Roman Style Assimilation Adopted by 1900s European Powers

[John I of Brazil]

Unfortunately, this entails Ethiopia remaining Italian but this is an interesting scenario - what do you think might've happened in Italian East Africa if Fascist Italy remained neutral?

I think it would be very difficult for Italy to hold Ethiopia. The two possibilities i think is more likely:

1-Italian East Africa becomes a independent country and has a Rhodesia/South Africa-like situation: a italian-majority government in the country

2- Italy manages to keep the most loyal parts of Italian East Africa, but a independent state would still emerge in the other areas (the frontiers wouldn't be very different from the OTL Eritrea and Somalia borders with Ethiopia. Perhaps the eastern areas of Ethiopia could stay in italian hands or they would lost Somalia).

Anyway, i dont see a totally Italian Ethiopia as very probable.

 

[neopeius]

The closest you might get, and perhaps the best analog, is Japan's relatively benigh occupation of Taiwan which emphasized Japanisation of the island.

Not endorsing Imperial policy. Just noting that the results were along the line of what you're describing.

 

[Bad@logic]

The situation of Portugal would be quite better then the others, as Brazil is so close to Portugal culturally that the national census could call brazilians with portuguese ancestry "portuguese" and they would be the ethnic majority of the empire. The british, as you said, couldn't make the same with India and the same can be said of French Africa.

Yes, certainly it would be somewhat more tolerable. But fundamentally the same dynamics are going to play out: how long will it take for the Portuguese to realize that they have become a colony of their colonies, that they are an appendage of a distant empire, that their interests are being sidelined and dismissed? The British, Spanish, Portuguese, settler colonies all of these fell apart despite elites or even masses of the same race and nationality of the motherland being firmly in charge and installed, because ultimately they arrived at conflict of interest. The same thing will happen in time with Portugal and Brazil, perhaps a peaceful break-up, but eventually the two sides will run into competing interests and Portugal will decide that it is better to be an independent nation than an afterthought of Rio de Janeiro. The same reason why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not part of the UK, despite being of the same blood, faith, language and political persuasion, except for their minorities.

 

[The Militant Doberman]

So... did no one yet bring up that something similar to the OP was attempted OTL? Do the words “Civilizing Mission” ring any bells?

 

[BigBlueBox]

What about the United States who have assimilated people pretty fast and of a variety of different groups? United States shows us a great example of people becoming more accepted when they become "Americanized" enough to be considered acceptable to the general American population. At one time some Italians were not even considered white by some people. Many even considered Irish as not far off from Africans on the social hierarchy at one point. If their standing could change why can't that not happen in other places.

Assimilating immigrants is a hell of a lot different than assimilating conquered peoples. If you meant that the European powers should drive the natives off their land and herd them onto reservations while giving the best land to settlers, I don’t think that’s possible unless they have a lot more settlers and a higher birth rate.

 

[John I of Brazil]

Yes, certainly it would be somewhat more tolerable. But fundamentally the same dynamics are going to play out: how long will it take for the Portuguese to realize that they have become a colony of their colonies, that they are an appendage of a distant empire, that their interests are being sidelined and dismissed? The British, Spanish, Portuguese, settler colonies all of these fell apart despite elites or even masses of the same race and nationality of the motherland being firmly in charge and installed, because ultimately they arrived at conflict of interest. The same thing will happen in time with Portugal and Brazil, perhaps a peaceful break-up, but eventually the two sides will run into competing interests and Portugal will decide that it is better to be an independent nation than an afterthought of Rio de Janeiro. The same reason why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not part of the UK, despite being of the same blood, faith, language and political persuasion, except for their minorities.

I can see Portugal getting autonomy in a de facto dominion or Commonwealth status in a peacefull way, probably in the XX century, but the fact that Portugal is a small country with little rresources would make it very dependable from their former colonies, and their relationship would be in minimum very close at least until Portugal enters in the EU. Also, Countries like France have provinces in distant parts of the world, such as French Guyana (Portugal itself could have stayed with some colonies post-1974 if the government had wanted), so to keep a territory from the other side of the ocean isn't impossible.

 

[Barry Bull]

I can see Portugal getting autonomy in a de facto dominion or Commonwealth status in a peacefull way, probably in the XX century, but the fact that Portugal is a small country with little rresources would make it very dependable from their former colonies, and their relationship would be in minimum very close at least until Portugal enters in the EU. Also, Countries like France have provinces in distant parts of the world, such as French Guyana (Portugal itself could have stayed with some colonies post-1974 if the government had wanted), so to keep a territory from the other side of the ocean isn't impossible.

If the overseas territory is small, probably. But the Metropole would struggle to remain on top of the colonies.

 

[Tanc49]

If the overseas territory is small, probably. But the Metropole would struggle to remain on top of the colonies.

