More European/Western "offshoots" worldwide with a PoD of 1500

CaliGuy

Banned
In our TL, European colonization caused European/Western "offshoots" to be created in Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and--to some extent--in Latin America and the Caribbean. Similarly, the Zionist movement arguably created a Western offshoot in the Middle East with the creation of Israel in 1948 (AFAIK, about half of Israeli Jews are of European descent and many of the Mizrahi Jews who immigrated to Israel married Ashkenazi Jews).

Anyway, what I am wondering is this--with a PoD of 1500, which additional European/Western "offshoots" can realistically be created throughout the world?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the record, the reason that I posted this here is that this is a process which can certainly continue into the 20th century and beyond; for instance, just take a look at all of the European immigrants who immigrated to the U.S. since 1900!
 
I don't think that there could be many more. The creation of so many neo-Europes had everything to do with the terrible vulnerabilities of the indigenous populations of these neo-Europes to European colonialism, particularly to the one-two punch of exposure to devastating Eurasian and African diseases followed by the disruptive effects of European imperial rule. This sort of scenario could only be repeated in areas which were vulnerable: Other Old World regions would not face the devastation of Old World diseases, for instance, while most of Africa was protected by its own diseases.

I suppose that there's a possibility of North Africa, particularly the Maghreb but perhaps extending as far as Egypt, coming under the influence of one or another European imperial power. Maybe Spain could have extended the reconquista from the 16th century on?
 
The Pacific islands are quite possible. whilst New Caledonia already exists as a pretty Europeanised part of the Pacific, and New Zealand obviously is a part of historic Polynesia which has a majority European population, the local communities in the Pacific were devastated by smallpox and other European diseases, and largely survived only because a) the natives weren't much of an obstacle to the extraction of guano and b) because some degree of humanitarianism existed in European countries, particularly Britain, which disapproved of blatant genocide or slavery. Of course all European empires during this period were horrendously exploitative, but sometimes if the media found out, there would be a storm of outrage. People at this time were racist, but generally in a paternalistic, rather than genocidal manner.

The Pacific islands are so small that the natives have nowhere to run should one European Empire or another, for whatever reason, have chosen to commit genocide on them in the vein of the Herero massacres in Namibia. Fortunately, this didn't happen. But it could have, particularly in places like Fiji. Indians were often brought to Fiji as "middlemen of empire" and produced more wealth for their empire through their labour than native Fijians. If enough violence flares up between Fijians and Indians, and a particular cruel British governor/resident/whatever spins it the 'right' way, conceivably there could be a wholesale annihilation of the Fijians, although the outcome would likely be an overwhelmingly Indian, rather than European, population.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I don't think that there could be many more. The creation of so many neo-Europes had everything to do with the terrible vulnerabilities of the indigenous populations of these neo-Europes to European colonialism, particularly to the one-two punch of exposure to devastating Eurasian and African diseases followed by the disruptive effects of European imperial rule. This sort of scenario could only be repeated in areas which were vulnerable: Other Old World regions would not face the devastation of Old World diseases, for instance, while most of Africa was protected by its own diseases.

The Zionists were able to make parts of Palestine Jewish-majority without the use of diseases or--before 1948-1949--expulsions, though. Plus, Russia was able to Russify parts of Asia which had low population densities (Siberia, the Far East, and northern Kazakhstan) without the use of disease or expulsions.

I suppose that there's a possibility of North Africa, particularly the Maghreb but perhaps extending as far as Egypt, coming under the influence of one or another European imperial power. Maybe Spain could have extended the reconquista from the 16th century on?

Did Spain actually have the abilities to do this, though?
 
Do countries following some version of Marxism count as western off-shoots? Let's say that these countries(probably largely hypothetical) are less nationalistic in their orientation, and more determined on implementing a pure form of the system, whose precepts and values permeate the society to a deep level. (But there would likely be little substantial immigration from western countries, which I think might be what the OP wants.)
 
