Plausibility Check: More settler colonialism worldwide?

CaliGuy

Banned
In addition to the areas/territories which were the subject of large-scale settler colonialism in our TL, which additional areas worldwide could have realistically been targets of settler colonialism?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Magical123

Banned
In addition to the areas/territories which were the subject of large-scale settler colonialism in our TL, which additional areas worldwide could have realistically been targets of settler colonialism?

Any thoughts on this?
South and South east Asia were densely populated with diseases, same with Africa(well the Disease part). You either have to find a way around that or through it.

In theory could could have a lot more savage European colonialism in the 19th century Africa say total extirpation of whole swathes of the Continent. Thus leaving it open for European settlement.

You'd basically have to have an Unparelled Invasion scenario for settler colonies to get anywhere in China, and South-South East Asia.

Note: I'm not lauding such hypotheticals nor am I advocating genocide. Simply discussing hypotheticals that would have a truly high human cost. And would be horrific all around.

The Unparalleled Invasion for anyone who doesn't know was short story written I believe in 1910 by Jack London basically a yellow peril story at the end a combined European force develops a biological agent that kills 98%(something like that) of the Chinese population then colonized China.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

The Mongols under Ogedei planned to depopulate northern China and resettle it with Mongols as a giant pastureland and recruiting ground, although they decided against it.

If the Spanish followed the Las Casas peasant colonization scheme, then they could have sent significant numbers of Castilian peasants to the New World while organizing native tribes into self-governing vassal states. This would make most of the Spanish Empire into a big settler colony, except for enclaves of heavily urbanized native states, which would remain tributary colonies.
 
Pretty much any where in Northern California. The Spanish laid claim but they only sparsely settled the area, The Presidio in modern day San Francisco was a joke, the only truly organized settlements were the Missions. The Russians actually had a settlement at Fort Ross, not too far from San Francisco. (Yerba Buena) and the Spaniards never even to my knowledge tried to oust them. Just a thought.
 

Vuru

Banned
Outside of isolated locations borderline impossible barring industrial scale genocide which means you pretty much can't do it before the modern era and by then you'd get into massive domestic opposition as well

You could theoretically depopulate africa with bubonic plague early enough, but they lack the conditions to make it spread disastrously like it did in Europe and Asia, so that option is dropped

So, you can't
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Pretty much any where in Northern California. The Spanish laid claim but they only sparsely settled the area, The Presidio in modern day San Francisco was a joke, the only truly organized settlements were the Missions. The Russians actually had a settlement at Fort Ross, not too far from San Francisco. (Yerba Buena) and the Spaniards never even to my knowledge tried to oust them. Just a thought.
Didn't northern California experience massive population growth after 1850, though?
 

Magical123

Banned
Outside of isolated locations borderline impossible barring industrial scale genocide which means you pretty much can't do it before the modern era and by then you'd get into massive domestic opposition as well

You could theoretically depopulate africa with bubonic plague early enough, but they lack the conditions to make it spread disastrously like it did in Europe and Asia, so that option is dropped

So, you can't
If the Europeans racism towards Africa is far more venomous in the 19th century you could have the continent feasibly depopulated.
 
If the Europeans racism towards Africa is far more venomous in the 19th century you could have the continent feasibly depopulated.
The continent was relatively depopulated compared to any other area in the world, less by genocides itself than by economic stagnation and low growth.


I think you could have Namibia, more of South Africa, Maghreb and maybe the Mauretania region. The rest is going to be mostly insular, I guess you could find some place in Gabon, but it´s unlikely.
 
Didn't northern California experience massive population growth after 1850, though?
In that fact, my suggestion during the New Imperialism of the mid to late 19th Century doesn't fly. Yes, the Gold Rush of 1849 does bring a tsunami of people to Northern California. By then Spanish California had been taken over first in the 1820's by Mexico, and by conquest the United States in 1846-48. So my suggestion refers to Spanish, and for that matter Mexican California. It could not have applied to post Spanish/Mexican eras as no one was going to colonize territory of the United States by the 1850's.
 

Deleted member 97083

In that fact, my suggestion during the New Imperialism of the mid to late 19th Century doesn't fly. Yes, the Gold Rush of 1849 does bring a tsunami of people to Northern California. By then Spanish California had been taken over first in the 1820's by Mexico, and by conquest the United States in 1846-48. So my suggestion refers to Spanish, and for that matter Mexican California. It could not have applied to post Spanish/Mexican eras as no one was going to colonize territory of the United States by the 1850's.
But each territory within the United States was a settler colony of Anglo-American settlers.
 
But each territory within the United States was a settler colony of Anglo-American settlers.
But not by 1850. The US would have organized the territories in preparation for possible statehood. By 1850, California did enter the union as a free non-slave state. (Google "The Compromise of 1850.")

You may be referring to the original 13 colonies on the eastern coast. Most of them were settle by the English but some were settle by the Dutch and Swedes.
 

Deleted member 97083

But not by 1850. The US would have organized the territories in preparation for possible statehood. By 1850, California did enter the union as a free non-slave state. (Google "The Compromise of 1850.")

You may be referring to the original 13 colonies on the eastern coast. Most of them were settle by the English but some were settle by the Dutch and Swedes.
Every state and territory of the US was a settler colony. Anglo-American settlers were sent to colonize the west.
 
The US would not have thought that since the territories according too International understanding already belonged to them. Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession, Alaska Purchase. Now that is a good argument for Hawaii, the Samoas, and other areas in the Pacific. etc.
 

Deleted member 97083

The US would not have thought that since the territories according too International understanding already belonged to them. Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession, Alaska Purchase. Now that is a good argument for Hawaii, the Samoas, and other areas in the Pacific. etc.
The whole point of the state-territory system was to send white settlers in until there was a large enough population for statehood. That is pretty much the definition of a settler colony.
 

Deleted member 97083

Good point. Frederick Jackson Turner and Josiah Strong would say you have a good point too.
I'm not saying that's the current purpose of the state-territory system. But for the whole of the 19th century, while the US was still conquering Native American tribes and still settling land, it was. Frederick Jackson Turner's and Josiah Strong's view were representative of much of the nation at the time. That doesn't mean I agree with them or their ideology.
 
Oh I agree with you. I was looking at it in regards to the fact the territories were recognized by the International Community as belonging to the United States. But you are right in that the territories prior to actually being physically occupied by the United States had to be done so with the settlements of Americans in lands already occupied for a very long time by indigenous peoples.
 

Wallet

Banned
Siberia, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, North and South America were all heavily colonized OTL.

Other choices could be the Europeans colonizing the Chinese coast and expelling millions of Chinese and allowing in Indian workers. Sane along the coasts of Africa.

Kenya and East Africa can be settled more by the British.
 
Top