From wiki;
While the word Holocaust was used previously to denote great massacres, it has since WWII been used specifically to refer to the killing of the Jews.
AHC: More White Dominated African Nations
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
From wiki;
While the word Holocaust was used previously to denote great massacres, it has since WWII been used specifically to refer to the killing of the Jews.
Trust Wikipedia. I think that having a name for the killing of Jewish people and not the other five million may cause some bitterness.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
I was thinking in the shorter-term (i.e. to the year 2050 at max), estimates for the year 2100 seem really, really spotty to me.
Wolfpaw
Banned
Which is innacurate and ignores the other victims exterminated for the same reason. At least 5 million non-Jewish victims were sent to the death camps and massacred by Einsatzgruppen and Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht as part of the Nazis' genocidal program for the same nonsensical racist garbage.
The Jews were the exclusive victims of the Final Solution and the Shoah; they were the primary (but by no means sole) victims of the Nazi Holocaust. I do not like bringing up the, "As a Jew" thing, but as somebody of Jewish extract I take grave offense to people saying, "The Holocaust killed 6 million people/Jews" and stopping it there, utterly forgetting the other 5 million victims who suffered not at all dissimilar fates in the same time and place for the same reasons as victims of the same omnicidal program. The Holocaust killed at least 11 million people; the Shoah/Final Solution aspect of the Holocaust killed at least 6 million Jews, just as the Porajmos is the name for those parts of the Holocaust aimed at wiping out the Roma. Would you dare tell a Roma or a Pole or a German Communist or a Slavic peasant or a homosexual Dutchman or a French Jehovah's Witness that they were not victims and targets of the Holocaust?
The narrowing of the term "Holocaust" from the Nazi's entire death camp/work to death/killing fields program to solely meaning the attempted slaughter of European Jewry is an unfortunate result of Jews being the primary victims and so getting all of the attention.
Last edited:
I agree completely, though there are a considerable number of under-educated people (at least on this subject) who tend to use the term holocaust exclusively, or at least inter-changeable with the final solution. Mainly through lack of appreciation as to the number of 'other' people slaughtered. It's wrong, of course, but most people accept what's fed to them by the media and general education without looking further for themselves.
The usage of "holocaust" as a point of contention has come up a couple of times in NZ in the recent past, where various scholars, media or Maori have referred to the various acts or atrocities of the Colonisation Era (Land Wars etc) as a holocaust and then been called to task by local Jewish commentators or groups.
I think most recently earlier in the year. I listened to some interesting discussions on the topic on NZ radio, as linked to below.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2511026/mediawatch-extra-february-2012
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/p...ri-opai,-kura-denness,-and-margaret-smith.asx
I think most recently earlier in the year. I listened to some interesting discussions on the topic on NZ radio, as linked to below.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2511026/mediawatch-extra-february-2012
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/p...ri-opai,-kura-denness,-and-margaret-smith.asx
Rhodesia and South Africa are the OTL examples, but I agree that with the right PoD Kenya could have become a East Africa, the white settlers lobbied for a South Africa type system there in the 20s (and they also wanted to annex Uganda and Tanganyika).
This thread is about White people in Africa. The Holocaust mention should have gone "Hey, the Nazis could have killed all the black people", "no, because they wouldn't", "ok, you're right" and we keep on topic. Holocaust terminology semantics have nothing to do with this topic.
We should probably differentiate between different types of Jews. By types, I of course mean how their languages, traditions, and physical appearances changed at their expulsion from Judea nearly two thousand years ago. As Berbers, Arabs, Moos, and Turks are apparently out, which Jews would we consider white? Hell, do we discount Spaniards and Sicilians because they have a bit of blood from the early jihads and crusades? We need to decide whether or not the one drop rule applies, as I see mixed race people as having a better chance or motivation for staying around than the lily white.
It depends.
in South Africa people from southern Europe were generally considered white. There is also a relatively large Lebanese community in South Africa and they are considered white.
That said, the 'one drop' rule generally applies with regard to Coloured people.
Namibia is also a good example from this OTL.
What about if King Leopold doesn't get the whole Congo, but consolidates territory around what is today Kinshasa? This may perhaps see relatively large proportions of Belgians in this putative state?
I think I did a scenario once where, through some political shenanigans, something like this (granted, much less realistic) occurred in the Congo.
What about the Spanish colonies, in addition to the Portuguese ones. In particular, Equatorial Guinea (for Spain) and Sao Tome and Principe, and Guinea-Bissau (for Portugal) are both small enough for a white population to form a more substantial minority.
The Spanish government/leading parties also thought of Morocco as genetically and culturally related to Spaniards, with the only difference being their religion and the Straits of Gibralter. They wanted a larger colony in central Africa because of the chance for extra manpower, so I do not know if they had spare Spaniards that they would trust to send down their. Anyone know how many Europeans were in the treaty ports in China that might survive Japanese captivity to reside on some African islands?
I imagine if many of the White residents in pre Great War African colonies could have seen the future / or had a realistic view of demographics, if they would have done things differently. I don't mean mass genocides or the like, more just structuring their states differently.
While in the post WW2 era bantustans were not acceptable for good reason, one could see that a smaller, realistic borders state could be made to be majority white (whatever that means). That probably would not sit well within the general imperial mood of the era though. I would also think that in a similar way to say Northern Ireland and Israel, demographics would always be a "threat".
While in the post WW2 era bantustans were not acceptable for good reason, one could see that a smaller, realistic borders state could be made to be majority white (whatever that means). That probably would not sit well within the general imperial mood of the era though. I would also think that in a similar way to say Northern Ireland and Israel, demographics would always be a "threat".
You'd need 100,000-200,000 whites to make-up a substantial minority as the area that is today Bas-Congo and Kinshasa had a population of around roughly 1.1 million in the late 19th century.
That aside their's also the fact the area is not particularly conductive to European settlers.
Most of Spains African colonies are not good candidates.
The Spanish did'nt control Western Sahara in full until the mid 1930's while Rio Muni (the mainland portion of Eq. Guinea) did'nt become a full colony until the beginning of the 20th century (having been a Protectorate from 1885-1900) and was in general not a place Europeans would want to settle due to the presense of a large enough native population, the climate and malaria not being conductive to large scale settlement and the fact it was a de facto slave port into the 1920's.
Now, Spanish North Africa (IE the Rif region) would be a good area for settlement, heck Queen Isabella actually passed a proclomation forbidding it because poor Spaniard farmers were moving there.
Annobón and Bioko (frm. Fernando Po) are also both good candidates, though the former mose so than the latter.
Guinea-Bissau is pretty much a no-go, it was only fully conquered in 1915, by which point it had a good sized native population (est. 440,000) that was still more than a little restive and at the time Portugal did'nt really have alot of people willing to settle (Metropolitan Portugual only having a little under 6 million people) and those that were willing to move primarily went to Brazil and the United States while those willing to settle the colonies went to the islands and Angola mostly.
Cape Verde, which is majority Mestiço (mixed race), and São Tomé and Príncipe, which is ethnically and racially diverse and used to have a sizable white population, are both good candidates to become situations where larger immigration leads to Whites, while a minority, having a majority of power, though this would be different from elsewhere as the white population would be more like 30-40%.
Angola and Mozambique are both good candidates as well.
Mozambique had a long established white population, which at independence was numbered at 350,000 (3.3% of the population) and a large Mestiço minority as well.
Angola originally had a relatively small population (6.6 million in 1975) and was starting to draw in a good deal of European immigration in the mid-20th century onwards, with 360,000 Whites (5.4% of the population) at independence and even today Whites and Mestiços each make-up 2% of the population a piece.
Last edited: