Notions of race in an East Asian centric world

Im not inclined to think that East Asian colonial racism would neccesarily be the same.

Racism as we know it in the European era, as others have pointed out, was very political and circumstantial.
So for example, John Locke (if memorry serves, I may have the wrong person) wrote works on the philosophy of property which conveniantly supported his own colonial holdings in the US. In many ways, it was the justification used by Locke and later the US to take away land and property from the native americans as they were not taken as "using" that property, when in reality they just had a different standard of property.

In particular, this was something of a death knell for Nomadic groups, with both Russia and the US gaining considerable resources and land without any of the common political treatment (i.e. declaring war) and instead through defending expansion into Nomadic lands as if they were not used, violently.

If say China is the dominant figure in such a colonial era, its going to have a very different response to such scenarios. Namely, Chinese political power was tied up in diplomatic recognition of nomadic groups untill the Russians signed the death knell of Eurasian Nomadic life.

If I had to guess, Chinese colonialism of the Americas would be a lot more mercantile and (for lack of a better term) Feudal. Chinese immigrants would of course exist, but I imagine that like with the Steppes peoples, the Native Americans would be propped up, used as pawns and expected to pay tribute as opposed to directly conquering the lands themselves.
 
It's difficult to generalise about China - which China dynasty is probably the first question. Is China fragmented or is it a unitary state. Probably more importantly is it recognisably more advanced from a scientific and/or governmental perspective than it's neighbours. If it is then I would see no reason why some form of racial preference / belief in superiority / racism would not grow against it neighbours.

Unless someone is actually saying that only Europeans are racists or could be racist. Which is practically a racist assertion in itself.

A fragmented China threatened by its neighbours may go as far preferring East Asian cultures and communities but developing full blown racism against all comers would seem unlikely, if only for self preservation!
 
I feel that within this world, racism would be more based on culture, rather than race. With the Europeans, slavery used to be justified on the basis that the slaves were not Christian, but once those slaves would end up inevitably Christianized, and thus couldn't be enslaved since Christians weren't supposed to enslave other Christians, the Europeans had to come up with another reason for why it would be justified to enslave blacks, which would be that their physical features make it that they are inferior to Europeans, and that they were more like animals than humans, as a result. By dehumanizing or subhumanizing blacks, Europeans could justify their enslavement of them by saying that it was similar to domestication of animals. And when the Europeans started to colonize other peoples, the justification of racial, and also cultural and spiritual inferiority, would be used to justify the occupation of foreign lands by saying that it was good for the natives to be under European "guidance" when really it was all a front for exploitation. But, it seems that ultimately, the root of European-style racism came from that contrast of how Christians should treat everyone with compassion, especially fellow Christians, but when it came down to it, these Christians still wanted to exploit people, and so they would have to find other reasons beyond religion, that would justify their exploitation because even though the Christians would still try to convert the natives of various colonies, they weren't going to suddenly stop exploiting the natives just because they were Christian now, as they got too drunk on the profits to ever stop wholesale.

I can't see the Chinese ever deciding to go out of their way to enslave foreign peoples, if only because everything they could ever want was already in China. And if it wasn't they could just trade for it. They also lack Christianity telling them to be nice to everyone, or at least to everyone who's also Christian, so I can't see them ever trying to come up with reasons to justify exploiting people, as I don't think there's anything in Chinese philosophy that says they shouldn't, although there's also nothing that says that they should. These are all the ramblings of a layperson, so be free to correct me if I am wrong.
 
I feel that within this world, racism would be more based on culture, rather than race. With the Europeans, slavery used to be justified on the basis that the slaves were not Christian, but once those slaves would end up inevitably Christianized, and thus couldn't be enslaved since Christians weren't supposed to enslave other Christians, the Europeans had to come up with another reason for why it would be justified to enslave blacks, which would be that their physical features make it that they are inferior to Europeans, and that they were more like animals than humans, as a result. By dehumanizing or subhumanizing blacks, Europeans could justify their enslavement of them by saying that it was similar to domestication of animals. And when the Europeans started to colonize other peoples, the justification of racial, and also cultural and spiritual inferiority, would be used to justify the occupation of foreign lands by saying that it was good for the natives to be under European "guidance" when really it was all a front for exploitation. But, it seems that ultimately, the root of European-style racism came from that contrast of how Christians should treat everyone with compassion, especially fellow Christians, but when it came down to it, these Christians still wanted to exploit people, and so they would have to find other reasons beyond religion, that would justify their exploitation because even though the Christians would still try to convert the natives of various colonies, they weren't going to suddenly stop exploiting the natives just because they were Christian now, as they got too drunk on the profits to ever stop wholesale.

