A more diverse Korea and Japan

[Socrates]

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

Including the Irish as being the same is a legacy of Empire. Yes, they are now culturally extremely similar, but its still an increase in diversity in history, increasing the number of Roman Catholics for instance. Irish is to British as, say, Korean is to Japanese.

...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.

Firstly, you're getting confused between nationalities and ethnicities. A British-descended Australian or South African would mark their ethnicity down as one of the British nationalities. Secondly, you're simply wrong. Most of the non-British, non-Irish whites are immigrants from the Europe Union's free travel area: originally a lot from France and Germany, but over the last decade from the new joiners, particularly Poland. No doubt over the next decade they will be joined by Greeks and Portuguese looking for jobs.

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.

"Whites" are a race. "Indians" are a nationality. The equivalent to "Whites" are "South Asians", i.e. inclusive of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, which almost doubles the numbers you quote.

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.

Point mostly accepted. But don't long-standing minorities become part of the "panethnicity" most of the time? i.e. Manchus in China, Bretons in France etc...

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).

Agreed it's a fiasco. But we need to take it into account when judging these things. I would guess the number of non-British, non-Irish ethnicities in the country is currently around 15-20%.

 

[Iori]

Including the Irish as being the same is a legacy of Empire. Yes, they are now culturally extremely similar, but its still an increase in diversity in history, increasing the number of Roman Catholics for instance. Irish is to British as, say, Korean is to Japanese.

I did'nt count them as British as in from the U.K., but British as in part of the cultural area of the British Isles, I recognize and consider the Irish as a seperate ethnicity.

Firstly, you're getting confused between nationalities and ethnicities. A British-descended Australian or South African would mark their ethnicity down as one of the British nationalities.

I'll be honest, that seems a bit odd a thing to do, I mean I would'nt mark myself as Spanish or Norwegian, even though that's what (half) my grandparents were.

Secondly, you're simply wrong. Most of the non-British, non-Irish whites are immigrants from the Europe Union's free travel area: originally a lot from France and Germany, but over the last decade from the new joiners, particularly Poland. No doubt over the next decade they will be joined by Greeks and Portuguese looking for jobs.

I stand corrected then.

"Whites" are a race. "Indians" are a nationality. The equivalent to "Whites" are "South Asians", i.e. inclusive of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, which almost doubles the numbers you quote.

'White' is'nt even really a race, it's a vague, illdefined term, one that can and does include North Indians, Iranians and Arabs.

What I was saying though is that 'Indian', like 'White' encompasses multiple ethnicities and is itself not one.

Point mostly accepted. But don't long-standing minorities become part of the "panethnicity" most of the time? i.e. Manchus in China, Bretons in France etc...

In a few cases like China, yes, though in most cases you either have the larger group completely assimilating the smaller (the Emishi by the Japanese) or with the two (or more) maintaining seperate identities.

 

[Socrates]

I'll be honest, that seems a bit odd a thing to do, I mean I would'nt mark myself as Spanish or Norwegian, even though that's what (half) my grandparents were.

I think this is a case of how long ago the places were settled, and how long ago it broke off from empire. I suspect most WASPish Americans in the 1940s would certainly have defined themselves as of English ethnicity. (The UK census has a "White British" box that then lists sub-boxes of "English", "Welsh", etc...). Australian PMs were still identifying themselves as "Britons" outright just a century ago, and the country is very conscious of its connection to the UK through political and family ties. In places like Canada (albeit more on the East than the West) and in South Africa, where you have clearly ethnic splits its also true.

Bear in mind elsewhere in the census you describe your nationality, so you would still register as American there.

'White' is'nt even really a race, it's a vague, illdefined term, one that can and does include North Indians, Iranians and Arabs.

What I was saying though is that 'Indian', like 'White' encompasses multiple ethnicities and is itself not one.

I appreciate your point, but all human "races" are vague ill-defined terms. I was using it as broadly meaning "vaguely look the same", in the same way as Pakistanis and Indians vaguely look the same. In reality, biological races do not exist in the human species.