What about South Africa? Would you count that as one? Because I could see more intensive settlement in the parts of Africa which are tolerable for Europeans, like Rhodesia and Kenya (as in OTL, but especially for Kenya, more intense), Malawi, and Katanga. I don't think you'd ever get Europeans more than 10% of the population, although I think if Portugal (the Treaty of Tordesillas grants them South Africa) or Spain got in there instead of the Dutch/British, as they enslaved and destroyed local culture and civilisations for the diamond and gold mines, they'd help create a new mixed-race culture in the process. As in Brazil, the further north you'd get, the less "white" the people would be, but I think the amount of destruction an Iberian culture could do would be enough to shatter African civilisation and help reincorporate it into a local European one. What the Iberians would want for this is the Mfecane on a bigger, wider scale with as much slavery as possible involved. It helps disturb the local Bantu states to make them ripe for conquest, and gives a steady supply of slaves for either domestic use or the international market. Fortunately for the locals, creating something that destructive is beyond the capabilities of even the most devious Iberian. But an even like that would have to arise as soon as possible.

How far could these Iberians get in "Westernising" southern Africa? Substantially more than the British and the Dutch did. They could certainly reduce the Bantu languages in the modern RSA to mostly minority tongues. North of the RSA is where they'd run into problems. In theory, causing the (near)extinction of native African culture (by way of fusing it into this new Sudafricano/Sulafricano culture) everywhere south of the Zambezi (and possibly even into Angola) is the maximum. I'll just hazard a guess and say that's probably impossible without genocide on an impressive scale.

Now, is this culture "European", no, but they have the cultural heritage of Europe along with substantial input of European genes, so they would firmly be a Western nation, particularly if they managed to not be a shithole.

The Pacific islands are quite possible. whilst New Caledonia already exists as a pretty Europeanised part of the Pacific, and New Zealand obviously is a part of historic Polynesia which has a majority European population, the local communities in the Pacific were devastated by smallpox and other European diseases, and largely survived only because a) the natives weren't much of an obstacle to the extraction of guano and b) because some degree of humanitarianism existed in European countries, particularly Britain, which disapproved of blatant genocide or slavery. Of course all European empires during this period were horrendously exploitative, but sometimes if the media found out, there would be a storm of outrage. People at this time were racist, but generally in a paternalistic, rather than genocidal manner.

The Pacific islands are so small that the natives have nowhere to run should one European Empire or another, for whatever reason, have chosen to commit genocide on them in the vein of the Herero massacres in Namibia. Fortunately, this didn't happen. But it could have, particularly in places like Fiji. Indians were often brought to Fiji as "middlemen of empire" and produced more wealth for their empire through their labour than native Fijians. If enough violence flares up between Fijians and Indians, and a particular cruel British governor/resident/whatever spins it the 'right' way, conceivably there could be a wholesale annihilation of the Fijians, although the outcome would likely be an overwhelmingly Indian, rather than European, population.

Hawaii is of course a great example of that. But it's interesting how Native Hawaiians are far fewer than Native Fijians.
 

Wallet

Banned
The Europeans could expel Chinese from the costal cities they controllled like Hong Kong.

The French could annex Algiers and north Algeria and expel the natives.

South Africa and Rhodesia
 
The Zionists were able to make parts of Palestine Jewish-majority without the use of diseases or--before 1948-1949--expulsions, though.

Because of the timing, I would classify this as one of the many post-war population shifts and ethnic cleansings. Absent this expulsion, Mandatory Palestine would have kept its overall majority.

Plus, Russia was able to Russify parts of Asia which had low population densities (Siberia, the Far East, and northern Kazakhstan) without the use of disease or expulsions.

Northern Kazakhstan is more of a temporary success, owing to the rapid post-independence growth of Kazakh populations throughout that country. Siberia and the Far East I would classify as neo-Europes alongside Canada and Argentina and New Zealand.

Did Spain actually have the abilities to do this, though?

I don't know. A campaign of ethnic cleansing, akin to that which hit Mandatory Palestine, may not be impossible: If Spain could convince itself, preferably also other countries, that a campaign to reclaim territories lost in olden days by Christendom was defensible, the 16th century would probably be the time to do it. The Reconquista had just ended in Iberia, and there was plenty of wealth coming in from conquered American empires.
 
