Notions of race in an East Asian centric world

Literally everything in your post is wrong.

1. No popluations are physically distinct from their neighbors. North Africa, Middle East, and Central Asia all have populations with people who could pass as "looking caucasian" from right across the "border of christendom".

There are Caucasoid populations outside Europe but generally in small numbers easy to ignore. Most Afghans are indistinguishable from Europeans but they can be treated as exotic exceptions. This is nothing like Mongoloid people who populate multiple continents sharing similar features.

2. Regardless of the distinctiveness of differences between neighboring populations, what really matters are perceived differences. Some perceived differences are easier to notice when you know the two neighboring peoples, but from an outsider perspective "they're all the same to me". So to a European, a Tatar and Han might have "Mongoloid features" but to East Asians, Irish and Polish are indistinguishable.

Objectively Irish and Poles are more similar than Tatars and Han.

Furthermore, some perceived differences even between groups on different continents are virtually imaginary, such as the "white" skin color of East Asians and West Europeans. "Yellow Skin" was pretty much invented to give Europeans who were ignorant of Asians a reason to see them as different, other, and thus fearful and untrustworthy.

Sure but what we call race is not a single distinguishing feature. It's an effective short hand for telling which part of the world someone originates from and to project stereotypes onto them.

In the modern world if you see a white person you can reasonably infer they are better off than most of the world's population. I'm not sure what a Chinese person can infer from seeing an East Asian looking person in this hypothetical world. If they can't infer their wealth, education, status. Then I'm not sure how projection of stereotypes would work.

This leads to -

3. Regardless of differences and similarities, ways will be found to racialize groups based on the political and economic needs of Empire-building. Other Asians with narrow eyes will be seen by the Chinese as inferior regardless of how unclear the dividing line is, just like how Europeans see Middle Easterners as different even though when shown real-life pictures of Syrian people's faces, Americans didn't realize they're weren't European until told so.

I agree the Chinese will probably see most other similar looking people outside the Confucian sphere as inferior, just as Europeans see Syrians or Afghans. The difference is scale. There aren't that many Syrians and Afghans compared to Europeans and North Americans. If most of the population of the third world looked like Europeans, then racial attitudes would be very different don't you think?

Civilizational developments don't really matter. They can be explained away, as "Those people couldn't possibly have built those monuments, it was obviously some transient master race which slipped into obscurity from allowing miscegenation with the dirty locals." This was a real attitude towards the achievements of Indians and Africans. Or alternatively the "They were once great but fell into becoming decadent" for the Persians.

Europeans learned of the greatness of Africa's wealth in the Malian and Songhay Empires through Muslim merchants. They did know about Africans having rich and complex societies, but then conveniently forgot about that when it was time to sell them into slavery and colonize them.

Basically, any "evidence" can be subordinated to the political needs of those who wish to exploit others for economic gain.

I agree that people can demean other people's achievements. Certainly it is possible these hypothetical Chinese could belittle the civilizations of others. But that is a distinct phenomenon from assuming yourself is superior because of your phenotype. That would mean you believe everyone that shared your phenotype is also superior which would make no sense to the Chinese in this world. It's possible they might have racial constructs like the Japanese and Koreans who believe they are distinct because of some creation myth. But just as the Yamato race does not include the Chinese, a Chinese racial supremacist would be less likely to group people based on phenotype.
 
But did "white" mean the same thing as it did later? I mean people tend to use white to mean European descended.

They do nowadays yes after the influence of 18th-19th c racialist thinking. Most Europeans going to East Asia before then didn't have the same racialist framework and the most they commented on was "small eyes". White referred to skin colour. Actually, while white was the most common descriptor, there are also accounts of East Asians being called negros, black, brown, olive, pale, the colour of africans, the colour of lead, and tawny.
 
My guess is that you could replace "European" with the word "Asian" to see how they would treat non-Asians. People are people and tend to think of their own culture as superior and will try to oppress the "Barbarian Outlanders" if they can.
 
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?

Yeah, there are plenty of pretty East Asian women. Of course I think there are plenty of pretty Central Asian women, European women and African women. What can I say, I find quite a few women attractive. :biggrin:
 
How so? I mean they are bailed by the US navy and they live in a world where they are fairly richer than China and they aren't exactly expanding oversea, not sure how the comparison works there.
First of all, China is still not a developed country, with Japan and SK having 5x China’s GDP per Capita. That means Japan + SK can still compete economically

Second of all, you forgot the USA, in an East Asian centric world, there would be no “United States” to protect them and a unified imperialist colonialist China would be looking to annex Korea and Japan to remove competitors when it desired.
 
First of all, China is still not a developed country, with Japan and SK having 5x China’s GDP per Capita. That means Japan + SK can still compete economically

Second of all, you forgot the USA, in an East Asian centric world, there would be no “United States” to protect them and a unified imperialist colonialist China would be looking to annex Korea and Japan to remove competitors when it desired.

Why is everyone assuming China would be the first to colonize and industrialize? That’s like saying if Europe dominated the world, surely Britain would be annexed by imperalist colonialist France. So much determinism in this thread.
 
Why is everyone assuming China would be the first to colonize and industrialize? That’s like saying if Europe dominated the world, surely Britain would be annexed by imperalist colonialist France. So much determinism in this thread.
We were discussing a specific scenario.
 

samcster94

Banned
Why is everyone assuming China would be the first to colonize and industrialize? That’s like saying if Europe dominated the world, surely Britain would be annexed by imperalist colonialist France. So much determinism in this thread.
Korea as a colonial power(with some genuinely scary views), given its limited resources and short land border, would be interesting.
 
Why is everyone assuming China would be the first to colonize and industrialize? That’s like saying if Europe dominated the world, surely Britain would be annexed by imperalist colonialist France. So much determinism in this thread.
China and its neighbors aren't like France:Britain. China:Japan is more like Roman Empire:Britain, and China:Korea is, IDK, something on the level of Roman Empire:Judea.
 
China and its neighbors aren't like France:Britain. China:Japan is more like Roman Empire:Britain, and China:Korea is, IDK, something on the level of Roman Empire:Judea.

Rome conquered Britain and Judea, its not all that much like China’s relationship with Japan and Korea. In fact Japan launched two invasions of Korea and it was all China could do to stop them. The English Channel is not equivalent to the Yellow Sea. Japan and Korea were both as developed per capita as China itself. Britain and Judea were not already Italy in miniature when the legions arrived.
 
Why is everyone assuming China would be the first to colonize and industrialize? That’s like saying if Europe dominated the world, surely Britain would be annexed by imperalist colonialist France. So much determinism in this thread.
Isn’t China the sole hegemon of East Asia? Can’t say the same for France being the hegemon of Europe. sure, France was stronger than England before losing the Napoleonic Wars. But a prepared China with even all of Indochina, Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea against him could probably stalemate the war. How about France getting ganged up by Spain, England, the HRE and and the Otttoman Empire in the 17th century?


Eventually in an “East Asian” centric world China will be sure to dominate with its huge population and size. Even if Korea and Japan colonizes and industrialises first, with both of them having global empires across every continent China with its huge population will probably be able to overcome Korea easily, and Japan’s only chance is to use its theoretically powerful Navy to protect itself from China.



Only way I could see an East Asian centric world would be to see a fractured China, since that would allow Japan and Korea to compete, and otherwise a world where China that has annexed Korea and Japan and has an Empire on which the sun will never set won’t be an East Asian-centric world, but a Sinocentric world.
 
Last edited:

Albert.Nik

Banned
Everyone is missing out this question. Would China still exist as in OTL even if East Asians are as dominant as Europe.
 
Isn’t China the sole hegemon of East Asia? Can’t say the same for France being the hegemon of Europe. sure, France was stronger than England before losing the Napoleonic Wars. But a prepared China with even all of Indochina, Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea against him could probably stalemate the war. How about France getting ganged up by Spain, England, the HRE and and the Otttoman Empire in the 17th century?


Eventually in an “East Asian” centric world China will be sure to dominate with its huge population and size. Even if Korea and Japan colonizes and industrialises first, with both of them having global empires across every continent China with its huge population will probably be able to overcome Korea easily, and Japan’s only chance is to use its theoretically powerful Navy to protect itself from China.



Only way I could see an East Asian centric world would be to see a fractured China, since that would allow Japan and Korea to compete, and otherwise a world where China that has annexed Korea and Japan and has an Empire on which the sun will never set won’t be an East Asian-centric world, but a Sinocentric world.

Well China could have conquered half the world in the Middle Ages but it didn’t. What makes the industrial age different? America could conquer Canada and Mexico but it didn’t. The world isn’t a game of Risk. Even hegemons have to weigh up costs and benefits. They are often better served creating a useful world order with minimal cost than conquering everything in sight. Subjegating an alien population is very hard. Pointless when they are not a threat or have resources you already get from trade.
 
Well China could have conquered half the world in the Middle Ages but it didn’t. What makes the industrial age different? America could conquer Canada and Mexico but it didn’t. The world isn’t a game of Risk. Even hegemons have to weigh up costs and benefits. They are often better served creating a useful world order with minimal cost than conquering everything in sight. Subjegating an alien population is very hard. Pointless when they are not a threat or have resources you already get from trade.
China couldn't have conquered anything actually, you really think that the logistic boost from industrial technology wouldn't allow China to wage better wars over bigger distances? Even prior to the industrialization you had the Qing Dynasty finally remove completely then nomadic threat and permanently controlling Turkestan and Mongolia and subjugating Korea, if they had industrial tech they would be able to pose a direct threat to Japan, most especially if they control Korea(which they would if this is not a China screw)
 
Last edited:
China couldn't have conquered anything actually, you really think that the logistic boost from industrial technology wouldn't allow China to wage better wars over bigger distances? Even prior to the industrialization you had the Qing Dynasty finally remove completely then nomadic threat and permanently controlling Turkestan and Mongolia and subjugating Korea, if they had industrial tech they would be able to pose a direct threat to Japan, most especially if they control Korea(which they would if this is not a China screw)

The Qing was able to remove the nomadic thread because of improvements in gunpowder weapons (copied from western designs), it was the same reason that Russia was able to do the same from the other ends of the steppes.
 
Well China could have conquered half the world in the Middle Ages but it didn’t. What makes the industrial age different? America could conquer Canada and Mexico but it didn’t. The world isn’t a game of Risk. Even hegemons have to weigh up costs and benefits. They are often better served creating a useful world order with minimal cost than conquering everything in sight. Subjegating an alien population is very hard. Pointless when they are not a threat or have resources you already get from trade.
That is true. The cons outweigh the pros when annexing Japan and Korea to not annexing them, but i just can’t really see Japan and Korea compete as great powers with a powerful China, only real way might be that China colonizes much later (kinda like Germany and Italy) when Korea and Japan already have established colonial empires.
 
The Qing was able to remove the nomadic thread because of improvements in gunpowder weapons (copied from western designs), it was the same reason that Russia was able to do the same from the other ends of the steppes.
That's what I mean, improvement in technology do change the ability of waging warfare even if you had more resources than your foes to begin with.
 
Top