WI: Settler colonialism Was Used Worldwide?

[Flocculencio]

Yeah France wasn´t exactly free to use their troops at the time and neither were the sea routes clear enough given the enemies France was fighting.

Exactly. That just highlights the problems inherent in that sort of direct occupation. Britain was probably the only European power able to consistently project power overseas even during periods of European war, due to overwhelming naval superiority.

It's no coincidence that the bulk of European direct colonization in Asia and Africa came during the 19th C when Britain had total control of the seas and no major beef with any Continental power.

Just look at what happened to the German colonies in WW1. The same thing would have happened to the colonies of any European power that went to war with Britain.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Southern Africa is the better breeding ground for settler colonialism just below the Congo Basin and excluding Madagascar. Heck maybe parts of east Africa outside of Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia would do. Though at most you're going to have a similar racial makeup to the Caribbean and Brazil without the Native American aspect to it and a more direct African influence on the region. So expect mulattoes to be a plurality if not majority.

 

[Wallet]

You did have worldwide settler colonies. 38% of the world outside of Europe had European ancestry in 1914. Its only 6% now.

 

[Sevarics]

You did have worldwide settler colonies. 38% of the world outside of Europe had European ancestry in 1914. Its only 6% now.

How was it that high and how did it change so much

 

[Wallet]

How was it that high and how did it change so much

The industrial revolution made Europe's population skyrocket. 60 million people left Europe from 1860-1914. Most went to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa, or Chile. Also all the European colonies needed management, which led to lots of mulatoos, especially in India where the ruling class were mixed British-Indians.


Since 1945 the population of none white people in the 3rd world has skyrocketed. Populations in India, China, Brazil, and Africa have grown exponentially.

 

[Flocculencio]

You did have worldwide settler colonies. 38% of the world outside of Europe had European ancestry in 1914. Its only 6% now.

That's a bit misleading since that 38% was in the Americas, Southern Africa, Russian Asia, and Australia, all of which were previously sparsely settled (whether due to low original populations as in Russian Asia and Australia, or societal collapse as in the Americas). The original question was asking more about European settlement in the non-settler colonies like British India or West Africa.

In India the "ruling class" certainly weren't "mixed British-Indians". Anglo-Indians were still a tiny minority and, unfortunately, faced severe prejudice both from the British and the Indians. They tended to be used in middle management or junior technical roles, but these occupations were never wholly, or even primarily, dominated by them.

Yes, populations in Asia and Africa grew exponentially post-War but wespecially when you're talking about the Asian colonies, whites were still hugely outnumbered.

In 1911, the entire white population of the British Empire (including the Dominions and Colonies), was 53 million. The non-white population of British India alone was around 294 million. Note- this doesn't seem to include the populations of the Indian princely states.

 

[Gloss]

Exactly. That just highlights the problems inherent in that sort of direct occupation. Britain was probably the only European power able to consistently project power overseas even during periods of European war, due to overwhelming naval superiority.

It's no coincidence that the bulk of European direct colonization in Asia and Africa came during the 19th C when Britain had total control of the seas and no major beef with any Continental power.

Just look at what happened to the German colonies in WW1. The same thing would have happened to the colonies of any European power that went to war with Britain.

What I meant is that France was fighting coalitions at the time, and still managed to invade the place. If there was no distraction like with Algeria, is quite likely France would have just stayed.

 

[Flocculencio]

What I meant is that France was fighting coalitions at the time, and still managed to invade the place. If there was no distraction like with Algeria, is quite likely France would have just stayed.

Yes, but how long for? If your control over settler colonies is dependent on the goodwill of another power to keep the sea lanes open, then you're inherently limited.

 

[Lampiao]

The dichotomy settler colony vs exploration colony is a bad oversimplification of 500 years of European expansion over the world. The very term exploration colony is somewhat misleading, the Caribbean was mostly settled by unfree men, that's a settlement pattern directly provoked by the Europeans, one cannot compare it for instance with indirect rule in India. Also, most, if not all the Americas were heavily settled both by European and African settlers.

 

[BlondieBC]

The second issue is that the colonial administrations created economies designed to generate the maximum profit for either the private company or for the various crowns regardless of what the long term result might be. Balanced economies wouldn't need to buy manufactured goods from the "home country", or import food or fuel or whatever else was neglected to maximize the amount of rubber or tin or gold, etc. that could be removed for 1% of its actual value (hell, the UK did it with the American colonies, captive markets for the win).

The colonists stripped countries bare, created false borders, designed utterly unstable economies, and provided local administrators a template for robbing the masses of the population for the benefits of the administrators and their principals. The only thing that has changed is that the money now goes into a numbered Swiss or Cayman Islands account instead of His/Her Majesty's Treasury and there are no better trained and armed colonial troops to keep a lid on the pressure cooker.

A good way to quantify the exploitation is the freighters. Freighters left Africa full, and arrive 75% to 90% empty.

Another way to illustrate is what was imported. In multiple colonies, imports of alcohol was the leading import by $$ value. I can assure you that neither the Germans nor the French were importing European booze for native consumption. If you look at the list of goods imported, it often is a list of goods need to run a plantation house. I am not that sure that 1890 Africa is that much different than 1690 Virginia.

 

[BlondieBC]

Really, it depends where. The only place where there were feasible areas for white-majority settler colonization that were not exploited was Africa. Not all of Africa. Only North Africa, and a handful of loosely populated areas such as Namibia and South Africa were really open to be taken. Then, it is a matter of getting people to move there.

French Algeria is the best place to look at this. It arguably was settler colonized successfully, with over a million French living in Algeria in 1945. And yet, in 1962, France lost control of Algeria to a determined force of nationalists. Really, the issue was that a determined anticolonial force was able to last long enough to eventually be able to take over at the right moment. Another good example is the Afrikaaner, and how the English conquered their homeland even though in some areas it is thought they were approaching white majority. Basically, to be able to fully colonize a place in Africa settler-wise, you need to be able to fully convince your population that they would not become "double abandoned," both from their homeland in Africa and in Europe. However this never happened, frankly because Africa tended to be "too close to the action" of Europe to do this.

It is easier than that. You have to provide subsidies - Free transport. It is pretty clear from South American and New Zealand data that one can direct where the European immigrants went by merely providing free steerage passage plus either a job or farm land.

 

[BlondieBC]

Offer them free medical service and examination but in reality you sterilize them.

Let's be a bit more realistic. The Belgians are twice responsible for 1-10 million deaths in the Congo. We have the German record in SWA. Huge Famines in India. If the Europeans decide to reduce native populations, it will be by murder/famine/working-to-death. Thinking the Europeans would seriously consider medical procedures instead of just killing the natives is sugar coating the ethics of colonialists.

 

[BlondieBC]

I thought the Botswana government was always authoritarian, since it had a real Singapore sort of thing going for it. Seretse Khama was basically an African Lee Kuan Yew from everything I understand.

If I remember right, Botswana had a odd sequence of events that help it thrive. It had few know exploited resources when independence came, so it had a couple of decades to get the governance working. Then the resources were found in a background of a working government and civil society. And then a few decades later, we have the AIDS epidemic hit Botswana harder than any other country. Really a quite sad ending to a what was a very good post-colonial period.

 

[LaSlavic86]

Let's be a bit more realistic. The Belgians are twice responsible for 1-10 million deaths in the Congo. We have the German record in SWA. Huge Famines in India. If the Europeans decide to reduce native populations, it will be by murder/famine/working-to-death. Thinking the Europeans would seriously consider medical procedures instead of just killing the natives is sugar coating the ethics of colonialists.

I have been thinking about a disaster which kill about maybe 30% of the indonesian Population