The Europeans could expel Chinese from the costal cities they controllled like Hong Kong.

I'm not sure they could. The logistics aside, Europeans wanted Chinese in these coastal cities, which had been imagined from the part as trading ports. It's difficult to imagine circumstances where this was not the case.

The French could annex Algiers and north Algeria and expel the natives.

They could, I suppose, but which French regime would? It's difficult to imagine any post-revolutionary French regime, save perhaps the fascist, engaging in this kind of mass expulsion with--inevitably--a terrible death toll. The model of agricultural settlement chosen by France did depend on the presence of native labourers: Why the change?

South Africa and Rhodesia

More white immigration to southern Africa may not have been impossible, assuming the territories involved could have been made sufficiently attractive early enough. Could there ever have been enough to create a white majority in more than a small area?
 
The Europeans could expel Chinese from the costal cities they controllled like Hong Kong.

The French could annex Algiers and north Algeria and expel the natives.

South Africa and Rhodesia
Italian Libya is a definite.

Israel can be larger than it is today.

Turks can be kicked out of Europe.

USSR expansion sans WW2 can see Russianized Afghanistan and Iran perhaps.

ATL WW2 can see the complete starvation and destruction of Japan, a horrific Operation Downfall, plus the dropping of Nukes. If it went on long enough and there is an evil USA POD, perhaps America expells Japanese as Germans were expelled from East Prussia.

Mexican annexation in 1848, enough of it was not that populated where they would be majority European today.

Tajikistani expansion and Russian assimilation.

That's pretty much it. Everywhere else is too heavily populated with non-Europeans and cannot plausibly get into a war against a superior-enough power that their population can be replaced or assimilated/intermmaried with Europeans.
 

cgomes

Banned
The Europeans definitely have the ability to do that.

They just need to be even less disgusted by genocide, and that's not hard to do given certain PoDs.
 
Are you talking about a Western diaspora that effectively creates an enclave that "looks" European while surrounded by Asians or Africans? Or you are you asking about Westernized societies regardless of ethnic origin? Not knowing what you mean exactly, I have a couple of thoughts.

It's worth noting that the British were the only ones to create Western Offshoots. It says something about the institutions they exported to the new lands relative to those exported by the French, Spanish, Dutch, and others. Look at Algeria, which was considered to be a part of metropolitan France. There isnt any reason that Algeria should be any less Western than France, Italy or Spain except that the colonizers exported institutions that failed to achieve this outcome despite having considerable immigration from France and Italy in the 19th century. As for the rest, most of the colonizers looked to the Americas, Africa, and Asia as a means of extracting value from the land rather than creating a valuable social and economic order. It was easier in places the the US, Canada, and Australia where the local population densities allowed for settlers to dominate the region. But ultimately, European settlers not from noble origin need an incentive to emigrate to the region and that only comes from the perception that they can create value because they wont have the birthright and resources to become extractors.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Are you talking about a Western diaspora that effectively creates an enclave that "looks" European while surrounded by Asians or Africans? Or you are you asking about Westernized societies regardless of ethnic origin? Not knowing what you mean exactly, I have a couple of thoughts.

I am talking about Western enclaves that "look" European here.

It's worth noting that the British were the only ones to create Western Offshoots. It says something about the institutions they exported to the new lands relative to those exported by the French, Spanish, Dutch, and others. Look at Algeria, which was considered to be a part of metropolitan France. There isnt any reason that Algeria should be any less Western than France, Italy or Spain except that the colonizers exported institutions that failed to achieve this outcome despite having considerable immigration from France and Italy in the 19th century. As for the rest, most of the colonizers looked to the Americas, Africa, and Asia as a means of extracting value from the land rather than creating a valuable social and economic order. It was easier in places the the US, Canada, and Australia where the local population densities allowed for settlers to dominate the region. But ultimately, European settlers not from noble origin need an incentive to emigrate to the region and that only comes from the perception that they can create value because they wont have the birthright and resources to become extractors.

To be fair, though, didn't Europeans only make up 15% of Algeria's total population at the peak of their dominance?
 
Top