Dystopian British Empire

[xsampa]

Is it possible to have a massive dystopian British empire, like the kind envisioned by Cecil Rhodes, who claimed that "South America, all of Africa, all the Pacific Islands unclaimed by Britain, the Holy Land, the Valey of the Euphrates, the seaboard of China and Japan, the Malay Archipelago and finally the US" were to be integrated and flooded with British settlers, sort of like a British Draka. Notw that when Rhodes wrote his secret will in 1872, newspapers referred to the British as the "Imperial Race", "the Island Breed" etc. essentially viewing them as the Master Race.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I mean a lot of people would say that it was. Even someone like me who tends to go with the "planet is less on fire, probably okay" cant ignore the horrors in southern africa, india or Australia.

Other than that? Have them win against the dutch in those wars or not give the dutch empire back, have argentina piss them off somehow (or britain, worried that they rely on Argentine food, decide to conquer it to stabilize the supply once it normalizes again), and then screw the qing during the opium wars even more. Then Japan gets cocky after the Russo-Japanese war.

In short? It's entirely possible to get one of those, but they butterfly the others

 

[xsampa]

British Indonesia and Africa is certainly doable during the Napoleonic wars

 

[St. Just]

IOTL, especially for starving Irishmen, Bengalis and Xhosa, enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and Guyana, exterminated Tasmanians, Aborigines and First Nations peoples, opium-addicted Chinese people, Polynesian blackbird all-but-slaves, Arabs, Boers in camps, indentured Indian labor overseas, and really any colonized subject of the British.

The AH community likes to do a moral carveout for Britain sometimes because of courts (India's inherited ones are oh-so-functional, and thanks for Partition!) or trains or other thinly-veined supremacist crap that only flies in parts of Hong Kong and Ulster. Sometimes, its relativism -- as if Britain was noticeably better than Spain, Leopold II, or the French (whose colonial machinations in Africa have yet to cease). The British couldn't go Draka because they simply had too much land to cover with not enough settlers; as it was, they colonized just about everywhere white settlers could survive that they had access to. I guess you could swing them the Southern Cone, and probably more tropical colonies thanks to the 18th century or Napoleonic Wars, but it'd be no more or less dystopian than IOTL, just broader in scope.

 

[Basileus444]

Well, the British Empire was a dystopia for everyone in it who wasn't British (aka the vast majority). As for the specifics, let's look at them in order.

South America: Good luck trying to hold it. Huge territory, diverse and rugged terrain, populated by peoples who've just thrown off one colonial overlord and are not interested in getting a new one. Best case scenario this turns into a British version of Maximilian Mexico, where the British pour in blood and treasure but can never tamp things down and are eventually forced to withdraw in humiliation.

All of Africa: More possible, especially if you change it to sub-Saharan Africa. That said, it would require seizing pre-existing Spanish and Portuguese holdings, which is possible but hard to justify with anything better than 'I want'. However this needs to wait until the later 1800s when medicine has improved; before then the British are stuck to coastal enclaves. So Britain would have to make a rush-grab before other European powers make their own, which would be difficult. Although if they succeed, now we get British soldiers chopping off hands in the Congo when the rubber quotas fall short. Congratulations?

All of the Pacific Islands: Easily doable if the British make a rush for them before anyone else. (Other than the natives living there of course.)

Holy Land and Valley of the Euphrates: Britain could seize these from the Ottomans. Meanwhile Russia helps itself to Constantinople.

Seaboard of China and Japan: The other great powers are not going to accept Britain getting that grabby.

Malay archipelago: Doable.

US: Bwahahaha. No.

 

[Tibi088]

Dont loose most of North America? I know its earlier but it would be a good start.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Wank PoD needs to be pre ARW.

If Britain somehow wins (or better avoids) the ARW then it is in a much better position in the Napoleonic wars for some serious global expansion. With Spain and the Netherlands both going pro-Napoleon that means that first Ceylon, Dutch East Indies and South Africa will fall and afterwards assuming a successful (second PoD) Buenos Aries attack, Rio del la Plata and an early occupation by the British Navy and North American forces of Texas and Baja and Alta California.

Post war the increasing powerful American lobby in the Empire launches a series of filibusters to extend British rule and influence. By 1880 Brazil is the only major hold out in South America. At the same time British American influence is growing in China and Japan and the Third Opium War under General Gordon sees long stretches of the Chinese coast occupied under Treaty and Japan reduced to a drug addled client state.

The Scramble for Africa results in tensions between France and the Anglo-American Empire (as it is now known) - the resulting war sees France Spain and Portugal (plus Brazil) fight and lose against the Empire. Europe is now basically an armed camp against the Anglos and the World War (there is no Second) sees victory for the dominant Anglo navy and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire with the Anglos occupying the increasingly important oil fields of the Middle East.

Slavery is finally banned in all Empire territories in 1911 (it had been banned in the Anglo part of the Empire since 1848) but it is replaced in the main with a system of indentured labour from non citizens, mostly provided by non-white indigenous populations although India uses a caste based system instead.

All hail the current Empress Queen Elizabeth II, Gloriana

(feel a bit dirty writing that - need a coffee!!)

