Multicultural Imperialism or Culture in 1900s Empires?

In a pod where one or more of the imperial powers stay strong or at least survive the 1900s, how could culture develop within it? The pod can include any alternate histories based around any empire surviving the 1900s. It could be a more minor one like the Portuguese Empire or a more major one like the British. It could be multiple empires at the same time. Personally, I would use a no ww1 pod for this since it creates the most possibilities but yall are free to use what ever pod you like for this discussion. The empire must survive and can’t lose too much of its empire. Britain keeping just a few islands and Newfoundland isn’t good enough. Them losing all their colonies but forming a commonwealth with its white ruled dominions is acceptable. Someone like France must at least keep Algeria or Italy keeping Libya. These empires could also be something like Japan forming a Co prosperity sphere or if you apply imperialism to all people German hegemony over Europe would count too. Regional hegemonies I would consider imperial powers in most cases. Also your pod can’t start any earlier then 1900.

But back to the major question how do you think culture will develop within a surviving or preferable thriving empire in the 1900s then ending with them going into the 2000s? Could imperialism develop into selective multiculturalism? Ideas and thoughts?
 
In a pod where one or more of the imperial powers stay strong or at least survive the 1900s, how could culture develop within it? The pod can include any alternate histories based around any empire surviving the 1900s. It could be a more minor one like the Portuguese Empire or a more major one like the British. It could be multiple empires at the same time. Personally, I would use a no ww1 pod for this since it creates the most possibilities but yall are free to use what ever pod you like for this discussion. The empire must survive and can’t lose too much of its empire. Britain keeping just a few islands and Newfoundland isn’t good enough. Them losing all their colonies but forming a commonwealth with its white ruled dominions is acceptable. Someone like France must at least keep Algeria or Italy keeping Libya. These empires could also be something like Japan forming a Co prosperity sphere or if you apply imperialism to all people German hegemony over Europe would count too. Regional hegemonies I would consider imperial powers in most cases. Also your pod can’t start any earlier then 1900.

But back to the major question how do you think culture will develop within a surviving or preferable thriving empire in the 1900s then ending with them going into the 2000s? Could imperialism develop into selective multiculturalism? Ideas and thoughts?
Maybe Liberal inclusive British Empire with absence of racial theories invites Indian princes and other native nobility to become members of the House of Lords, Dukes and earls and commanding generals of the British Army. Maybe Alexander like events like the mass-marriage of British officers with Indians vice versa.
 
France must at least keep Algeria or Italy keeping Libya.
Population is too high to be keep in a democratic state. The largest territory population wise retained is French Guiana which makes up less then one percent of the French population.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/french-guiana-population/

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/france-population/

These empires could also be something like Japan forming a Co prosperity sphere
Something like the Francafrique but with stronger French influence might be possible.
 
invites Indian princes and otherh nobility to become members of the House of Lords, Dukes and earls and commanding generals of the British Army.
Which turns the British empire into the Indian one. If Britain does it just for show with no real power it leads to otl or a violent war of Independence
 
Maybe Liberal inclusive British Empire with absence of racial theories invites Indian princes and otherh nobility to become members of the House of Lords, Dukes and earls and commanding generals of the British Army.
I could see that but racial theories were very prevalent by the start of the 1900s. Could you start with racial theories being expanded on instead? Indians are seen as a extension of the Indo-European family group. Northern Indians while not being considered as equal as Brits are at least held in the same standing as Slavs or Celtic people by the British people? From their racial theories become much more open and general in the British Empire until it is completely abandoned in favor of a more cultural outlook?
 
Population is too high to be keep in a democratic state. The largest territory population wise retained is French Guiana which makes up less then one percent of the French population.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/french-guiana-population/

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/france-population/


Something like the Francafrique but with stronger French influence might be possible.
The nation doesn’t have to be democratic. A empire could vary between region on how democratic it is. It could also be democratic on a local level but not the national one. Basically everyone can vote for their own local leaders and policies and the central government doesn’t bother them unless they try to pass a very radical law in the region or they try to rebel. Some regions might not even have elections or at least ones that matter.

For example a British Empire could be democratic in the home islands but in a holding in Arabia who is officially part of the empire is ruled by a local king. They have the same economic system and military. They interact with each other similar to how a state would interact with the federal government but the state just has a great amount of freedom like a confederation. Could a British Empire pull off something that is like a modernize Holy Roman Empire? Maybe you have local elections for democratic regions who have elected officials send representatives who they appointed to a imperial Parliament to represent the interest of that region within the empire. A region with a absolute monarch or non democratic leadership also just sends a appointed official to represent their interest within the empire. This could maybe work for Britain. I think France would require a mixing of elements of the American and current Russian political system to integrate Africa. I see Britain being pretty indifferent to how local leaders run the place as long as they are loyal and being productive to Britain in some way. France less so on this. French secularism and nationality could make maintaining a empire a bit harder. Britain seems the type to tolerate Sharia law or laws like it in a Muslim area of the empire while France and most other powers seem like they would not be up for that. You might be able to travel more freely between British holdings but laws between could vary greatly and might even change depending on who you are. Maybe a woman from Ireland who is in Oman isn’t expected to follow regional laws regarding women but a local woman is. Doesn’t nations like Lebanon have different laws for people of different religions?

Also you can be democratic in principle and image but not fully in practice. The issue of democracy in large countries that have poorer and less educated populations is how easily third party influences can impact elections in a variety of ways. Brazil and US elections have been filled with corruption and backroom dealings since the first ones were held. This can be used to keep a empire together. Also tying all the regions together to each other economically and militarily makes rebellion harder. If a state like California tried to leave the union the US could cut off vital resources or increase the prices of imports to outrageous rates which makes leaving a very bad decision for them. Militarily, a military organized by regional ties instead of being integrated across the board is more likely to lose to rebellion. If a empire can play on the interest of the elites and them or the elites in charge can keep the population in these areas content then keeping these areas aren’t impossible.
 
Which turns the British empire into the Indian one. If Britain does it just for show with no real power it leads to otl or a violent war of Independence

How do you figure? If, culturally, British norms are still upheld as "proper" or at least as the "primary" culture of the Empire, it's not become the Indian Empire. It's a British Empire that happens to include the Indian peoples as it includes the Welsh, Irish, Australians, etc. and has those people represented more equally in general society.
 
unless they try to pass a very radical law in the region
So would radical law mean anything that threatens the colonizer's economic interests, not to mention many independence movement wanted to strip any form of colonial lordship so what happens to them.

they try to rebel.
That leaves the colonizer the one with all the issues of fighting rebellions which leads to otl or worse.

military.
So Britain shoulders the costs with no benefit.

they appointed to a imperial Parliament to represent the interest of that region within the empire
Which have conflicting interests with Britain and each other

being productive to Britain in some way.
What happens when there not, How much British blood and treasure will be spilled to keep Zambia as an example part of the empire.

You might be able to travel more freely between British holdings
A free movement of people means mass immigration which will in turn leads to people in Britain wanting to cut ties.

If a state like California tried to leave the union the US could cut off vital resources or increase the prices of imports to outrageous rates which makes leaving a very bad decision for them.
Expect it wouldn't matter if the majority of population isn't effected or are willing to bear the cost. Also the majority of the world including those in this hypothetical empire will be indifferent. If California breaks away and the only one willing to anything is Florida, nothing much will come out it.

If a empire can play on the interest of the elites and them or the elites in charge can keep the population in these areas content then keeping these areas aren’t impossible.
This was otl until the traditional elite got over shadowed by the independence or anti-imperialist movements and the local population become hostile
 
Last edited:
How do you figure? If, culturally, British norms are still upheld as "proper" or at least as the "primary" culture of the Empire, it's not become the Indian Empire. It's a British Empire that happens to include the Indian peoples as it includes the Welsh, Irish, Australians, etc. and has those people represented more equally in general society.
Population difference is so extreme. any equal representation means Indians dominate the empire.

