and who consider themselves to be Irish, not British.

Perhaps you should refer to Unionists or descendants of British colonists instead of 'Northern Irish'?
I thnk that is who he meant. But "Afrikaners" just means Africans, doesn't it, and that refers to one specific group of whites in SA, not even to all the whites there. But we all know who they are all the same.:D
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
My use of the term "Northern Irish" is because I lack a better one to describe the people who descend from Scottish and English settlers. I could use Ulsterman, but I don't like the term. Don't be so dense.
What's wrong with the terms Unionist or British? After all, the people you describe are descended from British colonists, in the main describe themselves as British and, in the main, wish to maintain the political union between Northern Ireland and Britain.

I don't see why the well-established terms need to be abandoned.

FWIW, I remember a Unionist from Northern Ireland complaining loudly to me that he was sick of the BBC referring to people from there as 'Northern Irish'. His attitude was that he was solely British, not Irish in any way.
 

Diawlbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
10,461
I thnk that is who he meant. But "Afrikaners" just means Africans, doesn't it, and that refers to one specific group of whites in SA, not even to all the whites there. But we all know who they are all the same.:D
It's fluid even then, given the Coloured population are Afrikaans-speaking and share the same familial lines. JP Pietersen: Afrikaans-spreaking, born in Stellenbosch, grew up in Witbank, plays for the Blou Bulle. Afrikaans, Afrikanse or neither?
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
I thnk that is who he meant. But "Afrikaners" just means Africans, doesn't it, and that refers to one specific group of whites in SA, not even to all the whites there. But we all know who they are all the same.:D
They're also known as Boers. And it's a Dutch word, not an English word. I think we all know who's being referred to when the term Unionist is used. Why reinvent the wheel, especially when many Unionists don't want to be even partially referred to as Irish at all? (see my previous post).
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Now, I bring Northern Ireland into this as the people there are unlikely to ever want to move to Scotland or England. Northern Ireland is their home.
I live in Scotland. The numbers of people from NI who live here is very high. And it appears to be increasing, especially among those of a Unionist background who go to university in Scotland (no tuition fees if you hold an Irish passport!) and end up staying on after graduating.
 

Diawlbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
10,461
They're also known as Boers. And it's a Dutch word, not an English word. I think we all know who's being referred to when the term Unionist is used. Why reinvent the wheel, especially when many Unionists don't want to be even partially referred to as Irish at all? (see my previous post).
All Boere are Afrikaners, but not all Afrikaners are Boere. The terms aren't synonymous. As a rule of thumb, Boere start at the Orange.
 

SJMcMahon

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
457
What's wrong with the terms Unionist or British? After all, the people you describe are descended from British colonists, in the main describe themselves as British and, in the main, wish to maintain the political union between Northern Ireland and Britain.

I don't see why the well-established terms need to be abandoned.

FWIW, I remember a Unionist from Northern Ireland complaining loudly to me that he was sick of the BBC referring to people from there as 'Northern Irish'. His attitude was that he was solely British, not Irish in any way.
Well, they are British, but for the purposes of the discussion, I was seeking to break down to more localized identity. British is too all-encompassing i.e. Scottish, Welsh, English, Cornish, ect. I was speaking specifically to the Northern Irish of Anglo-Celtic ancestry, versus Irish Catholics 'indigenous' people who live in Northern Ireland. I feel like people are getting too caught up in semantics. It's more than a little irritating, to be honest. Unless they're clueless, I'm sure they know of whom I'm referring to. Like when I said Afrikaner, I'm referring specifically to white Afrikaans speaking South Africans, Namibians and even Rhodesians/Zimbabweans, too.
 

P Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
3,509
What's wrong with the terms Unionist or British? After all, the people you describe are descended from British colonists, in the main describe themselves as British and, in the main, wish to maintain the political union between Northern Ireland and Britain.

I don't see why the well-established terms need to be abandoned.

FWIW, I remember a Unionist from Northern Ireland complaining loudly to me that he was sick of the BBC referring to people from there as 'Northern Irish'. His attitude was that he was solely British, not Irish in any way.
lol that reminds me of a unionist blogger (currently associated with the TUV). Prefer not to mention his name, he's extremely litigious.
 

Little_Korean

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
4,232
I live in Scotland. The numbers of people from NI who live here is very high. And it appears to be increasing, especially among those of a Unionist background who go to university in Scotland (no tuition fees if you hold an Irish passport!)
Didn't the Scots clamp down on that one once they realised what was going on?
 

SJMcMahon

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
457
They're also known as Boers. And it's a Dutch word, not an English word. I think we all know who's being referred to when the term Unionist is used. Why reinvent the wheel, especially when many Unionists don't want to be even partially referred to as Irish at all? (see my previous post).
I thought about using the term Boer, but not all Afrikaans-speaking whites descend from the Boers. There was multiple groups which underwent ethnogenesis into an Afrikaans speaking culture/ethnic group. I suppose Afrikaans-speaking Colored folk should be included as well, as they are from the Cape, too, and share its blood, language and history.
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,124
I just had an epiphany of sorts.

While the Northern Irish are comprised of Scottish and English settlers.....
I just had an epiphany: you're an idiot.
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Well, they are British, but for the purposes of the discussion, I was seeking to break down to more localized identity. British is too all-encompassing i.e. Scottish, Welsh, English, Cornish, ect. I was speaking specifically to the Northern Irish of Anglo-Celtic ancestry, versus Irish Catholics 'indigenous' people who live in Northern Ireland. I feel like people are getting too caught up in semantics. It's more than a little irritating, to be honest. Unless they're clueless, I'm sure they know of whom I'm referring to. Like when I said Afrikaner, I'm referring specifically to white Afrikaans speaking South Africans, Namibians and even Rhodesians/Zimbabweans, too.
It's not obvious at all who you're referring to when you use the term 'Northern Irish' unless you define who you mean by that term.

In normal conversation, the term could equally refer to those of mainly Irish descent, rather than the groups you've referred to.

If you don't like using the term British, then Unionist will do - it's not a term that requires any explanation for the vast majority of people on the island of Ireland, whereas 'Northern Irish', as evidenced by this thread, clearly does.

I can see that your agenda is to establish them as natives of Ireland. If they want to be considered as natives they can drop the political allegiance to a foreign state for starters.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top