I can't see the Chinese ever deciding to go out of their way to enslave foreign peoples, if only because everything they could ever want was already in China. And if it wasn't they could just trade for it. They also lack Christianity telling them to be nice to everyone, or at least to everyone who's also Christian, so I can't see them ever trying to come up with reasons to justify exploiting people, as I don't think there's anything in Chinese philosophy that says they shouldn't, although there's also nothing that says that they should. These are all the ramblings of a layperson, so be free to correct me if I am wrong.
To correct you, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism all have good treatment of others as pretty core.

Confucianism has the concept of human heartedness, by which one acts out of a filial love to others and justfiying various relationship obligations. Whilst it is far from egalitarian, there is an understanding of altruism as core to confucian relations, particularly as it is one of many sources for the Golden Rule.

Buddhism, in particular the variants in the Mahayana tradition, have as a core concept of Sunyata (emptiness) which with the doctrine of co-dependent origination (which must be understood in context of and as a defining factor in the former) gives rise not only to a collective sense of self, but also the idea of the Bodhissatva, he who stays in Samsara to end the suffering of all beings. This is further compounded by the doctrine of Buddha nature which implies a respect for all beings as having the potential for enlightenment (ok there is a lot more to it than that, but I wouls he writing an essay at this point).


Taoism's three Chis have made it anarchistic, with the supreme state of being having no positions of authority.
 
To correct you, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism all have good treatment of others as pretty core.

Confucianism has the concept of human heartedness, by which one acts out of a filial love to others and justfiying various relationship obligations. Whilst it is far from egalitarian, there is an understanding of altruism as core to confucian relations, particularly as it is one of many sources for the Golden Rule.

Buddhism, in particular the variants in the Mahayana tradition, have as a core concept of Sunyata (emptiness) which with the doctrine of co-dependent origination (which must be understood in context of and as a defining factor in the former) gives rise not only to a collective sense of self, but also the idea of the Bodhissatva, he who stays in Samsara to end the suffering of all beings. This is further compounded by the doctrine of Buddha nature which implies a respect for all beings as having the potential for enlightenment (ok there is a lot more to it than that, but I wouls he writing an essay at this point).


Taoism's three Chis have made it anarchistic, with the supreme state of being having no positions of authority.
New Testament Christianity is pretty explicit on "love thy neighbour" - I don't think religion has much to do with racism either as a positive or a negative factor. It will be used to support whichever prejudices the group has.
 
New Testament Christianity is pretty explicit on "love thy neighbour" - I don't think religion has much to do with racism either as a positive or a negative factor. It will be used to support whichever prejudices the group has.
Just to be clear, I was not saying universalist sentiment was unique to China, but that Christianity was not unique in its universalism.
 
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.
The OP stated an "East Asian centric world" instead of a strict "Sino centric world", implying that at least Japan is a relatively independent power in its own right.

My TL has the Ming industrializing during the Japanese Sengoku period, causing various Ming merchants egged on by the Imperial Court to sell weapons to every Japanese warlord. The Japanese are thus quickly familiarized with industrialization even if they're unable to implement it.

Then the Ming collapses into a decades-long civil war. Japan is now reunited under Shogunate X, which reforms the economy and military along industrial lines. Initially, it tries to invade Korea, but loses just like Hideyoshi. Then the Shogun decides to try his luck by exploring the Pacific Ocean.

30 years later, China is finally reunited under a new dynasty which for the first time bases itself on a written constitution. It is now in a position to resume its overseas empire building, coexisting with an independent Japanese empire. After one or more crises involving say Luzon or the Moluccas, the two empires reach a gentleman's agreement.

If say China is the dominant figure in such a colonial era, its going to have a very different response to such scenarios. Namely, Chinese political power was tied up in diplomatic recognition of nomadic groups untill the Russians signed the death knell of Eurasian Nomadic life.

