With a POD not involving WW2, the challenge is to keep as many colonies as you can in European hands. The focus is Africa and Asia, the priorities are the Dutch and Portuguese. Bonus points for keeping the British Empire intact.
AHC: Stop decolonisation
- Thread starter Harald Sigurdson II
- Start date
SinghKing
Banned
Or simply closer integration, breaking down ethnic and racial barriers by changing the colonial nation's mindset to embrace the cultures which they've colonised (akin to the approach of the Manchu Qing in China). The Dutch in particular were supposedly already well versed at this, and if the Dutch Federation had endured (along with the first Dutch Empire), they may well have been able to gradually integrate heir colonial territories through federalisation, first by becoming Generality Lands and then, in many cases (eg. Boer Republics) joining the Dutch Federation with the full member status of Dutch Provinces in the confederacy,
The only way this can happen is with the British Empire since historically speaking, the British were the least racist of the European colonial powers. Britain was more latent colour bar employment racism than outright massacre racism. Yes there were massacres but they were often carried out by individual actors rather than agents of the crown. For British racism to disappear, people have to lose the illusion that coloured people are somehow inferior to them. I say this can be accomplished with advances in science. The colonized people have to be made to feel British. The user British Republic had a very good idea of assimilating British and native culture in the colonies and fostering an atmosphere of cultural supremacy.
Deleted member 67076
If they were the least racist than why did the British have the least amount of mixed race individuals in their colonies?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Seconded. If anything, the Spanish Empire was the most successful in propagating its culture to the natives without exterminating them.
Which is saying something.
...Namely, that all the European powers were just terrible.
Worse than any other imperial power in history? I'm an ancient, not a modern historian, but it seems to me that the notion that "modern" European colonialism was uniquely awful is a bit of a dodgy one.
Intermarriage should not be the only metric by which we measure imperial racism. Of all the European powers in Africa, Britain had the least amount of massacres.
Deleted member 67076
Massacres don't mean much considering they're an effective way of reducing and eliminating resistance.
In Alaska, Russia had relativley few massacres but stull enlsaved the natives for a profit. The death-count and intermarriage still aren't enough, so I suggest the level of cultural oppression. In C. America, many full-native-culture (except for Catholicism) groups still around, in US and Australia native children taken away from parents for a century. Also, as others have said, many of those massacres weren't on behalf of the Crown, but individuals looking out for themselves.
I'm speaking exclusively about new imperialism since its the imperialist era I'm most familiar with and also the most relevant to the OP.
Well, the Romans had tried to integrate the peoples they conquered into the Roman cultural sphere, and with quite some success; so maybe have the European colonial nations emulate them rather than keeping the natives at arm's length. This wouldn't stop movements for independence, but it would make it more likely that the central government would be willing to (more-or-less) peacefully devolve greater powers to colonial authorities, a la the British dominions. The probable end stage would be for the Empires to evolve into more federal institutions, with defence and foreign policy handled by a central body with representatives from all the colonies; something similar was in fact proposed for the British Empire IOTL.
Don't forget that nationalism didn't exist in Roman times. Almost nobody felt as a "Celt", "German" or "Greek" - most of one's lifetime, you thought that you are citizen of Athens, or warrior of the Suebian tribe, or member of the Jewish chosen people; the Greeks only united after being attacked from outside, while the Italians fought three (?) wars to be united as a nation instead of living in peace as Austrian subjects.
Thus, you see, the Roman had a very easy job. They had to convince the people that it's a good choice to remain quiet and be happy with peaceful and well organized Roman domination (a very decentralized administration in fact). Colonizing nation of the 19th century, bringing not only technology and economy but also modern ideologies like socialism, liberalism and nationalism have now to deal with the fealing of being another nation they have spread in native populations.
Thus, you see, the Roman had a very easy job. They had to convince the people that it's a good choice to remain quiet and be happy with peaceful and well organized Roman domination (a very decentralized administration in fact). Colonizing nation of the 19th century, bringing not only technology and economy but also modern ideologies like socialism, liberalism and nationalism have now to deal with the fealing of being another nation they have spread in native populations.
Nationalism arguably didn't exist in Africa before European arrivals. The present borders on the continent are European fictions. No one felt a Tangayikan or a Nigerian. I suppose you could bring up tribalism though.
It's
Banned
For the removal of native children in Australia, Google "stolen generations" and "myth", and make your own mind up about "cultural oppression" at least as far as Australia is concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres
Of the colonial massacres listed, Britain is only the perpetrator once (Amritsar)
SinghKing
Banned
A wikipedia list of "events named massacres". When the very term "massacre" was in the colonial era a sensationalism term which was only used by English speakers, that's about as relevant as a Nazi German list of their "events named genocides". Might as well say that there were never any non-Romance colonial nations because none of the others actually named them as 'colonies'.
I'll do more thorough research later. I've got my hands full atm.