Notions of race in an East Asian centric world

Southern Chinese often believe they are the "pure, authentic" Chinese, since many of them are descendents of refugees from the waves of invasions by nomads from the north. This is confirmed by their body features being supposedly more conducive to an agricultural life as opposed to the nomadic life (rounder eyes for a clearer view of the crops, stronger arms to work in the fields and for martial arts, shorter height to better reach down).

Of course the irony is that the southern Chinese are themselves the product of mixing with the indigenous Tai, Hmong, and Austronesian peoples of southern China, who were previously despised as barbarians by the Chinese peoples of the Yellow River basin.

ITTL, the idealized racial features would be anything that is supposedly conducive to agricultural sedentary life. So, darker skinned southern Indians would be viewed as superior to lighter skinned northern Indians. Turks and Mongols would be despised as inferior due to their complete inability to create any culture and only destroy it.

Over time, these desired racial features will be transposed into other civilizations. Among Europeans, Greeks and Italians would be at the top, since they "racially proved" themselves to be capable of forming prestigious civilizations. French and Spaniards would be next, as although they speak Romance languages, they are contaminated by Germanic Huns. Then come the southern Germans and English, who while racially are "inferior", do have the redeeming aspect of Roman history and early conversion to Christianity. The Nordics would come dead last, as they were the last to convert to Christianity, still practice paganism to a large extent, and have supposed racial features making them incapable of anything but raiding and pillaging civilized peoples.
 
Also, I have to disagree with the idea that East Asians would be less aggressive than Europeans simply because there'd be more of them. Humans push and push until they encounter insurmountable limits. There's no reason to think that the Chinese wouldn't be as rapacious if they decided to colonize the Americas.
 
No matter what, the fundamental distinction would be between the civilized East Asians and everyone else.

It depends on the dynasty, but a world dominated by a Han-ruled China, like some incarnation of the Song, would tend towards a more European-like view of race, in which non-East Asian peoples are virtually biologically inferior, uncivilizable, unsavalgeable (this was how the Ming elite viewed the Mongols, and why they were so reluctant about making peace with the Mongols; they didn't believe the Mongols had the humanity necessary to honor peace treaties). A world dominated by a Chinese dynasty founded by foreigners (say an alt-Qing) would tend towards a more cultural view of "race" in which East Asia has a mission civilisatrice towards the many barbarian peoples of the world, since this was actually how the Qing justified their control of China -- by pointing out that Chinese and Confucian civilization had reached its furthest geographical extent under the Qing, despite their admittedly barbarian origins.
If the dominance of East Asia is coupled by the single handed dominance of China, would the Japanese and Korean be considered that much better than others?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
That's not what I meant. Asians lived in places with conducive climate and for the most part secure and hence empires dominant from there would not feel as insecure as European Empires felt as the White population was and is not very high in the World's share. If Whites had been the dominant race in East,South and Central Asia,they would have been more peaceful. Alternatively if the more numerous Asians were dominant in the World,this wouldn't have happened to this extent too.
I stand informed since that post was made. I was only half right. If the Asians were as dominant as Rome and Indo-European empires though OTL they were never were,they might have absorbed the the surrounding peoples as it happened in Europe. Because of abundance of resources in Asia and the vast territory Asians have in control then and now,the Wars in Europe that took place wouldn't have happened to that intensity in the homeland. Alternatively if Europeans had been dominant in China(Kushans/Tocharians/Iranians),Central Asia,India,North Africa and Middle East as they were in ancient era,in this case too,the wars wouldn't have happened as well. Give global superiority to a race but make that race dominant and stable numerically too. Europeans or Asians,if hit this combination can make the World more peaceful in any given timeline. But once choice of features is available, Caucasian features will win anyway.

What, EXACTLY, do you base both of these remarkable posts on?

I'm giving you an opportunity here. You have until this time tomorrow (19:00 ZULU) to expand.
 

zhropkick

Banned
This would seem to imply that Asians are incapable of comprable barbarism.
Fun fact: in OTL's WW2, there were several occasions (atrocities against civilians, human experimentation) in which the Japanese were so barbaric even the Nazi leadership criticised them.
Loading the East Asians or any other people for that matter up with the idea that they're the race on top will take you to very bad places, especially if they happen to be at war with a group of people their racial ideology looks down upon.
 
If the dominance of East Asia is coupled by the single handed dominance of China, would the Japanese and Korean be considered that much better than others?
Korea was the only nation that consistently took the tributary state system seriously, and it proudly gave itself the epithet "Little China". So Korea would do very well in a Chinese-dominated world. It might form its own colonial empire under China's tacit protection, like the Netherlands to China being Britain.