It's possible if you can divide and conquer. Send Senegalese to Indochina, Indochinese to Polynesia, Arabs in Senegal and give one of those privileged status (similar to the French Sugar Islands)
It's not easy but it might buy you twenty years, especially if you work on ultralocal/imperial identity

 

[jerseyguy]

Converted Jews for the most part were considered assimilated by the locals. With the exception of the nazis most Europeans only targeted practicing Jews. Also much of Africa is culturally divided with a large number of people who vary in numbers. Much more so then Europe. Many people in Africa lack a nation state identity and also lack a written culture. I could see this making it easier for the Europeans especially given no world wars and more time.

By the late 19th century racial antisemitism that attacked Jews as an ethnicity had either blended with or replaced religious antisemitism. Trotsky and other communists were anything but observant Jews and Christians, but that didn't keep antisemites from leveling the conspiracy of Judeo-Bolshevism.
The USSR was an officially atheist state with a relatively universalist founding ideology that still saw antisemitic purges and attacked jews with dog whistles like "rootless cosmopolitans".

 

[jerseyguy]

The closest you might get, and perhaps the best analog, is Japan's relatively benigh occupation of Taiwan which emphasized Japanisation of the island.

Not endorsing Imperial policy. Just noting that the results were along the line of what you're describing.

A metropole can hold onto or even culturally and linguistically assimilate a small colony with a territory smaller than the "core" population, but a ruling minority generally has a much more difficult time dealing with a collection of subject peoples. The popularity of statehood in Puerto Rico and the annexation of Hawaii are the best examples of this kind of demographic imbalance.

In my opinion Japan would have the best shot at this kind of cohesion. During Japanese rule in Korea, Japan presented itself as a guardian that would foster a new blooming of Korean culture away from the shadow of Chinese imperialism. They even printed the traditional Korean yin-yang flag in schoolbooks, and cultivated a pan-Japanese identity loyal to a "common" emperor in a proud Texan, proud American analogue. Japan's Empire was geographically compact and religiously homogenous enough to be sustainably with a far-sighted leadership.

Historians of the future will probably compare western colonialism to the Mongol Empire. A demographically insignificant force on a global scale managed to conquer a vast area and population through superior military technology, with economic and social consequences to this day. The colonial empires grew too fast to be slowly consolidated and last at their peak size for centuries the way Rome did. If the european empires managed to hold on to power in some unlikely scenario, the rulers would have been slowly absorbed by the colonial populations the way Mongols gradually merged into the Persian and Chinese populations they ruled.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

What about them creating a imperial identity? Americans have a variety of identities but still conside themselves American and believe in some common principles and concepts. Also look at Latin America where large parts of full blooded former Native Americans consider themselves the national identity and not a native one. Many Mexicans are arguably still full or nearly blood Native Americans but if you ask them they will say they are Mexican. In Brazil you had and still see the effects of the "whitening" policies which has created a society where identity is based on class. Some Brazilians who who are wealthy will say they are mix or white no matter the amount of African they have in them. I could see this happening in a Portuguese Empire. Also the lack of land connections prevents a Mongol situation from happening. Even if immigration from within isn't restricted it is still expensive and a long trip from India to Britain. The same goes for many colonies. Also politics and society doesn't work the same way as it did during Mongol times. Additionally, the assimilation can be targeted at certain groups and regions and not others. If Britain is able to convince its white Anglo population that they are all the same people that greatly increases their numbers and ability to force themselves in other places due to population influx. What would a Anglosphere minus America be population and wealth wise. Also Ireland did have a large loyalists population before independence across the island.

 

[Histor32]

What about the United States who have assimilated people pretty fast and of a variety of different groups? United States shows us a great example of people becoming more accepted when they become "Americanized" enough to be considered acceptable to the general American population. At one time some Italians were not even considered white by some people. Many even considered Irish as not far off from Africans on the social hierarchy at one point. If their standing could change why can't that not happen in other places.

You do realize that up until the 1970s America was pretty much apartheid, now granted that might not be bad if you come from some place worse off, but It wasnt the most free place on the planet. Even today thee is still very much ingrained racism.

It also can take 40-80 years to americanize, and even then, you still have to get passed the inherent racism of both sides of the coin.

Last point on the topic . Its a nation of immigrants, ask the people who were here before 1492 first how colonialism and then americanizing panned out, or those who chose to not do so.

Now to your topic..
The colonial empires were built on exploitation, racism and dominance.

Look at the end of Ww2, sovereign territory was just willy nilly carved up and passed around for smokes and a drink, treaties were made that were so lopsided that harpers off-season MLB contract is going to look like the deal of a lifetime.