If I had to guess, Chinese colonialism of the Americas would be a lot more mercantile and (for lack of a better term) Feudal. Chinese immigrants would of course exist, but I imagine that like with the Steppes peoples, the Native Americans would be propped up, used as pawns and expected to pay tribute as opposed to directly conquering the lands themselves.
California will for sure resemble a dense Asian river valley within a century, as will probably the Pacific Northwest. At least Queensland will resemble the southern Chinese coast. But if they discover Mediterranean crops, then all of Australia becomes a Chinese settlement colony. Maybe the Cape, and maybe Argentina become settlement colonies. The Eastern US has very similar climates as China, but it's way too far away.

The Company will be content with extracting ransom tribute from the Kings, Sultans, Rajahs, and Emirs of India, Europe, Persia, and Arabia. Maybe some strategic islands are formally annexed, but they largely avoid occupying territory themselves. But this outsourcing won't be possible in some parts of Africa and America due to a lack of pre-existing organized states, which becomes the basis of racism towards their people.

So it all depends on the area's geography, suitability of East Asian mass migration, and the existence of pre-existing organized states.

My TL has Chinese/Japanese settlers reaching the western banks of the Mississippi where they start rice-growing. Initially, they are content with building railways to the Pacific and leaving the nomadic tribes largely alone as long as they respect the railway. Over time, the tribes become sedentary and settle in railway towns, which eventually grow into cities.

The East Asian settlers on the western banks of the Mississippi haven an uneasy but peaceful coexistence with Romanian settlers on the eastern banks who brought "contract workers" from Africa. Neither the Mikado in Kyoto, nor the Emperor in JingShi, nor the Hapsburg Emperor in Vienna, could care less about this dispute.
 
The OP stated an "East Asian centric world" instead of a strict "Sino centric world", implying that at least Japan is a relatively independent power in its own right.

My TL has the Ming industrializing during the Japanese Sengoku period, causing various Ming merchants egged on by the Imperial Court to sell weapons to every Japanese warlord. The Japanese are thus quickly familiarized with industrialization even if they're unable to implement it.

Then the Ming collapses into a decades-long civil war. Japan is now reunited under Shogunate X, which reforms the economy and military along industrial lines. Initially, it tries to invade Korea, but loses just like Hideyoshi. Then the Shogun decides to try his luck by exploring the Pacific Ocean.

30 years later, China is finally reunited under a new dynasty which for the first time bases itself on a written constitution. It is now in a position to resume its overseas empire building, coexisting with an independent Japanese empire. After one or more crises involving say Luzon or the Moluccas, the two empires reach a gentleman's agreement.
I find this quite implausible, either Japan is going for the relatively useless Pacific islands totally not even touching Ryukyu, Taiwan and the Philippines, which is less and less like a colonial empire than really a very small consolation prize, or they will enter into conflict with China, especially over Luzon.

China is not going to reach a gentleman's agreement with such a smaller nation that in the last decades was multiple times aggressive against its own sphere of influence. Either you have a divided China or the balance is going to be tipped in favour of China hegemony, as it has about 4/5 of the entire population of East Asia(just China proper that is and East Asia includes all of Manchuria, Japan, Korea, Tibet and Xinjiang) and also the industrial edge, if should in theory steamroll(pun intended) over their own land backyard and from there I'm not sure what Japan is able to do when China has a colonial empire and clearly has the capacity for naval warfare.
 
Confucianism has the concept of human heartedness, by which one acts out of a filial love to others and justfiying various relationship obligations. Whilst it is far from egalitarian, there is an understanding of altruism as core to confucian relations, particularly as it is one of many sources for the Golden Rule.

And just as a parent must correct their child even when the child resists, so glorious Zhongguo must correct the wayward barbarians from their backwards culture even when they resist. Yes, perhaps they don't like 'freely' giving tribute to the imperial court, and don't like paying the taxes for the fortresses and soldiers that protect this tribute system, but this is just the necessary steps to bring them into the Chinese cultural orbit to unite All Under Heaven! They'll be so grateful in a few generations, and the fact that this system enriches Chinese adventurers immensely...well, that's just a bonus.
 
