Can European powers with colonies in Asia be able to get their people to move to their respective colonies? What needs to happen to get people settling? Does this create the possibility of a mixed-race culture? How does this affect things?
AHC/WI: European Settlers Flock To European Colonies In Asia
- Thread starter TickTock The Witch's Dead
- Start date
Otl Philippines is a perfect example of mixed race culture. It is Hispanic foremost with additional Indian, Malay and Chinese elements to it.
Another example would be otl East Timor. Or a surviving an ATL Portuguese malacca.
But if you are talking about purely majority white homogenous race segregated from other races in Asia, don't think it is possible absent of genocide or butter flying certain Asians immunity to some or all of the Eurasian bacteria.
If you meant mixed race culture, it is possible even if the European power relocates only a small amount like the Philippines but has certain tolerance with interracial marriage, christianization rather than how the Dutch and English do it thru segregation which creates a similar racial environment as Spanish Americas.
Another example would be otl East Timor. Or a surviving an ATL Portuguese malacca.
But if you are talking about purely majority white homogenous race segregated from other races in Asia, don't think it is possible absent of genocide or butter flying certain Asians immunity to some or all of the Eurasian bacteria.
If you meant mixed race culture, it is possible even if the European power relocates only a small amount like the Philippines but has certain tolerance with interracial marriage, christianization rather than how the Dutch and English do it thru segregation which creates a similar racial environment as Spanish Americas.
It kind of did happens in the case of Russian colonies in Central Asia. If Russia had colonised more of Manchuria or Korea or Hokkaido, there would be decent-sized Russian minorities existing there today.
But for a lot of the Asian colonies, the climate is too tropical for Europeans, not to mention distance. And most of the ones most suited for European settlement were never colonised OTL by European powers (most of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.).
But for a lot of the Asian colonies, the climate is too tropical for Europeans, not to mention distance. And most of the ones most suited for European settlement were never colonised OTL by European powers (most of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.).
The Philippines is the prime example of one, albeit a very limited example.
Settler colonies a la USA are nigh impossible, though.
Definitely the most likely 99% scenario is a Mesitzo class of Asians and Europeans. I'd be interested to see what kind of culture arises from that.
Anywho Europe would start sending in their troops and other important people required to their colonies first. People doing business would also hop in the flotilla. Then their families can come. And then a stream of people would arrive and mingle with the locals.
Though depending on how the colonies gain independence the mestizos wouldn't be having too good of a future if things don't go well.
East Asia is just too far, and when it finally became more accessible, that was exactly when the nationalist revolts started. Rizal wrote a satire about the gold-digging Peninsular vermin that flooded the Philippines during the 19th century, as opposed to the creole-mestizo Insular class who lived here and made up its ruling class.
Only 10% of the 200,000 Portuguese sailors leaving for Asia during the 16th century, ever returned to Portugal, and another 10% lived in Asia by the end of the century. An estimated 80% died aboard or within 2 years of being in Asia.
IOTL some 1 million sailors and soldiers made their way from Europe to the East Indies in service of the VOC between 1600 and 1795. Compare that to the meager 50,000 Dutch who settled in the Americas during the same period (most of these being in the Caribbean and Dutch Guiana). It is estimated that the majority, or 700,000 died aboard or within 5 years of being in Asia. An average annual of 3,500 men died aboard every year. Fewer than half of these were Dutch (40%), with the majority originating in the Holy Roman Empire or Scandinavia (particularly Norway) as the Dutch were active in the Baltic trade. By the end of the 18th century 80% of sailors and 50% of soldiers in VOC service were foreigners.
Because of the high mortality rate, Batavia was nicknamed the "graveyard of Europeans", and the European population in 1870 was about the same as it had been 200 years before. Goa too had a high mortality rate, and in the 16th century, priests recorded that most men died after a few years in India. As a result, the Portuguese population declined after 1600. Those who survived as a legacy of this mass migration in both the Portuguese and Dutch colonies tended to be Eurasians, often acting as agents of the colonial power.
IOTL some 1 million sailors and soldiers made their way from Europe to the East Indies in service of the VOC between 1600 and 1795. Compare that to the meager 50,000 Dutch who settled in the Americas during the same period (most of these being in the Caribbean and Dutch Guiana). It is estimated that the majority, or 700,000 died aboard or within 5 years of being in Asia. An average annual of 3,500 men died aboard every year. Fewer than half of these were Dutch (40%), with the majority originating in the Holy Roman Empire or Scandinavia (particularly Norway) as the Dutch were active in the Baltic trade. By the end of the 18th century 80% of sailors and 50% of soldiers in VOC service were foreigners.