As for Japan, my guess is that if all of East Asia industrializes simultaneously, there would be a gentleman's agreement where Japan would receive free reign over the Pacific while China gets the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean (and Europe and the Atlantic). Japan's rapid expansion into the Americas would thus be taken as proof that the Japanese people are racially equal to the Chinese.
 
There are more marriages between white men and East Asian women than between white women and East Asian men. Does that say something about preferences of beauty?
 
There are more marriages between white men and East Asian women than between white women and East Asian men. Does that say something about preferences of beauty?
Sure, but there are far, far more marriages between East Asian women and East Asian men, even among Asian-Americans, so what's your point?

Also, if there was a historical preference of European features in China, you would expect a large percentage of concubines to have been from Western China or Central Asia, and to my knowledge that wasn't the case.
 
Because of abundance of resources in Asia and the vast territory Asians have in control then and now,the Wars in Europe that took place wouldn't have happened to that intensity in the homeland.
Given how much of Japan's aggression was over resources I'm going to have to doubt this.

Give global superiority to a race but make that race dominant and stable numerically too. Europeans or Asians,if hit this combination can make the World more peaceful in any given timeline.
Stable sure, but you said that race relations would be better, and that's not the same thing.
 

samcster94

Banned
Also, I have to disagree with the idea that East Asians would be less aggressive than Europeans simply because there'd be more of them. Humans push and push until they encounter insurmountable limits. There's no reason to think that the Chinese wouldn't be as rapacious if they decided to colonize the Americas.
Why would be any less brutal??? Look at the 20th century history of China in OTL. Japan killed a bunch of people there and then Mao killed a bunch of his own people there after taking over.
 

Julio92

Banned
What, EXACTLY, do you base both of these remarkable posts on?

I'm giving you an opportunity here. You have until this time tomorrow (19:00 ZULU) to expand.


The understanding I'm gleaning from the first quote is that "white" dominated colonial structures were so brutal because the population dynamics forced the colonists to be brutal to keep control of a population they were wildly outnumbered by in Asia; on that same note, the population dynamics would be different if a nearby demographically larger polity ruled such territories, they wouldn't have to be as brutal about it to keep the colonies in control.

And I'm not sure what the second one is saying but I think its trying to convey that if one single race is dominant over the lands its trying to hold there would be less strife and war (presumably because of lessened ethnic tensions) between the ruled and the rulers. And if the East Asian polities had been as dominant compared to their neighbors as the western/iranian empires were (presumably" because they were surrounded only by "barbarians") that they would have assimilated them into the "People"/Nation/Volk.


I don't quite agree with his points, but I think I see what he is saying. A charitable interpretation of people's posts wouldn't hurt in creating a fostering atmosphere for good discussion Calbear.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
@Julio92 Has cleared the point to you. That's my point exactly. Such a timeline is possible where either White(western and Iranian empires combined) are numerical superiority or Asians who already had numerical superiority were dominant as Indo-Europeans. I can easily imagine a timeline where White Indo-Europeans get a majority in Indian subcontinent,Central Asia and most of China,Korea and Mongolia. In OTL,Asians populate Mongolia,lot of Central Asia,Southeast Asia and the entire far East(Japan and Korea) while Whites are in good numver only in Europe,Caucasus and Iran in the old World OTL and large invasions inbetween cut off the touch they could maintain and the loss of central Asia in 8-9th Century AD Circa did it's bit too. These states were not quite united as in Europe,but in a World where Asians dominate with this demography,you can expect them to be united vis-a-vis Europe in OTL. I am sure there might be other probabilities but this seems likely. I am sure I have clarified this to you within the given time frame :) !
 
Korea was the only nation that consistently took the tributary state system seriously, and it proudly gave itself the epithet "Little China". So Korea would do very well in a Chinese-dominated world. It might form its own colonial empire under China's tacit protection, like the Netherlands to China being Britain.

As for Japan, my guess is that if all of East Asia industrializes simultaneously, there would be a gentleman's agreement where Japan would receive free reign over the Pacific while China gets the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean (and Europe and the Atlantic). Japan's rapid expansion into the Americas would thus be taken as proof that the Japanese people are racially equal to the Chinese.
As far as I know, Joseon Korea's Sinocentrism got kicked up a knock after the Qing Conquest and only referred to themselves as 'Little China' after the Ming collapsed to the 'barbarian' Manchu. Before that, Joseon Korea had a bit of a complicated relationship with the Ming, with the tributary relation mostly being strategic rather than for 'filial' reasons. Yi Seonggye (Taejo) and the Hongwu Emperor had openly antagonistic relations in the early days (Taejo having taken the throne by way of coup) and the Ming spent 3 months deliberating whether to bailout the Joseon when Toyotomi Hideyoshi invaded. As for the Goryeo, they nearly went to war with the early Ming (only averted by Taejo's coup) over the Liaodong peninsula.