 

[Iori]

I appreciate your point, but all human "races" are vague ill-defined terms. I was using it as broadly meaning "vaguely look the same", in the same way as Pakistanis and Indians vaguely look the same. In reality, biological races do not exist in the human species.

That is true, though I think White is probably the most illdefined, I mean with 'Black' only Sub-saharan Africans and their descendants are counted, but 'White' covers damned near half the Human race.

 

[Socrates]

That is true, though I think White is probably the most illdefined, I mean with 'Black' only Sub-saharan Africans and their descendants are counted, but 'White' covers damned near half the Human race.

Is the discrepancy all that much? I would guess there's about a billion of each, give or take. Both are probably outnumbered by South Asians and East Asians.

To be fair, there's a lot more genetic diversity in "blacks" than "whites". In fact, an Englishman and a Chinese man have more genetic commonality than a Ghanaian and a Kenyan.

 

[Iori]

Is the discrepancy all that much? I would guess there's about a billion of each, give or take. Both are probably outnumbered by South Asians and East Asians.

If you count all the groups considered White by major sources, yep, the below numbers are'nt exact, but the discrepancies are'nt enough to change them drastically.


Western Whites;

Whites of the Americas*: 705.42 million
White Europe*: 680.17 million
White Russians: 127.75 million
Oceanian Whites: 22.98 million
White Central Asians: 7.46 million
White Africans: 6.5 million


Other Whites;
Iranian Peoples: 192.7 million


Sometimes Considered White;
Turkic Peoples*: 87.1 million
Northern Indians: 500-700 million



NOTES:
1. Includes Mestizos.
2. Includes Turkey, excludes Russia.
3. Excludes Turkey.

 

[democracy101]

For both Korea and Japan, the possibilities are much easier than people might expect.

The Three Kingdoms (including Gaya) already exhibited this to an extent, although texts, including the Samguk Sagi, suggest that they spoke very similar languages. DNA evidence taken from various regions proves that they were from different groups, so it can be assumed that although the states viewed themselves as having close ties to each other, they also recognized their differences. Japan was also divided among different groups to an extent. The Yamato is currently the dominant group, but previously, a significant amount of Baekje settlers and refugees had close ties with the royal family, and the Ainu/Ezo/Emishi were located on Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, Hokkaido, and northern Honshu. Some suggest that a large number of current Japanese are descendants of Baekje settlers/refugees based on DNA evidence, but this is not certain.

In order to accentuate the differences, one or several PODs could lengthen the divisions within each country. For example, Silla might fail to ally with the Tang, leading to a longer division, and resulting in less Baekje emigrants, causing two centralized states, one based on Baekje, and one based on the native society, to develop in Japan. Goguryeo and/or Balhae (the latter's ethnic makeup is heavily disputed) could have given more authority to the regional natives in central/southern Manchuria and northern Korea, allowing greater diversity instead of unity. Another possibility is to lengthen the period of the Later Three Kingdoms by weakening Hugoguryeo (Goryeo) and/or Hubaekje's Chinese allies to provide more support. Meanwhile, the Ainu could develop a centralized society by providing a greater resistance against the Yamato, and/or Japan could remain disunited in the 16th century. A more successful Japanese invasion of Korea in the late 16th century could also lead to diversity through migration.

The Jeju and Okinawan dialects also provide possibilities. The Tamna kingdom (Jeju Island) was an independent entity, and although it was absorbed into Baekje, then Silla, there is a slight possibility that it could have become more centralized and invaded the peninsula, setting up a more powerful entity. The Ryukyu Kingdom (including Okinawa) could also have used China's influence to invade Kyushu before Japan was unified, absorb Tsushima, then use trading relations with East and Southeast Asia to build up its economy. Of course, these are highly unlikely, but they are still possibilities. Other possibilities include a more permanent Chinese settlement in Liaodong and northern Korea during the Han dynasty by butterflying Goguryeo away, or a more permanent Mongol/Manchu presence. In terms of language, any POD in Korea before 1500 will have extreme repercussions, based on the divergence between North Korean and South Korean vocabulary within the last 60 years, and the geographic isolation that will be imposed due to the mountainous terrain.

