AHC: Large African Community in China


Wait...what about Taiwan? African Taiwan.
I remember reading something in one of my books about some of the sailors on Dutch vessels going to Taiwan being black. Whether that meant they were actually African or just dark skinned Indonesians I don't know (I can't remember if the description came from the Chinese or the Dutch). I'm too busy tonight to check, but I can look it up some other day if you want.
 
I remember reading something in one of my books about some of the sailors on Dutch vessels going to Taiwan being black. Whether that meant they were actually African or just dark skinned Indonesians I don't know (I can't remember if the description came from the Chinese or the Dutch). I'm too busy tonight to check, but I can look it up some other day if you want.


More likely Indonesians, they were on the verge of a migration movement into Oceania when the Portuguese arrived.
 
That is an all encompassing statement saying that Chinese culture will not change. Then you went on to talk about how China's elites will be both inward looking and would prefer other places than Africa, all of which are true if it was OTL which we are changing.
I never claimed that Chinese culture will *never* change; I stated that the system behind the culture is so vast that no one individual *alone* can make large changes. And it is still true that if the Chinese elite became fascinated with a foreign exotic culture it will be one they considered civilized. It would have been the Indian one in the Ming era, and it's the Anglo-American one today. China isn't investing in Africa today because of fascination with Swahili or Zulu culture.

The superiority complex does not automatically result in isolationist vision, up until the last century or so racism and racial superiority was a widely accepted notion: the Chinese were not alone in their attitudes, what they had was a geopolitical situation that allowed to stay in isolation once they decided.
The superiority complex inevitably will result in complacency, which will only strengthen the "All Under Heaven" thought of the Chinese elite. It doesn't mean the Chinese will cease overseas trade and adventures; it merely means that given the pre-existing reluctance to outright colonize barbarian realms in favor of accepting tribute from their leaders, this preference will only be further strengthened.

Also on a side point only the last century has an effect on a POD's culture, I doubt your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's affects you at all. Furthermore the only culture that matters immediately for a POD is the elite and beaucractic, peasants had minimal influence in a centralized state.
It isn't an accident that Northern European cultures tend to be direct and individualistic, and it isn't an accident that Confucian cultures tend to be conflict-avoiding and indirect. The seeds for these things were planted centuries ago. And besides, peasants and bureaucrats don't live in separate vacuums and there is bound to be a social contract between them.

The Chinese people are very, very diverse, you can't classify it as a single culture even after 60+ years of modern state nationalism projects. To put that China as a whole was culturally static for a fraction of it's history is a bold faced lie. You have obviously never visited China more than a week or so, Chinese culture has changed and has always been changing. And Mao did change Chinese culture, though he failed in respect to his goal : 40 years of rationing , propaganda, communist economy has left it's mark on Chinese culture. (the remaining years till now are just wow)
No one claimed that Chinese culture is "unchanging", and as someone who lived for years in China (including in smaller towns), one understands that no one individual can *alone* make huge changes in a vacuum. Yet Mao himself is not very different in substance than the long list of Chinese rulers. So did Mao change China more, or did China change Mao more?


Three words: delegation & divine right. There were plenty of "divine kings" and delegation occurs in every organization. And bureaucracies can change, kings can get good ideas or at least good delegates , we're not here about OTL, we're asking what changes are necessary to enact the desired result not how improbable it was with all the OTL conditions.
Chinese rulers were always aware their divine right is conditional on good governance (as opposed to the European notion which was absolute). Thus there's a constraint on the adventures they can take. In any organization (let alone a high-context one like the Chinese Imperial Bureaucracy) there are human interactions, and anyone who proposes something as radical as overseas conquest without being skilled at manoevering risks their job or their life.


Has it occurred to you that the question did not pose a time frame? A Chinese annexation with jets and guns in the 1900's just as good as any other time frame. And who says anything about enormous costs? Last I checked the Spanish just installed themselves on top of the social ladder and benefited enormously, colonies are not guaranteed to lose money.