Because of the high mortality rate, Batavia was nicknamed the "graveyard of Europeans", and the European population in 1870 was about the same as it had been 200 years before. Goa too had a high mortality rate, and in the 16th century, priests recorded that most men died after a few years in India. As a result, the Portuguese population declined after 1600. Those who survived as a legacy of this mass migration in both the Portuguese and Dutch colonies tended to be Eurasians, often acting as agents of the colonial power.
This did happen in Russian history. Half (a poetic half) of the country is in Asia.
A colonized Japan, early treaty ports in China at European latitudes, or the establishment of a European port in Amuria, they could all attract European settlers. The problem here is that the geography of these regions makes them hard to access by ship; unless you have a friendly or colonized Japan.
A colonized Japan, early treaty ports in China at European latitudes, or the establishment of a European port in Amuria, they could all attract European settlers. The problem here is that the geography of these regions makes them hard to access by ship; unless you have a friendly or colonized Japan.
Not going to happen. The Philippines was basically a Mexican colony, and the others were more precarious -- trade settlements and corporate territories that needed European management and alliances with locals, rather than dickish settlers stealing the land for Jesus. Unlike the Americas or even Africa, the Asian peoples were way way way too sophisticated to displace within a settlement society.
Interracial marriage has always been rare, if not outright banned, in settler colonies: in every colony historically, the introduction of large numbers of white women largely brought pressure to bear against the informal interracial unions of the early colonial eras.
Outside of the slaver-rapist patriarchies of the plantations, the presence of white women often signalled an end to interracial unions -- often an end pushed for by white women. This was the case in British India.
Furthermore, early colonialism did see efforts by France, Spain and Portugal, among others, to ship white wives to the colonies as "Orfas del Rei".
There are a number of creole, mixed-race cultures in former colonial territories (many of them Portuguese in origin) but in terms of both long-term settlement and the possibility of larger versions of these communities, I just don't think it'd work.
Outside of the slaver-rapist patriarchies of the plantations, the presence of white women often signalled an end to interracial unions -- often an end pushed for by white women. This was the case in British India.
Furthermore, early colonialism did see efforts by France, Spain and Portugal, among others, to ship white wives to the colonies as "Orfas del Rei".
There are a number of creole, mixed-race cultures in former colonial territories (many of them Portuguese in origin) but in terms of both long-term settlement and the possibility of larger versions of these communities, I just don't think it'd work.
Or they can do want Paraguay did and encourage interracial marriage for the sake of keeping the peace between the colonists and the natives.
I have never seen anywhere where interracial unions were banned outside of the British North American, and even these banned unions between African slaves/free persons of colour and Europeans. In the English West Indies, the only anti-miscegenation laws were enacted in Antigua in 1644, whereas Barbados only banned mixed-marriages. However, even most of the legislation dealt with marriage, not miscegenation explicit.
In the Spanish colonies, Brazil, and the French colonies, miscegenation resulted in a large amount of mixed-race off spring. The French in their colonies only banned the marriage of Catholics and Non-Catholics, and attempted to enact provisions against marriages and concubinage with slaves. However, mixed-race marriage was only banned in Louisiana in 1806, after the American acquisition. In 1685, the VOC banned interracial marriage between slaves and Europeans, but European men could still marry free women of colour. However, this had little real effect, as the number of mixed-race people the Cape and the East Indies continued to climb.
There were efforts to ship women to colonies by the Portuguese, particularly to Asia, Africa and later America. The Spaniards and French did this too. It is true however that once the number of white women increased, generally the number of mixed-marriages decreased.
It was more of a 19th century thing.
Well yes -- i did mention the king's orphans system.
Japan is ASB. It's always had a high population density (relative to global standards). Taiwan probably is too although it's vaguely plausible.
Keep in mind that it was a very, very long trip from Europe to East Asia in colonial times. That is going to restrict the total number of Europeans that are going to come over. You need a place with a low native population and very high European survival/fertility rates. Siberia was one place that fit those criteria. There aren't too many others in Asia - it's the world's most populous continent by a huge margin, after all.
Don't think it's completely ASAB, Japan has a population in the same ballpark as the Philippines and look what happened to that. Still, it'd mean a large mixed-race component to the Japanese population, settler colonies would be completely out of the question there.
The thing is over the centuries a lot of Europeans DID make it to Asia, they just died a lot, left a lot and didn't have any kids so outside of a few places like the Philippines they didn't have a big demographic impact.
If you could reduce the death rate substantially through better prevention of scurvy etc. you could see a lot more Europeans surviving and sticking around and more people be willing to make the trip. It doesn't have to be a lot all at once, just a steady trickle over the centuries. Of course getting the medicine better to allow for that would be really hard, just how far can you push back inoculation against major tropical diseases? But even fairly small butterflies could swallow up Taiwan or allow for some Goa-style areas with a lot of mixed race people in places like Japan.
There are already a decent number of Indians with Portuguese surnames from around Goa and while expanding that to all of India would be madness you could certainly see more of that in certain situations.