In comparison, the people within the successor states of Yugoslavia consider themselves as different ethnic groups, even though they speak similar languages and share similar culture. Romania and Moldova also have similar relations. In other words, as long as OTL divisions are lengthened significantly to impact relations within the respective states, diversity can be achieved easily.

 

[phoenix7846]

For both Korea and Japan, the possibilities are much easier than people might expect.

The Three Kingdoms (including Gaya) already exhibited this to an extent, although texts, including the Samguk Sagi, suggest that they spoke very similar languages. DNA evidence taken from various regions proves that they were from different groups, so it can be assumed that although the states viewed themselves as having close ties to each other, they also recognized their differences. Japan was also divided among different groups to an extent. The Yamato is currently the dominant group, but previously, a significant amount of Baekje settlers and refugees had close ties with the royal family, and the Ainu/Ezo/Emishi were located on Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, Hokkaido, and northern Honshu. Some suggest that a large number of current Japanese are descendants of Baekje settlers/refugees based on DNA evidence, but this is not certain.

In order to accentuate the differences, one or several PODs could lengthen the divisions within each country. For example, Silla might fail to ally with the Tang, leading to a longer division, and resulting in less Baekje emigrants, causing two centralized states, one based on Baekje, and one based on the native society, to develop in Japan. Goguryeo and/or Balhae (the latter's ethnic makeup is heavily disputed) could have given more authority to the regional natives in central/southern Manchuria and northern Korea, allowing greater diversity instead of unity. Another possibility is to lengthen the period of the Later Three Kingdoms by weakening Hugoguryeo (Goryeo) and/or Hubaekje's Chinese allies to provide more support. Meanwhile, the Ainu could develop a centralized society by providing a greater resistance against the Yamato, and/or Japan could remain disunited in the 16th century. A more successful Japanese invasion of Korea in the late 16th century could also lead to diversity through migration.[/QUOTE]

So perhaps maybe get the early Three Kingdoms and such to develop different cultural identities and figure out how to have them stick around longer. Very interesting, perfectly plausible given the geography here. I'm gonna nod my head on Japan, that stuff isn't my strong suit on this one.

The Jeju and Okinawan dialects also provide possibilities. The Tamna kingdom (Jeju Island) was an independent entity, and although it was absorbed into Baekje, then Silla, there is a slight possibility that it could have become more centralized and invaded the peninsula, setting up a more powerful entity. The Ryukyu Kingdom (including Okinawa) could also have used China's influence to invade Kyushu before Japan was unified, absorb Tsushima, then use trading relations with East and Southeast Asia to build up its economy. Of course, these are highly unlikely, but they are still possibilities. Other possibilities include a more permanent Chinese settlement in Liaodong and northern Korea during the Han dynasty by butterflying Goguryeo away, or a more permanent Mongol/Manchu presence. In terms of language, any POD in Korea before 1500 will have extreme repercussions, based on the divergence between North Korean and South Korean vocabulary within the last 60 years, and the geographic isolation that will be imposed due to the mountainous terrain.

With Jeju, it is funny how we call that a dialect, since for all intents and purposes (particularly the whole mutual intelligibility bit) it's basically a different language, and discards a lot of the honorifics in Korean IIRC. That would be very very curious getting maybe Jeju's Tamma to replace one of the other three at some point, not sure when they acquired the casualness in their language, so maybe that could also have interesting butterfly effects on Korean culture (more egalitarian maybe, depending on the ultimate strength and spread of a Tamma Kingdom's culture?)

I am curious as to what the effects of a more lasting settlement of the Han Commanderies would have been. I think they only lasted like a hundred years originally, but if they lasted say, several centuries, would that still let them be part of a modern Korea or would they ultimately be absorbed into China? That could also have an interesting geopolitical side effect, since right now the general consensus for where Korea as a geopolitical cultural entity ends is at the Yalu and the Tumen, but maybe how far north or south could you make it so that perhaps there is still what one would call a natural border?