1951: Population of India was 361,088,090, Population of Pakistan is 41,347,000. Population of Britain is a 50,616,011.
 
How do you figure? If, culturally, British norms are still upheld as "proper" or at least as the "primary" culture of the Empire, it's not become the Indian Empire. It's a British Empire that happens to include the Indian peoples as it includes the Welsh, Irish, Australians, etc. and has those people represented more equally in general society.
But, Welsh, Irish and Australians were still inferior to the English in England in terms of power. Welsh were being forced to speak English, Irish need no introduction to how they were treated by the English and Scots, and Australia was ultimately of lesser importance to Britain thsn Britain was to itself. Which is to say ig forced to choose between Australia and itself to defend , Britain will always receive first consideration in terms of resources, while Australia will get whatever can be spared. Because in the end, lives in Great Britain were more Important to London than lives in far out Australia. Which is what made the British Empire the British Empire as it is not an empire of Brits, but an empire owned by the Brits.
 
upload_2019-4-21_13-0-42.png

Queen Victoria's grandchildren work together and end result is a world where colonialism still exist.
 
So would radical law mean anything that threatens the colonizer's economic interests, not to mention many independence movement wanted to strip any form of colonial lordship so what happens to them.


That leaves the colonizer the one with all the issues of fighting rebellions which leads to otl or worse.


So Britain shoulders the costs with no benefit.


Which have conflicting interests with Britain and each other


What happens when there not, How much British blood and treasure will be spilled to keep Zambia as an example part of the empire.


A free movement of people means mass immigration which will in turn leads to people in Britain wanting to cut ties.


Expect it wouldn't matter if the majority of population isn't effected or are willing to bear the cost. Also the majority of the world including those in this hypothetical empire will be indifferent. If California breaks away and the only one willing to anything is Florida, nothing much will come out it.


This was otl until the traditional elite got over shadowed by the independence or anti-imperialist movements and the local population become hostile
1. A radical law would be more like ones that could be considered too conflicting. For example, if Britain had the United Arab Emirates as dominion the dominion could have strict religious laws if it wanted within it but it could only apply to Muslims in the country or residents of the dominion. If they started trying to impose it harshly on non-Muslims or people visiting the place that is when it becomes a issue with the British. Basically, let us do us and we let you do as yall please. You create a mutual relationship but one that leans towards Britain at least economically. You work with Britain/London economically and they leave you to your own politically. A lot of economic interest between both of them can overlap. Britain can still be the top one in this relationship but if they make it more beneficial and mutual people are less inclined to speak against it. They have to invest in its empire the way the US used the Marshall Plan to spread their soft power across the world. America benefited the most from the Marshall Plan and gain economic influence over Western Europe but Western Europe can also say they benefited from it. The US foreign policy can be used within the British Empire. Use your money to work with and fund the locals you support the most so they give back to you economically while leaving them to administrate the place almost entirely by themselves. If the locals demand for reform and change is too high Britain comes in to support the leaders of whatever group is trying to take over if they agree to the previous economic agreement. Try to pin all political and social issues on local leadership. Britain tries to depict itself as a mediator and “neutral” figure that can help settle conflicts before it gets worse. Britain support anyone who running the country as long as they don’t break the current relationship between and are actually keeping the place stable.

2. Militarily I’m saying the military should be a mix of all its people spread out across the empire as much as possible. All native military brigades are more likely to flip sides. If Africans troops rebel Arab and Indian ones are there to better prevent this. The British are still using local revenue to fund the military in that region but military administration is just very centralized and integrated between all parts of the empire. You would not have all Irish, African, or Indian brigades who can go rogue in a situation where a rebellion happens.

3. I keep hearing about free movement and within migration but does everyone realize how expensive travel is especially for most of the 1900s? This inward migration is going be major but mostly in places that are connected by land. Somewhere like Algeria might have a lot of Africans going to it looking for jobs and a better living but traveling from Vietnam to French proper or Indians to London would be a huge decision and expensive. You should also consider regional differences. A poor person will have serious problems trying to traveling across the world or overseas especially if the place they are trying to go to is a lot more expensive. The average Mississippian can’t afford to go or live in California even today. If the laws and customs between regions are extremely different that might also might deter immigration to some areas. The places that will see the biggest demographic will be fellow colonies which might help prevent decolonization if they end up too ethnically and religiously divided with no clear majority. The core of the empire especially the Europeans could see more immigration but it will likely be more middle to upper class people from the colonies. Somewhere like England could have 20 percent non Brits at most but given the location and many of these people being within the same empire this might make assimilation of foreign people in the British Isles easier which lessens the impact of immigration.
 
You work with Britain/London economically and they leave you to your own politically.
Whats the point of remaining nominal part of the British empire as opposing being independent with the all benefits of legitimacy and freedom to do what you want.

If the locals demand for reform and change is too high Britain comes in to support the leaders of whatever group is trying to take over if they agree to the previous economic agreement.
So what happens when said group doesn't get into power or is overthrown or democratically elected . Does Britain march in like it's 1890 and angry more of it's technical equal member states.

Try to pin all political and social issues on local leadership. Britain tries to depict itself as a mediator and “neutral” figure that can help settle conflicts before it gets worse
British meddling also a usefully scapegoat not mention and many of these conflicts would be Britain cause.

Militarily I’m saying the military should be a mix of all its people spread out across the empire as much as possible. All native military brigades are more likely to flip sides. If Africans troops rebel Arab and Indian ones are there to better prevent this. The British are still using local revenue to fund the military in that region but military administration is just very centralized and integrated between all parts of the empire
Why would the various leaderships consent to this or the locals tolerate sending their men to die for the British or both Brits and the colonies to pay for this.

If you have a situation where the empire is only nominal, the empire will quickly dissolve due any lack of reason to remain. If it has some teeth than you quickly run up against angry locals and Brits not want waste massive amounts of blood and money on Zambia or Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
1. A radical law would be more like ones that could be considered too conflicting. For example, if Britain had the United Arab Emirates as dominion the dominion could have strict religious laws if it wanted within it but it could only apply to Muslims in the country or residents of the dominion. If they started trying to impose it harshly on non-Muslims or people visiting the place that is when it becomes a issue with the British. Basically, let us do us and we let you do as yall please. You create a mutual relationship but one that leans towards Britain at least economically. You work with Britain/London economically and they leave you to your own politically. A lot of economic interest between both of them can overlap. Britain can still be the top one in this relationship but if they make it more beneficial and mutual people are less inclined to speak against it. They have to invest in its empire the way the US used the Marshall Plan to spread their soft power across the world. America benefited the most from the Marshall Plan and gain economic influence over Western Europe but Western Europe can also say they benefited from it. The US foreign policy can be used within the British Empire. Use your money to work with and fund the locals you support the most so they give back to you economically while leaving them to administrate the place almost entirely by themselves. If the locals demand for reform and change is too high Britain comes in to support the leaders of whatever group is trying to take over if they agree to the previous economic agreement. Try to pin all political and social issues on local leadership. Britain tries to depict itself as a mediator and “neutral” figure that can help settle conflicts before it gets worse. Britain support anyone who running the country as long as they don’t break the current relationship between and are actually keeping the place stable.

2. Militarily I’m saying the military should be a mix of all its people spread out across the empire as much as possible. All native military brigades are more likely to flip sides. If Africans troops rebel Arab and Indian ones are there to better prevent this. The British are still using local revenue to fund the military in that region but military administration is just very centralized and integrated between all parts of the empire. You would not have all Irish, African, or Indian brigades who can go rogue in a situation where a rebellion happens.