I find this quite implausible, either Japan is going for the relatively useless Pacific islands totally not even touching Ryukyu, Taiwan and the Philippines, which is less and less like a colonial empire than really a very small consolation prize, or they will enter into conflict with China, especially over Luzon.

China is not going to reach a gentleman's agreement with such a smaller nation that in the last decades was multiple times aggressive against its own sphere of influence. Either you have a divided China or the balance is going to be tipped in favour of China hegemony, as it has about 4/5 of the entire population of East Asia(just China proper that is and East Asia includes all of Manchuria, Japan, Korea, Tibet and Xinjiang) and also the industrial edge, if should in theory steamroll(pun intended) over their own land backyard and from there I'm not sure what Japan is able to do when China has a colonial empire and clearly has the capacity for naval warfare.
What's so implausible? This Japan will have discovered the Aztec and Inca who are rich beyond their wildest dreams. Even assuming this was without the near-ASB levels of luck of the conquistadors, this would instantly change the worldview of the entire Japanese nation. Why risk confronting the only hegemon we've ever known for marginal islands when we have all the gold and silver for our taking? We are now the Middle Kingdom, and the Kings of the Aztecs and the Inca must pay tribute to our Mikado. If we're feeling generous we might recognize the Sapa Inca as our younger brother. Banzai!

My TL also has several rival Chinese trading companies, with the Emperor's own navy merely a glorified coast guard. Together these trading fleets would be unbeatable, but they're not. This by default turns the Pacific into a Japanese lake.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
Here is a really helpful suggestion:

When a Mod is trying to decide if it is the right thing to Ban someone, and has decided to give the individual an opportunity to explain what they mean, let them.

As far as charitable, I was being very charitable, considering the half dozen reports made by the individual, which have been added to since I made my initial post. Had I not been more than willing to allow the poster to explain himself I would have grabbed the Hammer yesterday.

Now, thanks to your post I am still unsure what the member actually meant, since his "explanation" comes down to "ya, what he said".
 
And just as a parent must correct their child even when the child resists, so glorious Zhongguo must correct the wayward barbarians from their backwards culture even when they resist. Yes, perhaps they don't like 'freely' giving tribute to the imperial court, and don't like paying the taxes for the fortresses and soldiers that protect this tribute system, but this is just the necessary steps to bring them into the Chinese cultural orbit to unite All Under Heaven! They'll be so grateful in a few generations, and the fact that this system enriches Chinese adventurers immensely...well, that's just a bonus.
Im not arguing that Confucianism cant be used as a justification to do bad things. All religions can. I was merely giving examples of how Christianity was not unique in having universalist values.
 
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?
Most ethnic/religious groups are more forgiving of outgroup partnering when it's the man that does it. I'd say that the disproportionate pairings have more to do with Euro-American dominance/colonialism and the phenomenon of mail-order brides than it does with Asian women finding white men more physically attractive.
 
I would say basically the same as our world today, since the notions of race mainly came up with colonialism and imperialism, if we have an East Asia aggressively colonizing and exploiting the world as much as the Europeans die, there's nothing stopping them to be as racist as Europe was.

Eventually I think other Asians such as Indians, Malays would probably be treated as how Irish and Italians were treated in the US, first discriminated but later accepted.

East Asians would probably be the "main" race, but I think Asia as a whole will have a smaller proportion of the world population (probably around ~30% give or take) since they would immigrate to the New World, skip the huge population burst from 1950-2000 (which Europe and Africa would be the one to experience) from industrializing first. Overall "Asian" countries would still probably have around 40% of the world population, with new world colonies included.
 
If say China is the dominant figure in such a colonial era, its going to have a very different response to such scenarios. Namely, Chinese political power was tied up in diplomatic recognition of nomadic groups untill the Russians signed the death knell of Eurasian Nomadic life.

If I had to guess, Chinese colonialism of the Americas would be a lot more mercantile and (for lack of a better term) Feudal. Chinese immigrants would of course exist, but I imagine that like with the Steppes peoples, the Native Americans would be propped up, used as pawns and expected to pay tribute as opposed to directly conquering the lands themselves.