Def. agree with the last part tho, there's already cultural differences around Korea, beyond just the modern N/S stuff, all that's needed is to accentuate them enough over time. Hell, if you did it just just right, instead of one Korean people, you could have the Honam people, the Haeju people, and so forth.

 

[democracy101]

So perhaps maybe get the early Three Kingdoms and such to develop different cultural identities and figure out how to have them stick around longer. Very interesting, perfectly plausible given the geography here. I'm gonna nod my head on Japan, that stuff isn't my strong suit on this one.

Most of the Japanese history I know is in conjunction with Korean history, and the events before the 600s are mostly assumptions, but this is because there are no direct Korean records from that time period. However, archaeological and etymological evidence suggest that Baekje and Japan had close connections with each other.

With Jeju, it is funny how we call that a dialect, since for all intents and purposes (particularly the whole mutual intelligibility bit) it's basically a different language, and discards a lot of the honorifics in Korean IIRC. That would be very very curious getting maybe Jeju's Tamma to replace one of the other three at some point, not sure when they acquired the casualness in their language, so maybe that could also have interesting butterfly effects on Korean culture (more egalitarian maybe, depending on the ultimate strength and spread of a Tamma Kingdom's culture?)

I am curious as to what the effects of a more lasting settlement of the Han Commanderies would have been. I think they only lasted like a hundred years originally, but if they lasted say, several centuries, would that still let them be part of a modern Korea or would they ultimately be absorbed into China? That could also have an interesting geopolitical side effect, since right now the general consensus for where Korea as a geopolitical cultural entity ends is at the Yalu and the Tumen, but maybe how far north or south could you make it so that perhaps there is still what one would call a natural border?

Def. agree with the last part tho, there's already cultural differences around Korea, beyond just the modern N/S stuff, all that's needed is to accentuate them enough over time. Hell, if you did it just just right, instead of one Korean people, you could have the Honam people, the Haeju people, and so forth.

I think that one possibility of the honorifics developing is due to Joseon's neo-Confucian system, and Jeju was isolated from the Korean peninsula until the 600s, when Silla absorbed it, so its language development would have most likely been separate from that of the Three Kingdoms. However, I'm not sure what would have happened if the Tamna kingdom became stronger. It would have close contact with Japan through trading, so it is possible that honorifics could still have developed.

I'll also admit that I don't know what would have happened if the Chinese commanderies had lasted longer, especially because that would butterfly Goguryeo away, but Buyeo would still remain. However, I'm assuming that the northernmost boundary would be the Songhua river, considering that both Goguryeo and Balhae extended to that region, while Buyeo was located in the region, although the southernmost boundary will be harder to estimate. It will probably be between the current one and the Han river, considering that Baekje, Goryeo, and Joseon had their capitals around the latter, and that Goryeo's northern boundary was located slightly north of modern-day Pyongyang.

I also forgot about the regional dialects. It's true that each has its own separate vocabulary, but I'm not sure when they diverged, or even if they were separate to begin with. The Samguk Sagi does not provide much evidence, so I'll assume that there were regional dialects which developed over time, separate from the standard dialects of the Three Kingdoms. Having kingdoms based on specific dialects would probably work if unification was delayed for at least 250-500 years, but I think it would be harder to maintain the distinctions unless the standard dialects diverged as well.

 

[Sumeragi]

I have no idea what the current discussion is about

 

[modelcitizen]

to make the two more diverse ethnically...


how about several extra decades of occupation of Japan AND with America and the USSR and Britain and France splitting the country into zones?

and, with Korea, let's pretend the Yanks figure out how to keep the PRC from freaking out and charging over the Yalu River, and, voila! United Nations occupation of the entire Korean peninsula for a good several decades, y'know, just in case, to make sure.


in both cases, make sure the troops get signed up for nice long terms in one place with good roomy solid housing provided and excellent language instruction to boot with encouragement to "win the hearts and minds" of locals, etc. (oh, and they can easily purchase said housing at the end of their service and enjoy same with healthy-sized pension )


make sure the occupational contingents are insanely oversized, with lots and lots and lots of support staff sent in too. heck make it a freaking jobs program for the involved occupying countries.

