Would ATL Chinese colonies be better for the colonized than OTL European colonies?

Who would be relatively better for the colonized?

  • China

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • Europe

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Both would be equally good/bad

    Votes: 23 69.7%

  • Total voters
    33

Sabot Cat

Banned
An existential threat to the colony, not the dynasty. The dynasty won't decide to send over a army to commit genocide because a colony which it really doesn't care about is going to be destroyed.

Right, but what about the colony? Wouldn't the colony be apt to raise its own army and commit genocide? The British weren't exactly keen to expand west of the Appalachians, but the colonists sure were.
 
If there are Chinese settlements in North America, they'd pose a similar existential threat.

Yeah, the native Indians were never an existential threat to Europe but they certainly were to European settlements, who were the ones who fought the wars. The same would apply here.
 
Right, but what about the colony? Wouldn't the colony be apt to raise its own army and commit genocide? The British weren't exactly keen to expand west of the Appalachians, but the colonists sure were.
It's all determined by how many colonists go there. the Chinese really don't have the incentive to go over. Plus, the Pacific is much bigger than the Atlantic. Even if the Chinese they did, they would be in much fewer numbers. That means that they wouldn't be able to raise a big enough army, finally leading to the colonists wondering why they thought it was a bright idea to come here in the first place and why they don't just return to China. These colonists wouldn't be keen to expand; they would be keen to go home.
 
Last edited:

Sabot Cat

Banned
It's all determined by how many colonists go there. the Chinese really don't have the incentive to go over. Plus, the Pacific is much bigger than the Atlantic. Even if the Chinese they did, they would be in much fewer numbers. That means that they wouldn't be able to raise a big enough army, finally leading to the colonists wondering why they thought it was a bright idea to come here in the first place and why they don't just return to China. These colonists wouldn't be keen to expand; they would be keen to go home.

That seems more of an argument as to why Chinese colonization of the Americas is somewhat unlikely, as opposed to why Chinese colonizers would be less genocidal or more humane than their European counterparts if they were to embark on a similar venture with similar resources.
 
The Chinese dynasty probably wouldn't be as harsh. Sure, it would be unfair to natives (It is colonization), but it wouldn't commit genocide--the government will probably try to assimilate the native population into the Chinese one instead. Here, I'll assume that the Chinese colonizer is a united China, thus China really doesn't need anything from the region, except maybe Silver. Other than that, the only motivation is to spread the glory of the Son of Heaven, meaning that war won't happen unless natives do not pay lip service to the Chinese, which is the only thing that the dynasty really cares about.

Oh, Chinese wouldn't do genocide? Tell that to the thousands of minorities that dont exist any more because they have been subsumed into Han culture and their descendents identify as Han now. Genocide doesnt come just in the form of Hitler-esque quick acting kill them all actions. It can also be a slow form of moving your people in and marginalizing the natives and outlawing their language, making your own the only economic and political language, etc etc. Ask Tibetans and Uigurs and Mongolians, and Manchurians, and hundreds in the south. Look at genetic profiles of "Han" Chinese, they are more diverse than the difference between an Iranian and a Dane. Chinese have been colonizing for thousands of years.
 
That seems more of an argument as to why Chinese colonization of the Americas is somewhat unlikely, as opposed to why Chinese colonizers would be less genocidal or more humane than their European counterparts if they were to embark on a similar venture with similar resources.
The Chinese colonizers would come for two things. First, to spread the glory of the Emperor; Second to get silver (meaning this colony will be in the Americas). I think that the following two scenarios may happen.
1. Natives accept the Chinese.
What the Chinese would probably do first would be to offer the natives a chance to submit to the Son of Heaven, or at least establish friendly trading relations if said natives have silver. If they do accept this, this means that the Chinese will establish minor trading posts, thus having neither the incentive nor the ability to commit acts of genocide or any form of brutalization.
2. Natives reject the Chinese.
Lets say the natives are hostile to the Chinese. Even if the colonists wanted to stay on their colonies, they wouldn't have enough support from the dynasty, again meaning that they will either return to China (No genocide can be committed) or be promptly wiped out (again, no genocide), as the dynasty proceeds to not give a shit.
 
Last edited:
Oh, Chinese wouldn't do genocide? Tell that to the thousands of minorities that dont exist any more because they have been subsumed into Han culture and their descendents identify as Han now. Genocide doesnt come just in the form of Hitler-esque quick acting kill them all actions. It can also be a slow form of moving your people in and marginalizing the natives and outlawing their language, making your own the only economic and political language, etc etc. Ask Tibetans and Uigurs and Mongolians, and Manchurians, and hundreds in the south. Look at genetic profiles of "Han" Chinese, they are more diverse than the difference between an Iranian and a Dane. Chinese have been colonizing for thousands of years.
The term genocide is historically applied to removal of native races via mass killings. The examples you raised are not mass killings, they are assimilation. Also, the Manchus have scinified themselves voluntarily. Twice. The Mongols conquered China, leading to inevitable interbreeding, partial cultural assimilation and parts of the Mongol population staying in China. Ask a Manchu if he thinks he's a Manchu, a Han, or a Manchu belonging to one of the 56 Chinese peoples. If Japan was once very much influenced by the Tang dynasty, were they being genocided by the Chinese? Japan uses Kanji, Japan has Tang architecture, is this genocide? The same goes for Manchuria and Mongolia.

Now, I'm not going full nationalist. China has committed genocide in the form of mass killings, China has committed cultural assimilation--lots of it, China has colonized. But as a nation was 4000-5000 years of history, to claim otherwise would be absurd. Nearly every nation on the planet has committed genocide, assimilation and colonization of some kind, and there is no denying it, but your examples involving Mongolia, Jiangnan and Manchuria by far do not fit genocide on the scale of western colonization.
 
Last edited:
IMHO China was by no means isolated. Let's look at the Tang, they were one of the most connected(?) dynasties, but was probably the least racist nation on the old world of the time. It accepted foreigners who embraced Chinese culture as Chinese, such as the poet Li Bai who was from Central Asia.

I think isolated was the wrong word to use. Insular is more apt.

It wasn't isolated, but it didn't care enough about other nations to bother with other races unless other races came to them. Unless they were merchant families, in which case they came here to the Philippines, whether to trade in the Parian or to raid as Limahong and Koxinga. :p

Actual, full-fledged colonies need the support of the mother country, and the enthusiasm to expand the local market, or conquer foreign kingdoms, or spread the word of God.
 
Top