As for Japan, its role in the Sinosphere's was always a bit unclear. Occasionally sending tribute missions, once or twice being threatened by the Ming before fighting a ruinous war with them, and having one shogun granted the title of 'King' by the Ming Emperor, but otherwise not really having too many diplomatic ties, friendly or hostile. If East Asia industrialises, I'd say that the Chinese are most likely going to try to assert their dominance over the Japanese, who aren't quite used to being Chinese subjects and having their emperor prostrate himself to another emperor, and that would lead to quite poor relations in the manner of the English and French (the former demographically outnumbered, the latter busy on other fronts).

So the former would depend on dynasty and how well Korea is doing (the better the Korean peninsula is doing in relation to the Chinese, the more they'll be pursuing geopolitical goals that might challenge Sino-supremacy) and the latter would probably not go too nicely in the diplomatic sense.
The understanding I'm gleaning from the first quote is that "white" dominated colonial structures were so brutal because the population dynamics forced the colonists to be brutal to keep control of a population they were wildly outnumbered by in Asia; on that same note, the population dynamics would be different if a nearby demographically larger polity ruled such territories, they wouldn't have to be as brutal about it to keep the colonies in control.

And I'm not sure what the second one is saying but I think its trying to convey that if one single race is dominant over the lands its trying to hold there would be less strife and war (presumably because of lessened ethnic tensions) between the ruled and the rulers. And if the East Asian polities had been as dominant compared to their neighbors as the western/iranian empires were (presumably" because they were surrounded only by "barbarians") that they would have assimilated them into the "People"/Nation/Volk.


I don't quite agree with his points, but I think I see what he is saying. A charitable interpretation of people's posts wouldn't hurt in creating a fostering atmosphere for good discussion Calbear.
That doesn't quite explain the repeated references to somewhat questionable things as below:
But Caucasians have a genetic edge here because Humans tend to go by clear and sharp facial and body features for decoding on attractiveness. Yes there maybe exceptions but this is the norm. Intelligence wise,Asians and Whites have the same as both evolved in similar conditions. So a few good aspects of Asian features and features from other races as well will be taken but base will be Caucasian only in all probability in the Transhumanist era.
Forgive me for being a bit judgmental but this
But once choice of features is available, Caucasian features will win anyway.
and this reek a bit of 1930s racial science, just with the addition of 'Transhumanism' as a modern buzzword.

Anyways, with how diverse China is in the ethnic sense, 56 ethnic groups, and how many of the dynasties had non-Han roots (including Gaozu of the Tang dynasty, which isn't considered one of the conquest dynasties), it'd probably be as others have said in reference to how civilized the peoples seem. At the same time, the Mongols had their ethnic based caste system during the Yuan, so discrimination in that sense isn't new to East Asia.

Just because East Asia has a higher population doesn't necessarily mean more lenient colonialism, though. The Japanese, in both the 1590s invasions and the 20th century colonial period, had a rather mean streak (enslaving quite a few people in conquered regions in both eras, despite bans on enslaving and selling Japanese peoples, plus the treatment of the Ainu over the centuries) and the Chinese had a couple of genocides throughout history (the Dzungar genocide, as mentioned previously, and the extermination of the Jie people). Not even to mention WWII and the period afterwards, which saw racially motivated atrocities and oppression despite demographic advantages over the conquered.
 
Korea was the only nation that consistently took the tributary state system seriously, and it proudly gave itself the epithet "Little China". So Korea would do very well in a Chinese-dominated world. It might form its own colonial empire under China's tacit protection, like the Netherlands to China being Britain.

As for Japan, my guess is that if all of East Asia industrializes simultaneously, there would be a gentleman's agreement where Japan would receive free reign over the Pacific while China gets the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean (and Europe and the Atlantic). Japan's rapid expansion into the Americas would thus be taken as proof that the Japanese people are racially equal to the Chinese.
The relations ship between Netherlands and Britain was far less one-sided than the one between China and Korea, in any case I have hard time believing a colonization by Korea and Japan would be possible, the first countries that would steamrolled by a expansionistic China would be clearly the East and South-East Asian ones, not some far away territory.

It would Chinese colonization by proxy at best IMO.
 
Top