3. I keep hearing about free movement and within migration but does everyone realize how expensive travel is especially for most of the 1900s? This inward migration is going be major but mostly in places that are connected by land. Somewhere like Algeria might have a lot of Africans going to it looking for jobs and a better living but traveling from Vietnam to French proper or Indians to London would be a huge decision and expensive. You should also consider regional differences. A poor person will have serious problems trying to traveling across the world or overseas especially if the place they are trying to go to is a lot more expensive. The average Mississippian can’t afford to go or live in California even today. If the laws and customs between regions are extremely different that might also might deter immigration to some areas. The places that will see the biggest demographic will be fellow colonies which might help prevent decolonization if they end up too ethnically and religiously divided with no clear majority. The core of the empire especially the Europeans could see more immigration but it will likely be more middle to upper class people from the colonies. Somewhere like England could have 20 percent non Brits at most but given the location and many of these people being within the same empire this might make assimilation of foreign people in the British Isles easier which lessens the impact of immigration.
  1. This sounds less like a colony and more like a puppet state or protectorate, or like neocolonialism. It really sounds like a more or less independent nation with leaders who are easily bribed. But, anyways that doesn't sound like it could lead to a multicultural anything as it seems like the Brits and Arabs live pretty separately.
  2. I'd say that an easier way to keep native militaries from rebelling would be by keeping then strictly volunteer and by providing good benefits to those who join.
  3. A Britain that is 20% British will still rile a lot of people's feathers. Also, TBH, though I hear that Europeans don't see race, I don't think that's true and I imagine that quite a few will upset to see the idea of their nations becoming browner, to the point that there will most likely be laws put into place to restrict immigration. After all, these empires are built on the justification of Europeans being culturally and racially superior to the natives that they are ruling over. The idea is that the natives are unfit to govern themselves. If an African were to immigrate to Manchester, things aren't going to be peachy. Sure they won't be lynched, but they won't have the same opportunities that a white person would have. An African won't ever be placed in a position that would see them bossing whites as that would upset the colonial dynamic. Also, Brits aren't going to appreciate their tax money going to foreign lands when they have their own issues to throw money at. I mean theoretically , the money that a colony makes could be spent solely on itself, but if it's not sending a penny to a Brit's pocket in some form , then it would mean that the whole actual reason for having colonies in the first place ($) would have changed. This would require a massive philosophical change in British Society in which making money isn't the main goal in life, which is interesting, but I doubt anyone here would be wanting a story on that in this section of the site , because of issues of "realism "( to be blunt I stopped caring about it and I think most people would do well to do the same, in a lot of cases. )
Anyways, as to your question itself, I don't see colonial empires changing all that much in a hundred years. Thanks to the profit motivation of most colonial empires, attempts to improve lives will he very minimal and will just be enough to please the crowed that actually cares enough to complain. Native Languages may well be eradicated under the pretense of improving the native by teaching then to speak the colonial tongue in schools that may well mirror the NA boarding schools in North America, but these schools won't actually be for education, but for producing factory workers. I could see the empires building large welfare states for the metropolitans by ramping up the exploitation of colonial subjects. More apartheid states are likely to be built up. Mixed race children will increase, maybe , in the colonies, but they'll just be illegitimate offspring. Those who aren't abandoned by their fathers will probably be bullied in schools for not being fully white. They'll certainly have complexes of a type, as they won't ever fully fit within either society. But, they'll most likely end up assimilating within white society as they seek white partners to dilute their "bad blood". Eccentrics will probably appropriate native cultures for their own desires, but it won't really be that influential in the metropolitan culture. Probably more genocide against those who try to rebel. Whole villages destroyed as a lesson for insurrection. This world will be more of a white man's world than it already is in otl.
 
Whats the point of remaining nominal part of the British empire as opposing being independent with the all benefits of legitimacy and freedom to do what you want.


So what happens when said group doesn't get into power or is overthrown or democratically elected . Does Britain march in like it's 1890 and angry more of it's technical equal member states.


British meddling also a usefully scapegoat not mention and many of these conflicts would be Britain cause.


Why would the various leaderships consent to this or the locals tolerate sending their men to die for the British or both Brits and the colonies to pay for this.

If you have a situation where the empire is only nominal, the empire will quickly dissolve due any lack of reason to remain. If it has some teeth than you quickly run up against angry locals and Brits not want waste massive amounts of blood and money on Zambia or Pakistan.
Honestly, there needs to be a name for these type of threads. They remind me of those "Notsis" threads. Just like how people want Nazi Germanys without the Nazism in those threads, it seems here, people want the colonial empires , without all the nasty parts that being a colonial empire entails.
 
Population difference is so extreme. any equal representation means Indians dominate the empire.

1951: Population of India was 361,088,090, Population of Pakistan is 41,347,000. Population of Britain is a 50,616,011.

Who said anything of equal representation? That wasn't the suggestion made, merely that Indian nobility be invited somewhat into the British nobility. These are not the same things.

But, Welsh, Irish and Australians were still inferior to the English in England in terms of power. Welsh were being forced to speak English, Irish need no introduction to how they were treated by the English and Scots, and Australia was ultimately of lesser importance to Britain thsn Britain was to itself. Which is to say ig forced to choose between Australia and itself to defend , Britain will always receive first consideration in terms of resources, while Australia will get whatever can be spared. Because in the end, lives in Great Britain were more Important to London than lives in far out Australia. Which is what made the British Empire the British Empire as it is not an empire of Brits, but an empire owned by the Brits.

I'm kinda missing your point here. This has little to do with the concept of opening up the nobility to Indians within the British Empire. Especially if we assume that this is a scenario where the racial theories that guided the West for so long either don't exist or aren't as strong, it can set up a situation where the division in power is more class-based than race-based. Meaning we have high-class, and perhaps even some royal British Indians who remain loyal to the Empire, and lower-class British Indians who are less loyal. Not a truly tenable situation forever, but I think it could work to some extent.
 
Maybe Liberal inclusive British Empire with absence of racial theories invites Indian princes and other native nobility to become members of the House of Lords, Dukes and earls and commanding generals of the British Army. Maybe Alexander like events like the mass-marriage of British officers with Indians vice versa.
You've just rewritten human nature.

Ignoring the transplant of radically liberal thoughts onto 19th century Victorians, you have these Britons acting against their own interests.

Empire has one goal - enriching the heartland. Actually, mostly just enriching and empowering the heartland's elite. A British Empire that indistrialises India, enfranchises its people, and incoporates Indian elites into the House of Lord's is a self defeating Empire.

Instead of reaping the rewards of conquest and captive markets, the politicians in charge now need to compromise and deal with Indians representing millions more people. Those people voting render the votes and concerns of Briton voters irrelevant. Indian factories just compete with the Briton labourers who no longer have a cozy captive market to dump their goods on.

It's very hard to have a British Empire ruling over millions of non-whites in Asia be inclusive and equality based - because that sort of Britain wouldn't also ruthlessly conquer a continent.
 
Who said anything of equal representation? That wasn't the suggestion made, merely that Indian nobility be invited somewhat into the British nobility. These are not the same things.



I'm kinda missing your point here. This has little to do with the concept of opening up the nobility to Indians within the British Empire. Especially if we assume that this is a scenario where the racial theories that guided the West for so long either don't exist or aren't as strong, it can set up a situation where the division in power is more class-based than race-based. Meaning we have high-class, and perhaps even some royal British Indians who remain loyal to the Empire, and lower-class British Indians who are less loyal. Not a truly tenable situation forever, but I think it could work to some extent.
I mean I guess, but that takes some major handwaving that will lessen the plausibility of the whole thing, effectively turning it into ourmtright fiction. Which I'm okay with, but at that point it needs to be acknowledged as outright fiction. Which in my experience in this site, I get the feeling people aren't looking for outright fiction, but actual alternate timelines.
 
I mean I guess, but that takes some major handwaving that will lessen the plausibility of the whole thing, effectively turning it into ourmtright fiction. Which I'm okay with, but at that point it needs to be acknowledged as outright fiction. Which in my experience in this site, I get the feeling people aren't looking for outright fiction, but actual alternate timelines.

Agreed that it requires quite a bit of handwaving, but i'm not sure it's necessarily fiction. It would probably require such a powerful POD that, admittedly, any British Empire we'd end up seeing would look quite different. But as others have made mention towards, they (or any other Empire) could take an Alexander-style approach to empire and seek to draw their own people, and conquered people, together in the name of creating a new culture.

How you get there is beyond me, but it could happen.
 
Honestly, there needs to be a name for these type of threads. They remind me of those "Notsis" threads. Just like how people want Nazi Germanys without the Nazism in those threads, it seems here, people want the colonial empires , without all the nasty parts that being a colonial empire entails.
I’m not trying to ignore the more nasty parts of colonial empires. I think that is what makes this interesting and should be included. I think full on utopias are the most unrealistic thing and kind of boring. I’m more trying to examine a transition in how the dynamic of colonialism changes into the 1900s and 2000s. I am wondering if empires could go back to how they were before racial science and thought. This means empire sees things more along culture and class lines. The transition between racial ideas could be slow and take time but I think the empires of the last century could develop like this with the absence of a devastating conflict. Also the empire doesn’t have to be a Europe one. It can be Japan but honestly they could actually end up being more racial then the European empires if they continued on.

The point is racial ideas and the world wars are probably the major two reasons I think for the end of old school empires. I’m not saying these empire will be humane but less guided by racial ideas as the century progresses. Imperialism is now depicted as necessary to “world order”, “balance power” and “prosperity”. Think more back to empires like Rome, Greece, and the classical era. You still have cultural conflicts but the element of race is gone or lessen. Maybe have being British considered going into the 2000s be seen as more cultural. Africans and Asians who act, identify, and present themselves as British are treated as such or at least more equal while ones who don’t aren’t treated the same. Empires that want to survive the 1900s try two methods assimilation when possible or selective multiculturalism. Basically, groups that show loyalty to the empire are given benefits and privileges while ones who don’t are exploited or oppressed. It would be like American blacks considering themselves better then Africans because they are “westernized” and part of American culture or British considering Indian Hindus more equal to Brits while Indian Muslims are not. That’s the major difference between a cultural and racial outlook. Both can be considered bigoted and bias but a racial outlook would see someone like Africans as inferior by biology which makes them unredeemable and incapable of progress or self governance while a cultural outlook does not see it this way. A cultural outlook would see these people as being behind or being “uncivilized” and in need of “uplifting”. A cultural outlook leans more towards assimilation and thinks with guidance these people can be brought up to similar or even equal status. There are people in the 1800s and 1900s century who thought like this.

I was reading one book about Britain that discussed the Indian Mutiny and colonial developments. Before the Indian Mutiny Britain or the East Indies company at the time did take a more assimilation approach to India. A more racial policy took place after the rebellion. Queen Victoria even stated some of her opposition to some of the more brutal responses to the rebellion by British forces. One source from before the rebellion compared British imperialism to Rome. It said Brits were barbarians in loincloths before Rome and Christianity brought civilization to Britain. The source then went on to say how it was now Britain mission to do the same in India and across the empire. The rebellion shifted Britain in favor of the more racial view then the cultural and class one. If a more cultural outlook overtook the racial one then Indians and eventually Africans could be treated more like the Irish which means they are treated unequally unless they assimilate enough. Someone who sees thing long cultural lines would say Japan westernizing is the perfect example of a non-European people becoming “civilized” or equal from adopting western culture. The issue with the racial system of the 1800s and 1900s century is it makes it a lot harder to maintain a empire due to not being able to assimilate or integrate the local elites well.
 
Top