 

[xsampa]

snip

(feel a bit dirty writing that - need a coffee!!)

There are a couple points I would like to add:

1. Even if America remains many feuding subcomponents, the process of self-government can be attained in other settler colonies like Argentina and Australia
2. With Americans (and other settler colonies) running the protectorates and colonies adjacent to them there will be pressure to cede colonies e.g OTL papua
3. Russia will expand into Turkey and Persia as much as possible to keep the Brits from getting these areas and stay out of direct conflict.
4. Brazil will likely be reduced into multiple satellite instead of annexed by 1900
5. The possibility of granting equality to high caste Indians and upper class Indonesians and Africans will become a tool to counterbalance the settler colonies
6. The expansion would realistically be a high water mark, with the cost of the empire and internal disputes.
7. https://www.deviantart.com/silas-coldwine/art/The-Greatest-Game-474334852

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Wank PoD needs to be pre ARW.

If Britain somehow wins (or better avoids) the ARW then it is in a much better position in the Napoleonic wars for some serious global expansion. With Spain and the Netherlands both going pro-Napoleon that means that first Ceylon, Dutch East Indies and South Africa will fall and afterwards assuming a successful (second PoD) Buenos Aries attack, Rio del la Plata and an early occupation by the British Navy and North American forces of Texas and Baja and Alta California.

Post war the increasing powerful American lobby in the Empire launches a series of filibusters to extend British rule and influence. By 1880 Brazil is the only major hold out in South America. At the same time British American influence is growing in China and Japan and the Third Opium War under General Gordon sees long stretches of the Chinese coast occupied under Treaty and Japan reduced to a drug addled client state.

The Scramble for Africa results in tensions between France and the Anglo-American Empire (as it is now known) - the resulting war sees France Spain and Portugal (plus Brazil) fight and lose against the Empire. Europe is now basically an armed camp against the Anglos and the World War (there is no Second) sees victory for the dominant Anglo navy and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire with the Anglos occupying the increasingly important oil fields of the Middle East.

Slavery is finally banned in all Empire territories in 1911 (it had been banned in the Anglo part of the Empire since 1848) but it is replaced in the main with a system of indentured labour from non citizens, mostly provided by non-white indigenous populations although India uses a caste based system instead.

All hail the current Empress Queen Elizabeth II, Gloriana

(feel a bit dirty writing that - need a coffee!!)

The former Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America had a caste system as well; what is preventing from the two caste-based systems in India and Latin America from merging into one if they are part of the same British Empire?

 

[frustrated progressive]

OTL?

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

OTL?

It could be worse though. Imagine if the British Empire kept the American South, and because of the lucrative cotton plantations, never banned slavery or the slave trade, and started expanding into sub-Saharan Africa while maintaining all of that. The dystopian conditions would be more widespread around the world.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

IOTL, especially for starving Irishmen, Bengalis and Xhosa, enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and Guyana, exterminated Tasmanians, Aborigines and First Nations peoples, opium-addicted Chinese people, Polynesian blackbird all-but-slaves, Arabs, Boers in camps, indentured Indian labor overseas, and really any colonized subject of the British.

Still possible to make it even worse by expanding the empire: Latin Americans, more Chinese (the British actually annexing part of mainland China), possibly the Japanese if things go differently before the Meiji, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Thai.

The AH community likes to do a moral carveout for Britain sometimes because of courts (India's inherited ones are oh-so-functional, and thanks for Partition!) or trains or other thinly-veined supremacist crap that only flies in parts of Hong Kong and Ulster. Sometimes, its relativism -- as if Britain was noticeably better than Spain, Leopold II, or the French (whose colonial machinations in Africa have yet to cease).

This is primarily because most of the board comes from the United States (fairly Anglophile in modern times) or from Commonwealth countries. Most people believe that their native country is morally superior to other countries, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The British couldn't go Draka because they simply had too much land to cover with not enough settlers; as it was, they colonized just about everywhere white settlers could survive that they had access to. I guess you could swing them the Southern Cone, and probably more tropical colonies thanks to the 18th century or Napoleonic Wars, but it'd be no more or less dystopian than IOTL, just broader in scope.

If the dystopia is broader in scope, that makes the world more dystopian.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I'm confused about this. Is this supposed to be BritWank, or is it the British get a quarter of the world but turn out to be Nazis?

No realistic way to get more than a quarter of the world.

The British getting something like their OTL empire but being Nazis could work if you got rid of the Whigs. This probably means a clear Puritan/ Commonwealth or pure Stuart victory in the seventeenth century, then have the victorious side be both absolutely ruthless and go off the rails. Maybe evil Duke of Wellington could work.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I'm confused about this. Is this supposed to be BritWank, or is it the British get a quarter of the world but turn out to be Nazis?

No realistic way to get more than a quarter of the world.

The British getting something like their OTL empire but being Nazis could work if you got rid of the Whigs. This probably means a clear Puritan/ Commonwealth or pure Stuart victory in the seventeenth century, then have the victorious side be both absolutely ruthless and go off the rails. Maybe evil Duke of Wellington could work.

If Britain can keep North America then even without any additional gains to OTL it has 30% of the world's land mass and 28% of the population by 1913. Adding Central America and 50% of South America takes this close to 40% and 30% respectively.

Including 20% of China would take this up to about 35% of the worlds population.

It's not a question of inventing British Nazis but combining British Imperialism with American Manifest Destiny.

They would also control c. 39% of the world GDP based on OTL British Empire + USA in 1913 - adding the additional territories would take it over 42%.

I cannot see any country in a dominant economic position such as this playing "nice" - the USA at it's peak only managed about 25% of world GDP.

 

[sendô]

IOTL, especially for starving Irishmen, Bengalis and Xhosa, enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and Guyana, exterminated Tasmanians, Aborigines and First Nations peoples, opium-addicted Chinese people, Polynesian blackbird all-but-slaves, Arabs, Boers in camps, indentured Indian labor overseas, and really any colonized subject of the British.

The AH community likes to do a moral carveout for Britain sometimes because of courts (India's inherited ones are oh-so-functional, and thanks for Partition!) or trains or other thinly-veined supremacist crap that only flies in parts of Hong Kong and Ulster. Sometimes, its relativism -- as if Britain was noticeably better than Spain, Leopold II, or the French (whose colonial machinations in Africa have yet to cease). The British couldn't go Draka because they simply had too much land to cover with not enough settlers; as it was, they colonized just about everywhere white settlers could survive that they had access to. I guess you could swing them the Southern Cone, and probably more tropical colonies thanks to the 18th century or Napoleonic Wars, but it'd be no more or less dystopian than IOTL, just broader in scope.

Humans in the past in not-being-very-nice-to-other-humans shocker.

In the long list of empires that have risen and fallen through the ages, the British Empire is by no means at the top of the pile for being most evil, yet are normally demonised as such by those seeking to impose today's standards onto past events in a way that doesn't happen with other empires, like the Mongols or the Romans etc.

 

[xsampa]

cannot see any country in a dominant economic position such as this playing "nice" - the USA at it's peak only managed about 25% of world GDP.

perhaps the remaining countries merge esp after the World War

 

[xsampa]

Re: British China. “Just” annexing Guangdong, Guangxi and Fujian adds a 1/5th of China’s population and 6% of its area. The Qing would be humiliated, just as they were IOTL when they ceded Taiwan etc. but a land border with the British would help spur modernization. The British would exploit the poverty of the region for labor in the Caribbean as IOTL and possibly East Africa as suggested by Francis Galton.

Eventually, British occupation will produce a separate identity a generation after conquest, say the 1920s, as with OTL Taiwan, and linguistic separation will help increase this, with Yue in Guangdong and Guangxi and Hakka in Fujian serving as linguistic barriers. Perhaps the introduction of some elements of the British system of government to keep locals onside (and given the 80% of China’s population over the border) such as a colonial Parliament like the Dutch East Indies’ Volksraad, signaling a shift from the “capriciousness of Qing rule@.

 

[Drizzt]

Avoid the American Revolution with some compromise.
Winning isn't enough, they need to never have it and reconcile the Colonists to being part the the British Empire. Only that way will the colonies become a source, rather than a drain of manpower. That then gives them enough additional warm bodies to make some of the above mentioned options viable.

 

[Socrates]

I seem to flip in these threads from attacking the British Empire to defending it, but I always feel I am in a consistent position while the board lurches from one side to the other. Classing the whole enterprise across the entire time period as more dystopian than most societies in human history seems a stretch.

Certainly there were examples of that: pretty much all cotton and sugar based Atlantic colonies were horrific and would qualify as dystopian, but these were a relatively small part of the Empire.

Ireland during the Famine would also qualify but this was a short time period. Most of the time period for Ireland in the British Empire and then UK was a period of peace and order with only low level discrimination. The late 19th Century and early 20th was a pretty decent place to live.

India comes somewhere in the middle. Marginally worse than the previous regimes and much inferior to post-independence. Bengal had it pretty bad but Punjab had it pretty good. Certain provinces were kept poorer by stranglehold economic regulations while others benefitted from infrastructure investment and land reclamation. There was generally a very fair legal system as long as you weren't up against one of the small number of Brits. I would say overall it would count as oppressive but a long way from dystopian.

And then you have the settler colonies. Crimes were committed against the natives but not on a particularly large scale. For most of the people living in them they were some of the best places to live in human history. So overall I would argue that the Empire reflected the vast range of societal experiences across human history. Not particularly better or particularly worse overall. Of course, democratic nation states are far better...

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I was going to say something similar to Socrates. I won't defend Imperialism or Colonialism. But of that bad human behavior and many sins and instances of cruelty, Britain was perhaps the least dystopian of the Colonial Empires. There is the very fact that India was capable of shaming them into granting independence, whereas France almost had a right wing coup over Algeria and a quagmire war in Indochina to keep that holding, Japan raped China during its short lived Empire there, and Portugal was a fascist regime that literally fought tooth and nail past the deaths of the other Empires to keep its own. And need the Belgian Congo be mentioned?