Tibetans are composed of Sherpas, Amdoese, Lhasaese etc.., normally, Asian nations are normally subdivided into regional groups that have their own language, the same is for the Han Chinese could the same happen to the Koreans and Japanese and what POD is required.
A more diverse Korea and Japan
- Thread starter kasumigenx
- Start date
Okinawans could have divergeated more from mainlander japaneses, and maybe AInus living stronger... not sure HOW.
For korean, manchu-like peoples minorities in the north, as Han too later? Japanese in the souths?
For korean, manchu-like peoples minorities in the north, as Han too later? Japanese in the souths?
I was thinking of a way that the Kyushunese and Shikokunese people develop their own language instead of their dialects being subordinate to Standard Japanese, Kyushu-ben used to be similar to Okinawan actually.
I'm not sure how either, but perhaps earlier contact with the Japanese and also contact with the mainlanders might have turned the Ainu into the equivalent of the Irish; a population that rebels against the Shogunate every so often and even into modern times commits occasional acts of sabotage.
wolf_brother
Banned
You could kill two birds with one stone by having one of the Japanese invasions of Korea successful, or at least more successful than IOTL.
PhilippeO
Banned
the problem is successful nation usually promote one language during its nation-building / public school phase.
Southern Tibet / Nepal have many language because its still tribal society in 1950. there are no guarantee it will not disappear in next 50 year.
A primitive tribal japan could have dozens of language.
Southern Tibet / Nepal have many language because its still tribal society in 1950. there are no guarantee it will not disappear in next 50 year.
A primitive tribal japan could have dozens of language.
Japan and Korea are largely homogenous for the simple reason that they're very old countries and developed civilization and have more or less controlled the same territory throughout history.
China on the other hand, while also very old, and a developed civilization is diverse because it's expanded, shrank, been invaded and expanded some more over its history to encompass huge amounts of land outside the original Chinese civilization area.
On the other hand places like Tibet are diverse because of geography and history, that is being based in a mountainous region makes it pretty hard for it to dominate to the same degree, plus the fact that unlike say Japan, a Tibetan state has'nt always existed, not spent enough time with the same level of advancement and connectivity to form a single, homogenous group to the same degree.
China on the other hand, while also very old, and a developed civilization is diverse because it's expanded, shrank, been invaded and expanded some more over its history to encompass huge amounts of land outside the original Chinese civilization area.
On the other hand places like Tibet are diverse because of geography and history, that is being based in a mountainous region makes it pretty hard for it to dominate to the same degree, plus the fact that unlike say Japan, a Tibetan state has'nt always existed, not spent enough time with the same level of advancement and connectivity to form a single, homogenous group to the same degree.
But the problem is, 'nations', not states... nations in an ethnocultural sense, not necessarly states. Or so the thread seems to be about it.
Like amerindian nations, québecois, acadiens, etc in Canada
The OP did'nt say Nations, just more diversity, the Québecois for example are a nation wholly within a larger state, while the Kurds on the other hand are a nation spread across multiple states.
Without fundamentally changing Japan and Korea to the point they would'nt even exist you can't have a situation where their are more than two ethnonational groups (not including later artifically constructed ones).
Now, in the case of Korea you could probably get a situation where their are minorities present, either from it having expanded borders or some of the remnants of conquering states (Mongols, Manchu's, Han) staying behind, but that's really about as much as you could get.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I suppose you can have a significant Manchu minority if say the Manchu conquer Korea instead of China?
Britain's not that diverse really, whites make up more than 90% of the population, and no one non-white group makes up more than 2% of the populace (Indian's being the largest at 1.8%).
While English (in a huge variety of often quite divergent dialects) dominates, the British Isles host a number of native language communities, in addition to more recent arrivals. And there are a number of distinct nationalities 'native' to Britain, plus all the recent immigrants. This is drastically different from the similarly sized island group at the other end of Eurasia.