And China doesn't need to colonize, control or claim is good enough. Besides who's to say an ATL China can't already own Oceania and parts of South east Asia? That it's playing against Indian and European rivals in the Great Game in Africa?
Yes, it's certainly plausible that China could carve out a sphere of influence in Africa, with Chinese populations who dominate the economic life of these areas just like in OTL South East Asia or white Spaniards in Latin America. But outright annexing them as provinces (as opposed to occupying coastal enclaves like OTL Hong Kong) when the homeland is always facing serious trouble seems as plausible as a Tsarist Russian oblast in Argentina. Even among the Europeans only France and Italy bothered annexing Algeria and Libya as parts of the homeland, and then because of obvious geographical location. Importing millions of Africans seems bizarre when China will always have more coolies than it ever needs.

That's just not true, it's a well known part of Chinese heritage taught in most Chinese schools but by no means near-sacred throughout history. Where are you getting this from ? Seriously, even the almost-propaganda history classes of Guiyang state university doesn't claim that.
What does propaganda at obscure universities have to do with this? I'm fairly sure that Chinese rulers will prefer to control with the appearance (genuine or otherwise) of choice over outright force, and will try to keep overt violence to a minimum. Especially when dealing with barbarians in a faraway land.

It's called delegation, by the same logic the British empire should've self-destructed managing 1/4 of the world. Has it occurred to you that the elite of society could support a king's endeavors? That it doesn't have to be straight to Africa, that it could happen gradually with nearby territory first then slowly spreading?
The European overseas powers did collapse under their own weight, not only because of nationalist aspirations but also thanks to the enormous costs (of course accelerated by a ruinous land war at home). And besides, the King's primary attention was always the relatively small home country. It will always be easier to manage an island off Western Europe than a vast territory with the size and population of entire Europe.

Second point, Southeast Asia (presumably the nearby territory referred to) was always respected as home to "civilized barbarians" who paid lavish tribute to the Imperial Court and whoever decides to send armies marching straight to Malacca would be suicidal. Annam alone was already an expensive quagmire (some things never change). It's plausible that Chinese forces would be used to replace an African chief with a more pliant one, but take on the responsibility of governing it? In this case the elite would most likely steer the Emperor to make tributary states out of barbarian lands.
 
I never claimed that Chinese culture will *never* change; I stated that the system behind the culture is so vast that no one individual *alone* can make large changes. And it is still true that if the Chinese elite became fascinated with a foreign exotic culture it will be one they considered civilized. It would have been the Indian one in the Ming era, and it's the Anglo-American one today. China isn't investing in Africa today because of fascination with Swahili or Zulu culture.

Yes you did, you said it will not fundamentally change, you might not of meant it but that was certainly what you wrote . Then you ignored my comment about the elites changing, and for some reason you keep assuming any ideas I have would be just one leader imposing his will on China. And I can go on about how you use institutionalism to defend inertia and yet at the same time refuse to contemplate a change in that institution, as if the Chinese government is one long continuous line of succession. Or how you assume that Chinese culture would be static with regards to a changed lifestyle. In fact you remind me of the 50 cent army with regards to their insistence on the existence of unique and unchangeable Chinese characteristics.


The problem I have with you is that you keep making global statements and generalized assumptions, some of which are not absolute or just unsupported. I've already made my point that we don't need to bring Africans to China, easier just to label a part of Africa China so I don't see how is there an argument, we both agree that it's unlikely with OTL conditions-but not impossible so it's only a matter of POD(s).

I really don't want to go on confirming your stereotypes about Chinese history, nor mine for that matter, good day.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
Just to clarify the challenge, the Sino-African populace must live within the territory that constitutes OTL's PRC and/or ROC.
 
Just to clarify the challenge, the Sino-African populace must live within the territory that constitutes OTL's PRC and/or ROC.

If the Sino-African population is in the six digits the most plausible way would be through Ming Dynasty imperial adventures, and most of them would likely assimilate into the Chinese fabric within a few generations. But I think an African population in the tens of millions will require a genocide or ethnic cleansing of one province on the scale of Generalplan Ost by European powers in the mid 18th century, followed by a massive slave trade of Africans to repopulate the region which would last decades.

Safe to say that needs ASBs.
 
Top