 

[democracy101]

I have no idea what the current discussion is about

Basically introduce one or several PODs between 500 and 1500 (the earlier, the better) in order to facilitate division and diversity.

to make the two more diverse ethnically...


how about several extra decades of occupation of Japan AND with America and the USSR and Britain and France splitting the country into zones?

and, with Korea, let's pretend the Yanks figure out how to keep the PRC from freaking out and charging over the Yalu River, and, voila! United Nations occupation of the entire Korean peninsula for a good several decades, y'know, just in case, to make sure.


in both cases, make sure the troops get signed up for nice long terms in one place with good roomy solid housing provided and excellent language instruction to boot with encouragement to "win the hearts and minds" of locals, etc. (oh, and they can easily purchase said housing at the end of their service and enjoy same with healthy-sized pension )


make sure the occupational contingents are insanely oversized, with lots and lots and lots of support staff sent in too. heck make it a freaking jobs program for the involved occupying countries.

Good ideas, but I think they would be unlikely. The United States did not pay much attention to Korea until the Korean War, and was more focused on Japan. The war itself is also mostly forgotten today because of the longer one in Vietnam. In 1953, it was said that Korea would be unable to recover for a century, so it would be unlikely that the United States would spend more than monetary resources to build up the country.

Unlike Germany, the countries would be too far apart for the zones to be managed efficiently. Britain (to a lesser extent) and France would still be building up their countries, and would not have the resources to send a large number of people over thousands of miles to build up other countries. In any case, the British, French, and American zones in Germany were unified within a few years.

The best way that I can think of to prevent the PRC from intervening in the war is to have Truman recognize the country before it sends troops over the border, and handle Taiwan somehow. However, that would unify the peninsula, which is the exact opposite intent.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

For both Korea and Japan, the possibilities are much easier than people might expect.

The Three Kingdoms (including Gaya) already exhibited this to an extent, although texts, including the Samguk Sagi, suggest that they spoke very similar languages. DNA evidence taken from various regions proves that they were from different groups, so it can be assumed that although the states viewed themselves as having close ties to each other, they also recognized their differences. Japan was also divided among different groups to an extent. The Yamato is currently the dominant group, but previously, a significant amount of Baekje settlers and refugees had close ties with the royal family, and the Ainu/Ezo/Emishi were located on Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, Hokkaido, and northern Honshu. Some suggest that a large number of current Japanese are descendants of Baekje settlers/refugees based on DNA evidence, but this is not certain.

In order to accentuate the differences, one or several PODs could lengthen the divisions within each country. For example, Silla might fail to ally with the Tang, leading to a longer division, and resulting in less Baekje emigrants, causing two centralized states, one based on Baekje, and one based on the native society, to develop in Japan. Goguryeo and/or Balhae (the latter's ethnic makeup is heavily disputed) could have given more authority to the regional natives in central/southern Manchuria and northern Korea, allowing greater diversity instead of unity. Another possibility is to lengthen the period of the Later Three Kingdoms by weakening Hugoguryeo (Goryeo) and/or Hubaekje's Chinese allies to provide more support. Meanwhile, the Ainu could develop a centralized society by providing a greater resistance against the Yamato, and/or Japan could remain disunited in the 16th century. A more successful Japanese invasion of Korea in the late 16th century could also lead to diversity through migration.

The Jeju and Okinawan dialects also provide possibilities. The Tamna kingdom (Jeju Island) was an independent entity, and although it was absorbed into Baekje, then Silla, there is a slight possibility that it could have become more centralized and invaded the peninsula, setting up a more powerful entity. The Ryukyu Kingdom (including Okinawa) could also have used China's influence to invade Kyushu before Japan was unified, absorb Tsushima, then use trading relations with East and Southeast Asia to build up its economy. Of course, these are highly unlikely, but they are still possibilities. Other possibilities include a more permanent Chinese settlement in Liaodong and northern Korea during the Han dynasty by butterflying Goguryeo away, or a more permanent Mongol/Manchu presence. In terms of language, any POD in Korea before 1500 will have extreme repercussions, based on the divergence between North Korean and South Korean vocabulary within the last 60 years, and the geographic isolation that will be imposed due to the mountainous terrain.

