AHC: Least Racist Colonialism Possible

I do have a vague idea for a TL where the Habsburgs (or an Anglo-French union, the initial concept comes from GURPS Centrum) unify Western Europe and go on to dominate the world, and they just keep intermarrying with local elites around the world.

Except that wasn't how the Habsburg expanded outside of catholic europe, look at the balkans, there it was pretty much fire and sword.
 
Plundering and extracting values and resources from an area does not necessarily have to imply racism. E.g. the Vikings sold white slaves to the Arabs. They cared little about the skin colour of the people they attacked and they even fought among themselves. The situation with Europeans colonizing areas that were less developed economically easily lead to racism, however, as the difference in economic development easily lead to an arrogance that feeded into ideas about biological superiority. These ideas also helped to legitimize the process of colonization. The Vikings, on the other hand, could hardly claim that they were superior to the people in the areas they were plundering, as those areas were economically more advanced.
 
White Supremacy is intrinsically interwoven with colonialism. From Arab White Supremacy to Europeans White Supremacy to the racialized whiteness of Han Chinese imperialism.

You can say incorrect but I wanna see your counter arguments and scenarios.

Erm, since when have the Han Chinese been considered white?

Not to mention, the concept of there being such a thing as a "white race" long postdates the Han period anyway.

The problem is that pre-1492 racism was really just extreme xenophobia. Sure, element's of racial hatred probably existed, but a Roman would hate all non-Romans to fairly equal degrees, skin colour would mean little to them, they're all "Barbarians" after all.

Roman xenophobia was about culture more than race. The Carthaginians were considered disgustingly barbaric, but once North Africa had been Romanised nobody seemed to question their descendants' Roman-ness, or their right to hold prestigious civil or ecclesiastical positions or even to become emperor.
 
Presuming full-on 'Paint The Map X' expansionism rather than setting up trading posts?

Least Racist: Everyone Gets Citizenship. Full representation (or at least as full as commoners back home get), schools/courts/civil service/etc adminstration set up within a year of the last standing armies standing down or taking the metropole's colors, local royal/noble houses getting grafted onto the aristocracies, The Works.

Least Racist that has a Snowballs Chance Of Being Enacted: Easy and swift access to Citizenship. 20 years service as a common soldier, civil servant, or something along that line means you, your spouse, and your descendants in perpetuity are citizens with zero political/legal/social impediments.
 
Colonialism and Expansion under the Malian Empire would have been the least racist as far as I know. The dominant Mande Tribe was rather accommodative.
 
How 'bout colonialism just not being a thing?
Well then you'd have to suppress the human instinct to see what is over the next hill.

When the Hudson's Bay Company was first established they set up a post/port on Hudson Bay and made a deal with the local Cree. "We'll sit here on the coast with the stuff you want (metal tools, etc) and you bring us the stuff we want (beaver pelts) and we'll trade" Seemed to work well for both parties until the Churches got involved with their desire to save souls. In Quebec the initial French adventurers were well on their way to being assimilated into the local Huron tribes and then bureaucratic and Jesuit France showed up and changed things around.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Those who argue about empire building or anything that involves one group conquering or dominating another regardless of manner or outcome is just inviting to be attacked and put down by those opposed to it.

While it is all fair to look back retrospectively and apply today’s standards to history. But wether in Canada, Portugal or elsewhere be it USA or China we cannot look at history and judge people by today’s standards. I am certain our great great grandkids 100 - 200 year from now will look at us and consider how uncivilized, barbarian and evil we are today.

My take is to look at what was the norm at the time and understand what person did that made him standout as leader or other figure. We need to criticize those who did things against others that were bad.

I also have to consider that People be they from Europe where serfs existed along with indebted servants, of from Africa and Middle East where slavery existed did practice conquest and empire building. Heck all of mankind history is based on one group gaining dominance over another. Inca empire was built on top of an earlier empire, so too was Mayan or Aztec. Asia the same.

The Roman Empire, Islamic, Ottoman and west African empires. All of them practiced conquest and exploitation of others. Colonialism was just the 16-19th century version.

In the 20th century we have communism and capitalism as systems exploiting others.
 
Those who argue about empire building or anything that involves one group conquering or dominating another regardless of manner or outcome is just inviting to be attacked and put down by those opposed to it.

