Openly racist major power in modern times

With a POD of 1946 is an openly racist major power lasting into the modern day possible. One which openly considers and states that certain races or ethnic groups as biological inferior.

What would be the impact
 
With a POD of 1946 is an openly racist major power lasting into the modern day possible. One which openly considers and states that certain races or ethnic groups as biological inferior.

What would be the impact

Not much. Chinese society is racist to varying degrees against non-Han people and they don't catch much flak for it outside the normal "human rights" lectures they get every so often.
 
With a POD of 1946 is an openly racist major power lasting into the modern day possible. One which openly considers and states that certain races or ethnic groups as biological inferior.

What would be the impact
Best bet is the USA without civil rights...
 
Sure but the US Constitution as it is written is race neutral and color blind. I think OP would require something like Nazi Germany to exist as a superpower where racial ideology is incorporated into law.
Depends what you mean by Law Plenty of southern states had racist laws Heck Miscegnation was illegal in some US states until literally a few years ago. Not that the law could be enforced recently. The black codes and Jim crow were all unconstitutional but they still happened. and were in many cases written into the law. Then there are the ways laws and codes were interpreted, especially in the civil service local government and armed forces/police..
 
Depends what you mean by Law Plenty of southern states had racist laws Heck Miscegnation was illegal in some US states until literally a few years ago. Not that the law could be enforced recently.


I'm not sure that your statement is very clear. Miscegenation laws were for all intents and purposes dead as of Loving v. Virginia. The fact that many states still had or continue to have outdated laws on their books speaks more to legislative inefficiency or laziness, rather than anything else, by their lack of effort for symbolic reasons. This extends even towards the implications of Obergefell. For example, in Pennsylvania, the state law o concerning incestuous relationships does not literally prohibit brother-brother or sister-sister sexual relationships. However, in effect these relationships are prohibited. This is just another symptom of our common law system of law, as well as legislative and bureaucratic ignorance, laziness, or unwillingness to cosmetically change laws.
 
Would apartheid South Africa’s time in the nuclear club count? Not a major power, but also not inconsequential to world affairs either.
 
I think it depends if this racist country is democratic or not. You could theoretically have a free, democratic nation that respects basic human rights, but also has a national consensus that claims that certain people are inferior, especially if it‘s a homogenous country that doesn‘t allow much, if any immigration.

If it‘s a case like South Africa, then the reaction of much of the world will be hostile to varying degrees, as in OTL. But imagine if a country like Japan or Poland passed a constitutional amendment that outlaws non-Japanese or non-white immigration on the basis of the racial inferiority of those kinds of immigrants, and even teaches stuff like this in its schools. All totally democratic, of course, supported by the majority of the population. There would still be freedom of speech, a free press, the separation of powers, rule of law etc.

Would the rest of the ‚free world‘ do much about it? I‘m really not sure what the reaction would be, to be honest. I can‘t see anyone imposing sanctions on such a country, because nothing about this would violate human rights as such.
 
OTL China?

The OP specifies that racial groups are "openly consider[ed]...biologically inferior". I don't think racism in China is justified, at least not officially, by biological theories, is it? I get the impression it's more just paternalism, ie. these people aren't ready to govern their own affiars, so they need our help, albeit applied with some pretty brutal violence and repression.

Of course, in that kind of a set-up, a lot of people, including government officials, might privately harbour outright supremacist views.
 
I think there's also the distinction between "legally enshrined racism" and "substantial social racism", the former of which is to my understanding quite rare and sthe latter is rather more common than we want to admit.
 

nbcman

Donor
The OP specifies that racial groups are "openly consider[ed]...biologically inferior". I don't think racism in China is justified, at least not officially, by biological theories, is it? I get the impression it's more just paternalism, ie. these people aren't ready to govern their own affiars, so they need our help, albeit applied with some pretty brutal violence and repression.

Of course, in that kind of a set-up, a lot of people, including government officials, might privately harbour outright supremacist views.
My understanding is that non-Han people in China are considered as barbarians or foreign devils so there is a biological aspect to it.
 
China isn't an openly racist state. It's communist, for god's sake, guys. The government's official position is that racism is bad.
 
With 1946 POD it is quiet difficult make or democratic nation racist, at least extremely racist. Civil Right movement was quiet inevitable after WW2 so US government or even Southern States are pretty difficult keep racist legistature much longer than in OTL. Australia perhaps could keep some racism going towards aboriginals though.

South Africa is not exactly major power but it could keep apartheid system longer.

Russia could go full-blown racist nation.
 
Top