I wouldn't totally discount such cultural influence of traditions dealing with Eurasian nomads, however we're talking here about steppe groups who had probably over two thousand years of military and cultural co-evolution with Han China, who occupied largely marginal agricultural land, and constantly posed a direct military threat to China. I think you'd have to look at how much we can assume that would provide a model for China for dealing with cultures that did not have that cultural evolution, did not pose that military threat to China, and occupied settleable agricultural land. It seems like a very distant analogy to me. China hasn't had any problem colonizing its west and south* with massive migrations of Han Chinese, whenever that balance has clearly been on the side of the Han and where agriculture, trade and mineral extraction has been enough to make that practicable.

*Xinjiang, Tibet, Sichuan, Taiwan, Manchuria. Possibly to an extent mainland and maritime SE Asia, though these are essentially without state support and cultures that remained dominant in the face of populations movements so not quite the same thing.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
The scenario needs to be described in detail first. Predicting results otherwise is futile and just goes back and forth in the loop. What is the geographical region that they evolve in? How did they become dominant? Who are the neighbours? These are the some questions you need to answer first. Just saying Asians are dominant and so what next is meant for ASB.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You can say a number of reasons for Caucasian dominance. Large availability of land in the surrounding to migrate,settle,conquer,be conquered,influence,be influenced,get things from,send things to,share,etc. How many Asian empires had this advantage is what we need to ask. If not,answers will tend to be a bit unclear as they are here(including mine previously). I request members to do the map work before making any cases about this.
 
What's so implausible? This Japan will have discovered the Aztec and Inca who are rich beyond their wildest dreams. Even assuming this was without the near-ASB levels of luck of the conquistadors, this would instantly change the worldview of the entire Japanese nation. Why risk confronting the only hegemon we've ever known for marginal islands when we have all the gold and silver for our taking? We are now the Middle Kingdom, and the Kings of the Aztecs and the Inca must pay tribute to our Mikado. If we're feeling generous we might recognize the Sapa Inca as our younger brother. Banzai!

My TL also has several rival Chinese trading companies, with the Emperor's own navy merely a glorified coast guard. Together these trading fleets would be unbeatable, but they're not. This by default turns the Pacific into a Japanese lake.
The richness of the Inca and Aztec is not enough to make Japan stand their ground against China, also it's not me who said that Japan would risk confronting China, you said they tried to invade Korea and sparkled a crisis in Luzon and Moluccas:

Then the Ming collapses into a decades-long civil war. Japan is now reunited under Shogunate X, which reforms the economy and military along industrial lines. Initially, it tries to invade Korea, but loses just like Hideyoshi. Then the Shogun decides to try his luck by exploring the Pacific Ocean.

30 years later, China is finally reunited under a new dynasty which for the first time bases itself on a written constitution. It is now in a position to resume its overseas empire building, coexisting with an independent Japanese empire. After one or more crises involving say Luzon or the Moluccas, the two empires reach a gentleman's agreement.

Also if China is not literally very decentralized, very fractured between a dozen or more companies(which is quite ridiculous already) then Japan is not going to monopolize the Pacific, the remindier is that at the best of times the ratio of population between China and Japan was 8:1 often worse and if this China even controls Korea and Manchuria things aren't getting better.
 
The richness of the Inca and Aztec is not enough to make Japan stand their ground against China, also it's not me who said that Japan would risk confronting China, you said they tried to invade Korea and sparkled a crisis in Luzon and Moluccas:



Also if China is not literally very decentralized, very fractured between a dozen or more companies(which is quite ridiculous already) then Japan is not going to monopolize the Pacific, the remindier is that at the best of times the ratio of population between China and Japan was 8:1 often worse and if this China even controls Korea and Manchuria things aren't getting better.

What about a situation with Japan discovering the New World and being the first nation to capitalize on it? Japan recognizes that East Asia is lost to China and so focuses on maximizing its effects on the Americas. China for their part is unimpressed with Japan's discovery and prefers to control East Asia.
 
What about a situation with Japan discovering the New World and being the first nation to capitalize on it? Japan recognizes that East Asia is lost to China and so focuses on maximizing its effects on the Americas. China for their part is unimpressed with Japan's discovery and prefers to control East Asia.
Well Japan would be besieged country in that situation as China would control all the seas West and South of it, it's possible but hard.
 
Top