Also Roma was about building an empire in an age and area not quite like today. Rome Romanizsd when if at all possible, and also persecuted, subjugated, enslaved, pillaged and mkre those who didn't render unto caeser that which caeser felt was his to have rendered.

I agree some territories eventually have joined there Stockholm oppressors, others have not and Others went a polar 180.

I will say that if no world wars, there would have been less inclination to diavest colonies and that could be either good or bad for local populations. But imagine a Belgian Congo 100 years later.

 

[jocay]

The French had attempted to do this to a degree in Algeria. This is how you have borderline-cringey state propaganda like this targeting Algerian women, goading them to give up their "uncivilized" ways and become French women. It didn't work. Caesar had no qualms granting citizenship to Gauls; the French made it impossible for most Algerians to consider that option.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

somehow still have nationalism, but avoid the whole golden age of racism thing

 

[Garetor]

somehow still have nationalism, but avoid the whole golden age of racism thing

This. Part of why the Romans were able to get such buy-in from local elites is that after a generation or two, those local elites were Roman elites. They had citizenship, they could send their sons to pursue careers in the civil service and military, and some of the greatest emperors came from families with roots in the provinces. Whatever their propaganda, even the French had no intention of letting an Algerian sheik's son into the executive suite.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The closest you might get, and perhaps the best analog, is Japan's relatively benign occupation of Taiwan which emphasized Japanisation of the island.

Not endorsing Imperial policy. Just noting that the results were along the line of what you're describing.

"The cession of the island to Japan was received with such disfavor by the Chinese inhabitants that a large military force was required to effect its occupation. For nearly two years afterwards, a bitter guerrilla resistance was offered to the Japanese troops, and large forces – over 100,000 men, it was stated at the time – were required for its suppression. This was not accomplished without much cruelty on the part of the conquerors, who, in their march through the island, perpetrated all the worst excesses of war. They had, undoubtedly, considerable provocation. They were constantly attacked by ambushed enemies, and their losses from battle and disease far exceeded the entire loss of the whole Japanese army throughout the Manchurian campaign. But their revenge was often taken on innocent villagers. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered or became the victims of unrestrained lust and rapine. The result was to drive from their homes thousands of industrious and peaceful peasants, who, long after the main resistance had been completely crushed, continued to wage a vendetta war, and to generate feelings of hatred which the succeeding years of conciliation and good government have not wholly eradicated." – The Cambridge Modern History, Volume 12

 

[Divergent54]

What about the United States who have assimilated people pretty fast and of a variety of different groups? United States shows us a great example of people becoming more accepted when they become "Americanized" enough to be considered acceptable to the general American population. At one time some Italians were not even considered white by some people. Many even considered Irish as not far off from Africans on the social hierarchy at one point. If their standing could change why can't that not happen in other places.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Immigrants came to the United States by choice. Did African people choose to be subjugated by their own free will ? Did the indigenous people of the Aztecs and Incas had a choice to be subjugated by European will ?

 

[neopeius]

"The cession of the island to Japan was received with such disfavor by the Chinese inhabitants that a large military force was required to effect its occupation. For nearly two years afterwards, a bitter guerrilla resistance was offered to the Japanese troops, and large forces – over 100,000 men, it was stated at the time – were required for its suppression. This was not accomplished without much cruelty on the part of the conquerors, who, in their march through the island, perpetrated all the worst excesses of war. They had, undoubtedly, considerable provocation. They were constantly attacked by ambushed enemies, and their losses from battle and disease far exceeded the entire loss of the whole Japanese army throughout the Manchurian campaign. But their revenge was often taken on innocent villagers. Men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered or became the victims of unrestrained lust and rapine. The result was to drive from their homes thousands of industrious and peaceful peasants, who, long after the main resistance had been completely crushed, continued to wage a vendetta war, and to generate feelings of hatred which the succeeding years of conciliation and good government have not wholly eradicated." – The Cambridge Modern History, Volume 12

But the armed resistance only lasted two years.

What is the copyright of the article (again, not endorsing Japanese conduct)

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I would like to add that I imagine this mostly likely taking place in a world without a major world war which leads to Europe being more populated, higher birthrates, stronger economies, stronger militaries, and given more time to focus on colonies. European powers are probably also more willing to suppress any rebellion with more brutality for a longer period of time in this world. I wonder how colonies and empires will develop without Europe having a major war during the 1900s.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

somehow still have nationalism, but avoid the whole golden age of racism thing

I was thinking Europeans keep their colonies into the 60s or longer due to lack of a world war which sees Europeans consider racism and racial science as outdated concepts by the second half of the century but instead of adopting multiculturalism and decolonization policies instead adopts assimilation and integration policies. Someone here did mention civilizing missions but people should know propaganda and actions don't always match. What Europeans or any leader tells their people don't always match their actions.