The Qing dynasty would collapse into a million pieces immediately if it got hit with a slight breeze.
Popular misconceptions about 19th century History
- Thread starter Lampiao
- Start date
In addition to what Monter said, Brazilian independence cannot be pinpointed to a single date. Technically Brazil ceased being a colony when Rio de Janeiro was made the Portuguese Empire’s capital in 1808. Then in 1815 Brazil was elevated to a kingdom and officially ceased being a colony. In 1821 the King and court returned to Portugal, but Dom Pedro remained behind as regent. Throughout 1822 there were several events that could be interpreted as a declaration of independence, including the call for a constituent assembly for Brazil separate from the Portuguese constitution in June 1822. The empire itself considered Dom Pedro I’s acclamation day as Emperor in October to be independence day, rather than the “declaration of independence” on September 7th.
That's not a myth, just a convention about when to celebrate something. Similarly, American Declaration of Independence wasn't on the day that the Revolutionary War ended.
I suppose. It’s still a myth that Brazil ceased being a colony on September 7th, 1822, and that that date was somehow more important than all the others.
Never mind, someone just recently created a thread of that nature. Though unsurprisingly, there has been some controversy within it.
That's because Russia lost a large amount of territory after the collapse of the USSR. Which, you know, didn't happen until near the end of the 20th century.
That depends on how racist or, paradoxically, how anti-racist you are.
You can find remarkably narrow defintion of white out there.
I think the CSA suffers from the reverse problem on this site. People find it so odious (not to mention such a slap in the face to American supremacy) that they abhor the of the idea of it doing anything other than imploding into an orgy of violence and poverty.
That's true but it still retained a lot of distinctive ethnic areas and even fought 2 "ethnic wars" on its remaining territory after the fall of the SU.
Perhaps, but that seems like a reaction to older interpretations that were far rosier. Plus, well, it seems more in line with how things were IOTL, given the violence, poverty and extreme repression that were endemic to the South even before 1860.
Brunaburh
Banned
That the US annexed a massive swathe of Mexico in 1848. Apart from a small settled area in New Mexico, under constant threat from the Comanches, there was nobody there.
This leads to all kinds of Operacion lobo marino threads in which nearly 8 million Mexicans from actual inhabited Mexico meekly submit to colonial domination by the US in 1848, because hey, they did it in Utah* didn't they, and aren't Latinos just a kind of American who speak funny?
*Mexican population of Utah in 1848, probably less than 100.
This leads to all kinds of Operacion lobo marino threads in which nearly 8 million Mexicans from actual inhabited Mexico meekly submit to colonial domination by the US in 1848, because hey, they did it in Utah* didn't they, and aren't Latinos just a kind of American who speak funny?
*Mexican population of Utah in 1848, probably less than 100.
Are we doing actual misconceptions again? In that case I would like to add this one:
The misconception that the Netherlands was a rich country with a good navy (and possibly even a relevant army). I am sorry disappoint everyone, but the Netherlands was a (relatively) poor and backward country who was way over its prime. It was one of the last countries to enter the Industrial revolution and had barely any useful resources (the coal mines in Limburg were developed very late.
There used to be an expression in those days, if the world comes to an end, I want to be in the Netherlands. Everything happens 20 years later in the Netherlands.
The misconception that the Netherlands was a rich country with a good navy (and possibly even a relevant army). I am sorry disappoint everyone, but the Netherlands was a (relatively) poor and backward country who was way over its prime. It was one of the last countries to enter the Industrial revolution and had barely any useful resources (the coal mines in Limburg were developed very late.
There used to be an expression in those days, if the world comes to an end, I want to be in the Netherlands. Everything happens 20 years later in the Netherlands.
That is, if you completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of natives that had been there for thousands of years...
Brunaburh
Banned
You do get political correctness points for that, but your point is more or less what I am saying. I'm not sure if there are any good figures for Native American population of the Mexican cession, but hundreds of thousands looks high to me. Pre-Coumbian times it would have been that high.
I would have guessed a Mexican population of less than 80k, and an Indian population of not more than 100k.
The native population of California alone was 150,000, and that was already after population numbers had started a precipitous decline following Mexican contact.
Last edited:
There weren't even 100,000 people in California in 1850. Your numbers are way too high.
Brunaburh
Banned
Reading around, he's probably closer to the truth than me. I'd say 80k-120k for the native Californian population is supported by decent sources, higher numbers are supported by ones I trust less. Mexicans were about 8k.
In any case, the native populations were not under Mexican political control, and so we can exclude them from population counts for the purposes of comparison with Mexico proper.
Before the decline there were probably 100,000+, after the decline they'd be lucky to have 1/10 that. Mexico in 1840 said there was 8,000 people in California and I doubt they ignored some 100,000 people.
According to this, estimates of California's pre-contact population set it at roughly 300,000. The 150,000 figure is for 1845, while it decreased to 100,000 by 1850.
Pg. 12 said: