Lily White West?

Is it possible to imagine a scenario where the West stays Lilly white until today? And White Australia and the immigration act of 1924 essentially goes on and on forever? Like if the Nazis implode after 1933 after the Reichswehr declares a coup, so no WW2 (at best a minor German Polish border war that results in Poland losing its Baltic access), and white racism and sense of moral superiority, and low grade 1930s antisemitism and eugenics basically go on and on. Basically in this scenario, the Great European powers may still lose their colonies, but instead of the British or French deciding on mass immigration, they decide to wall themselves of from their former colonies after losing India or Vietnam.
 
Kick
Such a scenario is wholly possible. However, for it to happen, you don't have to have white racism and a sense of moral superiority. White nationalism and pride do not mean white supremacy and racism.
 
Say France and Belgium still loses Algeria and Belgium, but after accepting the Peid Noirs and Belgian exiles they decide to raise the drawbridge in this scenario.
 
And White Australia and the immigration act of 1924 essentially goes on and on forever?

Well the last massacre in the frontier wars was in 1934, so I guess it’s a helpful pillow rather than smoothing the blankets for “the dying race.” I guess La Pa and Redfern are “cleared” during the 1930s. La Pa is a bit far from a railway goods yard. Ferry runs to Tempe I suppose.

Even with Soviet instruction it is going to take into the late 1950s for the CPA to start exposing this.
 
Is it possible to imagine a scenario where the West stays Lilly white until today?

I assume that America is part of the West, and it was never lily-white. (Non-whites might be enslaved or at least discriminated against, but they were never absent.)
 
Enoch Powell was not a white supremacist?
Oddly enough, no he wasn't. He was demonised for the "Rivers of Blood" speech but always insisted that he "was not a racialist". He did play the race card to some extent in my opinion but he didn't have the racial views of say Gobineau or Hitler, his main concern was cultural integration. He didn't think it would work very well. And didn't think multi-culturalism would work at all.
 
Is it possible to imagine a scenario where the West stays Lilly white until today? And White Australia and the immigration act of 1924 essentially goes on and on forever? Like if the Nazis implode after 1933 after the Reichswehr declares a coup, so no WW2 (at best a minor German Polish border war that results in Poland losing its Baltic access), and white racism and sense of moral superiority, and low grade 1930s antisemitism and eugenics basically go on and on. Basically in this scenario, the Great European powers may still lose their colonies, but instead of the British or French deciding on mass immigration, they decide to wall themselves of from their former colonies after losing India or Vietnam.
It would be a pretty moronic thing to do. After all, losing colonies didn't mean you stopped trading with them. The Brits found that out originally after the Thirteen Colonies went free. Sure, the War of Independence was costly, but not having to garrison the area, while letting the Americans driving out the Natives on their own, meant less cost for the British. As for France in this, I suppose you can continue their policy of giving only a pittance to the Africans who fought for France, versus the piles of money former collaborators got. I also can't really see what the point is to this thread. Are we to find ways in which the Europeans prevent Africans and Asians from coming to the conquerors homelands? Because you often got the Europeans forcibly taking them, either for human exhibitoins or... hmmm. well, they had poor Europeans for the either work (I am not suggesting being a prisoner in a human zoo is a willing profession). What about the Guianas? The British and Dutch brought in loads of people from India and Indonesia after slavery was abolished. Suriname these days does not actually see themselves as having a single ethnicity/nationality. Speaking of which, the Dutch have maybe two thirds as many Surnamese people as Suriname itself has.


Also, what Europeans are we counting as white or 'Lily White' here? I expect there would be racism against Spaniards, Sicilians, etc claiming they are part Arab, and against the Bulgarians, claiming they are Turks (Hitler thought they were, though that was mostly just going with his excuse of them not being Slavs). And then you are going to have all that stuff with people claiming Russians are 'Mongoloid', the Magyars are Huns, and the Finns... not sure what they thought about Finns. Anyways, in a continent where everyone is forcibly and militantly white, I expect people would walk around with pallet swatches. Oh, and you can be sure people won't go out tanning anymore. Wonder how albinos will be treated...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Such a scenario is wholly possible. However, for it to happen, you don't have to have white racism and a sense of moral superiority. White nationalism and pride do not mean white supremacy and racism.
I personally enjoy Powell but the beliefs of one man doesn't make my point invalid.

I was going to go with a warning to keep politics like this confined to Chat. Then I reviewed you record and saw that you have a warning for what amounted to Islamaphobia on September 26th. That coupled with this endorsement of Powell is enough to get the initial post upgraded to a kick.

I would strongly suggest that you closely consider your next overt support of an individual who published multiple openly racist commentaries. You have two strike already. Don't expect many balls called from this time forward.
 
Is it possible to imagine a scenario where the West stays Lilly white until today? And White Australia and the immigration act of 1924 essentially goes on and on forever? Like if the Nazis implode after 1933 after the Reichswehr declares a coup, so no WW2 (at best a minor German Polish border war that results in Poland losing its Baltic access), and white racism and sense of moral superiority, and low grade 1930s antisemitism and eugenics basically go on and on. Basically in this scenario, the Great European powers may still lose their colonies, but instead of the British or French deciding on mass immigration, they decide to wall themselves of from their former colonies after losing India or Vietnam.

The question is: why would they? More specifically, why would they not start gastarbeiter schemes, recruiting non-European labour force (*) to counter labour shortages in Northern/Western European industry and mining. After all, it's here that the original basis of non-European emigration to Europe was laid - it was Europe, or at least Europe's industrial groups and governments, that initiated this, a fact certain xenophobes now like to forget.
Barring gastarbeiter programs, the labour shortage problem would have to be resolved through other means.

(* Yes, I know that in many conventional racial pseudo-classifications, North Africans and Turkish people would be considered as being white or at least "caucasoid", I'm however assuming that the OP doesn't and that his question is more generally aimed at non-European immigration to Europe.)

Say France and Belgium still loses Algeria and Belgium, but after accepting the Peid Noirs and Belgian exiles they decide to raise the drawbridge in this scenario.

A sidenote: Congolese migration to Belgium, although certainly not nonexistent, only really began to get at full speed during the late 80s and the 90s; in 1981 there were barely 8 575 Zairians in Belgium, mainly students, businessmen and political dissidents. And even now, Congolese or people of Congolese descent are only a small part of Belgium's migrant population, albeit a visible part (there's the Matonge neighbourhood in Brussels + younger generations have recently gotten more vocal, which I applaud). The link between Belgium's current multicultural reality and its colonial history is real, but less direct than one might think.

To illustrate this, in 2006 15% of Belgium's population (1 625 362 persons out of 10 511 382) was foreign-born, the two largest groups being Dutch-born and French-born people (although those might be themselfs of non-European descent).
40 301 persons out of those 1 625 362 were born as citizens of the DRC (or Zaire) - that's slightly less than 2,5% of Belgium's immigrant population and 0,38% of the general population.
Of those 40 301 DRC citizens living in Belgium, only 9 048 people were born in Belgium.

The actual number of people of Congolese descent is probably somewhat higher, when DRC citizenship hasn't been transmitted to the next generation. Note, however, that these numbers do include those who have become naturalised Belgian citizens (about 2/3 of them). In any case, it does form an indication of the relative (un)importance of Congolese immigration to Belgium. Given migration trends since 2006, the relative importance of the Congolese immigrant community in Belgium has probably diminished.

(More details can be found in this study on Congolese migration to Belgium - unfortunately only in Dutch and French:
- http://www.myria.be/nl/publicaties/congolese-migratie
- http://www.myria.be/fr/publications/migrations-congolaises)
 
The question is: why would they? More specifically, why would they not start gastarbeiter schemes, recruiting non-European labour force (*) to counter labour shortages in Northern/Western European industry and mining. After all, it's here that the original basis of non-European emigration to Europe was laid - it was Europe, or at least Europe's industrial groups and governments, that initiated this, a fact certain xenophobes now like to forget.
Barring gastarbeiter programs, the labour shortage problem would have to be resolved through other means.
Without iron curtain those guest workers could come from central and eastern Europe instead of Africa, at least until the otl commie states themselves develop and suffer labor shortages
 
Nearly all racists don’t have “the racial views of say Gobineau or Hitler”.
Very true. but very few racists take the trouble to learn an Indian language or are trenchant Parliamentary critics of the actions of their (white) government in suppressing a (black) rebellion in one of their colonies (Kenya) as Powell did and was. I do not condone the "Rivers of Blood" speech in any way and do regard it as a piece of demagogery, but Powell was a much more complicated man than he is often painted.
In any case, the previous poster did not accuse Powell of being a racist (for which an arguable though not conclusive case can be made) but a white supremacist (who would by definition hold racial views akin to Gobineau or Hitler). There is a difference- Idi Amin was a racist (ask anyone of Ugandan Asian descent) but no-one would accuse him of being a white supremacist!
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The question is: why would they? More specifically, why would they not start gastarbeiter schemes, recruiting non-European labour force (*) to counter labour shortages in Northern/Western European industry and mining. After all, it's here that the original basis of non-European emigration to Europe was laid - it was Europe, or at least Europe's industrial groups and governments, that initiated this, a fact certain xenophobes now like to forget.
Barring gastarbeiter programs, the labour shortage problem would have to be resolved through other means.
I don’t think anyone tries to deny the collusion of industry and government in creating the current immigration. Arguments blaming big business for immigration are almost as old as immigration itself. But Germany’s gasterbeiter program was initially aimed at recruiting workers from other European countries. Immigration from outside Europe was considered less ideal and unnecessary because there were enough Europeans and unemployed native Germans to fill job vacancies. The Americans and Turkish pressured Germany to accept Turkish migrants in order to prevent unrest in Turkey. And yes, my source for this information is the English Wikipedia article on Gasterbeiters. The source it cites is in German, which I don’t know.
 
Top