In comparison, the people within the successor states of Yugoslavia consider themselves as different ethnic groups, even though they speak similar languages and share similar culture. Romania and Moldova also have similar relations. In other words, as long as OTL divisions are lengthened significantly to impact relations within the respective states, diversity can be achieved easily.

I think this part is problematic:

For example, Silla might fail to ally with the Tang, leading to a longer division, and resulting in less Baekje emigrants, causing two centralized states, one based on Baekje, and one based on the native society, to develop in Japan.

Less Baekje immigrating ends up with two states established in Japan? How?

 

[democracy101]

Less Baekje immigrating ends up with two states established in Japan? How?

This is merely a thought. Because it can be inferred that Baekje sent some settlers to southern Japan (Kyushu), it can be assumed that its gradual expansion led to ties with the Japanese royal family, which was located in central Japan (Honshu). Had they sent less people, they might have been distinguished from each other.

 

[Æsir]

In comparison, the people within the successor states of Yugoslavia consider themselves as different ethnic groups, even though they speak similar languages and share similar culture. Romania and Moldova also have similar relations. In other words, as long as OTL divisions are lengthened significantly to impact relations within the respective states, diversity can be achieved easily.

In the case of Yugoslavia, this has to do with religious differences between the Muslim Bosniaks, Catholic Croats, and Orthodox Serbs (Except for the Kosovars, Macedonians, and Slovenes, who are more linguistically distinct, and the Montenegrins, whose national identity is IIRC largely artificial and more recently formed), which as far as I know isn't really a factor in east Asia. Not that it would be impossible to create more religious differences; there is the ever popular on this forum Nestorians who reached as far as China OTL, and Muslim traders had a presence in Korea and southern China in addition to central Asian Muslim influences via western China.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

This is merely a thought. Because it can be inferred that Baekje sent some settlers to southern Japan (Kyushu), it can be assumed that its gradual expansion led to ties with the Japanese royal family, which was located in central Japan (Honshu). Had they sent less people, they might have been distinguished from each other.

I don't get it. Northern Kyushu was one of ancient centres of Japan, even before Baekje emerged as a state. Historians are debating whether the legendary Yamatai Kingdom was located in northern Kyushu or central Honshu.

 

[Sumeragi]

I don't get it. Northern Kyushu was one of ancient centres of Japan, even before Baekje emerged as a state. Historians are debating whether the legendary Yamatai Kingdom was located in northern Kyushu or central Honshu.

Yes, but then there's the issue of Jimmu Tenno's original base having been in southern Kyushu. Does the Hakkou Ichiu Monument ring a bell?

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Yes, but then there's the issue of Jimmu Tenno's original base having been in southern Kyushu. Does the Hakkou Ichiu Monument ring a bell?

Nah, whole the stories about Jimmu Tenno are legendary things at best, everyone knows that.

 

[Sumeragi]

Nah, whole the stories about Jimmu Tenno are legendary things at best, everyone knows that.

Regardless of whether it's purely fictional or not, the basis of the legend..... What does it indicate? Why use southern Kyushu when it is "obvious" northern Kyushu was the "center" of the island? After all, it's in those two books you chose to show that Japan had influence on Korea before. It must be important enough for it to be part of the official history books of the Imperial Court.

From what I've read so far, you're basically selectively interpreting what you want to see and ignoring all others as legendary, fake, exaggerated, etc. I'm no longer sure if you're a truly serious student of history at this point, and really, not sure if I should even spend time discussing with someone who clearly isn't willing to see things for the face of it. I'll just continue on with studying the ancestral family of the Sumeragis.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

After all, it's in those two books you chose to show that Japan had influence on Korea before.

When i cited Nihon shoki, it was only to show how the Japanese records describe the three Korean states, not that to prove the Japanese rule of the Korean peninsula or etc.