The quatre communes in Senegal had this in theory, but it worked a lot better in theory than in practice.
AHC: Least Racist Colonialism Possible
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
The quatre communes in Senegal had this in theory, but it worked a lot better in theory than in practice.
If it failed in practice, how did a black man get elected into the French parliament?
There were nonwhite members of parliament from Senegal even before Diagne, but that doesn't mean there was racial equality in all areas of society. Illinois has had black state legislators since 1876, for instance, but Chicago wasn't exactly a racial paradise during this period.
In Senegal, even in the quatre communes, there was still a distinction between évolués and originaires into the twentieth century (it was only Diagne who was able to change this), and widespread social discrimination even against the évolués. Having the vote was only the beginning of the struggle for social equality.
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.
read above, even though I disagree much with Jonathan's attempt at an African ATL even he states that it isn't less racist and colonialism in that ATL is not and cannot be without white supremacy and/or racial hierarchy.
On a related note, I think that people sort of overstate their case when they argue that race and racism are concepts that were never conceived by anyone until after 1492. Sure, conceptions of race and racism may be very different today than they were two thousand years ago, but that does not mean that they were not there in some form. You mention the racism that many Medieval Arabs displayed toward Subsaharan Africans, but even the ancient Greeks seemed to think themselves distinct from both the light-skinned Celts who lived to the north of them and the dark-skinned Ethiopians who lived to the south of them.
The concept of race is arbitrary, but it can be arbitrary in many different directions.
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.
As for the least racist Colonialism, you'd need to have people of extremely similar skin tones be colonised and then not have people give them special status.
From that, you could possibly tie colonialism and the belief of people being lesser not to race but to civilisation level. Not likely though. Decent odds they'd either just get special status, get written out of history or have them redefined as an other by scientists.
As for the least racist Colonialism, you'd need to have people of extremely similar skin tones be colonised and then not have people give them special status.
From that, you could possibly tie colonialism and the belief of people being lesser not to race but to civilisation level. Not likely though. Decent odds they'd either just get special status, get written out of history or have them redefined as an other by scientists.
I guess you could have one dominant European (or Asian, or African, or North/South American, but some of those would require a really far back PoD) that lords over its neighbors as well as people further away. So Super-France sends English slaves to die in the copper mines of Michigan along with Wolof slaves and considers both peoples to be barbarians.
Not really that different from the perspective of the colonized but it is different from skin color/continent-based racism. Though you could say it's racism between the "French race" and everyone else.
Not really that different from the perspective of the colonized but it is different from skin color/continent-based racism. Though you could say it's racism between the "French race" and everyone else.
Han Chinese imperialism wasn't based on looking at European racism and copying it, I don't see how it's white supremacy when the people calling themselves supreme don't consider themselves white.
I will agree that in general, colonialism is going to involve the colonists considering themselves superior to the colonized and thus entitled to the land. With the exception of cases where the land was actually empty of people, like the Polynesians spreading over the Pacific or Europeans landing on St. Helena.
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. So eventually the distinction isn't by race or even religion but by those of noble blood (whether that blood is from an English Duke, a Japanese Marquis or an Ashanti King) versus the common masses.
I bet you could achieve less racist colonization by having the colonizers be absolute monarchies. they can integrate former nobles into the imperial system without regard to their race.
Whiteness and racialized conquest in and of itself is not a solely European concept. Han texts regularly described themselves as white, it's a different conceptualization of whiteness but still one that has similar tones and overtures of intrinsic superiority to darker peoples.
Orwell took a pretty solid and compact crack at this kind of thinking in his essay on Kipling; to believe in the 'civilizing mission' version of colonialism is a dodge for people who are hip-deep in unbearable guilt otherwise from their very personal involvement in the violence of the colonial project. (Still true today; it's bearable to take a round in the back of the neck or lose a limb if you're defending freedom and democracy; much less so if it's for a fat old man's ego or a multinational's profit margin. Truth value has nothing to do with which version of reality you can admit to and not blow your brains out).
That said, you could probably get a less *violent* colonialism. Whether that's a benefit is a question of how picky you are about where the megadeaths come from; diseases and famines still kill, and they kill the poor easier than the rich - and colonialism keeps people quite, quite poor.
That said, you could probably get a less *violent* colonialism. Whether that's a benefit is a question of how picky you are about where the megadeaths come from; diseases and famines still kill, and they kill the poor easier than the rich - and colonialism keeps people quite, quite poor.
Derek Pullem
Donor
A continuing Alexandrian Empire would probably be much less racist than the states that had gone before it, if only for the fact that the primary driver would be worship of Alexander the man / god. He'd already shown that he had no real difficulty accepting Persians and others into positions of power. His army and the Greeks in general were very racist but keep the lunatic at the top alive and their beliefs and actions would be restrained.
Whether an absolutist Emperor in a less racist world is a good outcome I leave to the readers.......
Whether an absolutist Emperor in a less racist world is a good outcome I leave to the readers.......
The comparison here IMO is that a black man was elected President of the United States, but the United States is still a racist society.