Last edited:
You're using different standards in different parts of your argument. If "whites" are all classed as one group then you can't count "Indians" as one group. If you don't count "non-British whites" as diverse, then most of the scenarios suggested here don't make Japan and China diverse as they're just other East Asians.
It's also worth pointing out your statistics are from the 2001 census when the country has had about half a million immigrants each year for the last decade. It's also much more pronounced in cities: the majority of children in London are non-white for example.
Even if you count all the long-settled nationalities as just generic "British", the country is still far more diverse than Japan. I agree this is drastically different, but it's mainly due to long-held imperial ties. Hence the suggestion for the POD.
British Whites make up 85.6%, Irish (as in from the RoI) make up 1.2%, so overall 87% (rounded) are from the British Isles, and the remaining 5.27% will be from either the United States or the other 3 Anglophone countries, which make-up a kind of cultural continuum.
As for Indians, well yes, counting them as one group would be comparable since their is really no such thing as an 'Ethnic Indian', rather their are dozens of ethnicities from India.
Regardless though the point stands that, aside from the Scottish, English and Welsh, which together form the British Panethnicity, Britain has historically not been diverse, and the OP was talking about changing the past to create long standing minorities, not having them decide to adopt very open immigration policies.
Not my fault the people who run the British census are criminally slow (results won't start being available until Sep. 2012, and won't be fully released until 2014).
I'm in no position to talk about Japan's ethnic diversity or lack thereof, but there is a possible way to get at least more diversity on certain levels. When you look at the linguistic map of Korea, all the dialects and such, one big thing you notice is Jeju. Jeju's spoken language is officially recognized as a dialect of Korean, but in many ways it's unintelligible to people on the mainland. There are also other differences in vocabulary and the like between the historical 8 provinces, which indicates how isolated they were, mountain boundaries and the like being natural ways of keeping even the many Korean populations relatively isolated from each other. Perhaps if you accentuated that, like had some sort of scenario where people mingled and crossed between provinces even less than already, that would be a start.
Foreign invasions on the other hand, would need to be foreign occupations, and for longer periods of time. One possibility is if say, the Mongols and the Yuan Dynasty, instead of just making Korea a vassal state, actually attempted to annex it for a hundred years outright, and encouraged settlers to move there and such. On the other hand, that would run into problems once the Yuan or Mongol control falls, because then I could easily see people who are still ethnically 100 percent Korean going all ethnic cleansing, if not outright genocide against people who are either bi-racial or who intermarried with any occupying force. That's one of the big problems for making Korea more diverse. Hell, you'll even see it today with North Koreans. NK women who come back from China pregnant better hope to God that they can keep that a secret somehow, along with the baby's mixed heritage, otherwise the baby's dead and the woman's prob off to a concentration camp.
But running off of that thread, just maybe if you had a situation where a unified Silla controlled large parts of Manchuria, Goryo loses parts of it, Joseon gets some back, etc. You would need a border situation that fluctuates a lot more often for basically all of the last millennium.
Foreign invasions on the other hand, would need to be foreign occupations, and for longer periods of time. One possibility is if say, the Mongols and the Yuan Dynasty, instead of just making Korea a vassal state, actually attempted to annex it for a hundred years outright, and encouraged settlers to move there and such. On the other hand, that would run into problems once the Yuan or Mongol control falls, because then I could easily see people who are still ethnically 100 percent Korean going all ethnic cleansing, if not outright genocide against people who are either bi-racial or who intermarried with any occupying force. That's one of the big problems for making Korea more diverse. Hell, you'll even see it today with North Koreans. NK women who come back from China pregnant better hope to God that they can keep that a secret somehow, along with the baby's mixed heritage, otherwise the baby's dead and the woman's prob off to a concentration camp.
But running off of that thread, just maybe if you had a situation where a unified Silla controlled large parts of Manchuria, Goryo loses parts of it, Joseon gets some back, etc. You would need a border situation that fluctuates a lot more often for basically all of the last millennium.