While it is all fair to look back retrospectively and apply today’s standards to history. But wether in Canada, Portugal or elsewhere be it USA or China we cannot look at history and judge people by today’s standards. I am certain our great great grandkids 100 - 200 year from now will look at us and consider how uncivilized, barbarian and evil we are today.

My take is to look at what was the norm at the time and understand what person did that made him standout as leader or other figure. We need to criticize those who did things against others that were bad.

I also have to consider that People be they from Europe where serfs existed along with indebted servants, of from Africa and Middle East where slavery existed did practice conquest and empire building. Heck all of mankind history is based on one group gaining dominance over another. Inca empire was built on top of an earlier empire, so too was Mayan or Aztec. Asia the same.

The Roman Empire, Islamic, Ottoman and west African empires. All of them practiced conquest and exploitation of others. Colonialism was just the 16-19th century version.

In the 20th century we have communism and capitalism as systems exploiting others.
This does not answer the question in any meaningful capacity, it only goes “well we shouldn’t be too harsh on colonizers” which yes we should.
 

Lusitania

Donor
This does not answer the question in any meaningful capacity, it only goes “well we shouldn’t be too harsh on colonizers” which yes we should.
But the colonizers were no different than Arab invaders into North Africa, maybe less, or the Chinese invaders of Tibet, mongol invaders of India, the American westward expansion and so forth and do forth.
 
But the colonizers were no different than Arab invaders into North Africa, maybe less, or the Chinese invaders of Tibet, mongol invaders of India, the American westward expansion and so forth and do forth.
Yes. All of those were very bad things that should be criticized. But that’s not a way to make colonialism less racist, which is impossible.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Yes. All of those were very bad things that should be criticized. But that’s not a way to make colonialism less racist, which is impossible.
I did not state to make less racist but wanted to emphasize that Arab empires and others including US along with China.

The other point I also made was that slavery existed already and racism also existed and was nothing new with colonialism. We have Europeans having laws on religion discrimination also serfdom along with other laws such as indebted servitude.

In India the laws against the un-touchables was as racist and determental to one segment of society.

All these points are not an attack on anyone but to point out colonialism was no different and no more racist than other conquerers.
What made it more pronounced was the level of technology and power difference meant that the Europeans were able to expand further and that meant people of different races were subjected. But if the color of people in Africa had been same as the Europeans the same situation would of happen. This is exactly what happen in Middle East and North Africa where Europeans or Africans were enslaved and subject to save racist treatment.
 
I did not state to make less racist but wanted to emphasize that Arab empires and others including US along with China.

The other point I also made was that slavery existed already and racism also existed and was nothing new with colonialism. We have Europeans having laws on religion discrimination also serfdom along with other laws such as indebted servitude.

In India the laws against the un-touchables was as racist and determental to one segment of society.

All these points are not an attack on anyone but to point out colonialism was no different and no more racist than other conquerers.
What made it more pronounced was the level of technology and power difference meant that the Europeans were able to expand further and that meant people of different races were subjected. But if the color of people in Africa had been same as the Europeans the same situation would of happen. This is exactly what happen in Middle East and North Africa where Europeans or Africans were enslaved and subject to save racist treatment.
You're just whatabouting colonialism here, not actually trying to improve it. There is zero reason to bring up "but other cultures were bad" except to avoid the facts.
 
You're just whatabouting colonialism here, not actually trying to improve it. There is zero reason to bring up "but other cultures were bad" except to avoid the facts.

Or to counter the people in this thread quite literally trying to tie colonialism solely to whiteness, where the obvious example is where they try to call the Han Chinese white.

It's only tangentially related to the topic matter but it's not whataboutism in the slightest.


The charitable view is that you missed it, the uncharitable view is that you saw it and didn't care, but the moment you saw someone providing proof against it you decided to jump on that for some reason.
 

Lusitania

Donor
You're just whatabouting colonialism here, not actually trying to improve it. There is zero reason to bring up "but other cultures were bad" except to avoid the facts.
This goes back to the topic I mentioned in my first post on this thread. Anyone who said anything good about colonialism was going to be attacked because that was the purpose of this thread to attack colonialism and anyone who tried to make it better was attacked. Those people just wanted everyone to scream colonialism was worse thing ever period.

My point was that I saw the ruse and repeatedly pointed out that it was no different than all other empire building empires just different. Even pointed out that capitalism and communism today are in the same boat.

Since this was never to be a real discussion but a way to attack people let’s drop this thread.
 
Last edited:
Top