AHC/WI: Colonialism not racist?

What would have to change to make it at all possible for nations to not enslave the natives of their colonies and strip them of their resources, but instead have them develop the colonies with the eventual aim of making them reliable, friendly allies of the mother country with close economic and political ties? And what would be the knock-on effects?

I really, really hope this isn't completely ASB!
 
What would have to change to make it at all possible for nations to not enslave the natives of their colonies and strip them of their resources, but instead have them develop the colonies with the eventual aim of making them reliable, friendly allies of the mother country with close economic and political ties? And what would be the knock-on effects?

I really, really hope this isn't completely ASB!

I think it got more racist as nationalism developed. Like slavery, it wasn't so racist to begin with but as positions of power became more associated with race, the whole affair was steadily more coloured in such light.
 
It is. The entire concept of colonialism is that those guys have some nice stuff and you would very much like it to be yours. There isn't anything good going to come out of that except by accident.

That's not racism though, that's just you looking out for number one.
 
I think it got more racist as nationalism developed. Like slavery, it wasn't so racist to begin with but as positions of power became more associated with race, the whole affair was steadily more coloured in such light.

I agree. The original basis for European adventurism was purely economic - ideological concerns steadily became more important over time.

As to the OP, I don't think it's likely simply because of the cost of running a colony.

It takes a ton of money to develop a local administration, educate the population, culturally assimilate the population, and so on and so forth. Colonies are expensive. It's a whole lot cheaper to simply pay off the local king or vassalize him to sell you trade goods on the cheap. Really it's surprising to me that European colonialism in Africa ever developed beyond that, given the medical and technological issues.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 

scholar

Banned
What would have to change to make it at all possible for nations to not enslave the natives of their colonies and strip them of their resources, but instead have them develop the colonies with the eventual aim of making them reliable, friendly allies of the mother country with close economic and political ties? And what would be the knock-on effects?

I really, really hope this isn't completely ASB!
Colonialism didn't start racist, in fact much of the European Monarchs and Clergy found the treatment of the natives morally repugnant, and it is said when the last remnant of the Inca Empire was destroyed the Spanish King gave condolences and felt as if his underlings betrayed him.

Racism was low-key, and almost always ethnocentric or culturocentric more so than racially founded, until the relatively modern times. African slaves were not imported in such vast quantities because the Europeans viewed the Africans as inferior creatures to be bought and sold, rather they were imported through the ease of access, the economic necessity that precipitated it, and a large number of interfaith laws that at first prohibited the enslavement of Christians, and later the enslavement of Muslims. Both were ignored, especially the latter, but open rebellion on a large scale against the laws in place were unfeasible and in some ways utterly disastrous if attempted given the lifeblood of trade which powered Europe at the time.

Racism became a justification in the 18th and 19th centuries. Ironically, many of the people behind the White Man's Burden wanted to prove that even the most "ignorant" of "barbaric savages" could be risen up to the level of a white man if given proper instruction and fatherly guidance, or at the very least could be made into useful employees to feed the motherlands' growing industrial and economic needs.
 
I really, really hope this isn't completely ASB!
Nirad Chaudhuri dedicated his autobiography as follows:

To the memory of the British Empire in India, which conferred subjecthood on us but withheld citizenship; to which yet every one of us threw out the challenge: "Civis Britannicus Sum" because all that was good and living within us was made, shaped, and quickened by the same British rule.

And in 1860 a British newspaper reported the following.

On Thursday last a scene occurred in the common breakfast saloons at Maurice’s. At one table sat the Hon M Colborne, son of Lord Seaton, and next to him were seated two African chieftains, from Ashantee [sic], well-informed gentlemen, speaking French and English better than most of the Southern Legrees from Alhabama [sic], discussing the affairs which had brought them to the Imperial court of France. Three American slave-drivers were at work, a la fourchette, in a distant compartment, when they espied the natives of Africa, on which they insolently advanced to the table and vented their course and unmanly prejudices in the most ruffianly language. The member for Waterford, Mr Blake, as well as Lord Seaton’s son, protested against this underbred and ill-mannered conduct of the Trans-Atlantic bullies, whom the laws of France would soon bring to their senses (if any exist), and teach them that educated chieftains from that quarter of the globe are higher in the social scale than folks whose escutcheon is a cartwhip, and whose only peerage is an old volume of the London “Newgate Calendar.”

So- difficult as it may have been, and I by no means wish to underplay those difficulties- completely ASB it isn't.
 
The only colony I can think of that was successfully kept on where the native population wasn't outnumbered by the host nation's population was Puerto Rico.

I think this PoD would require no WWII for starters and have successful "independence" for African nations starting the in late 70s / 80s. More Botswanas and less Congos.
 
Top