So yeah, what would lead to more similar colonies to that around the world, not just British but also French, German, Italian, etc.?
I guess Latin America doesn't count because of the Iberian practice of massive intermarriage.
More white dominions (not just British)
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
So yeah, what would lead to more similar colonies to that around the world, not just British but also French, German, Italian, etc.?
I guess Latin America doesn't count because of the Iberian practice of massive intermarriage.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Argentina, Uruguay and Chile do indeed count. The Southern Cone countries in South America are pretty much dominated demographically by people of European descent and the native Amerindian populations, if there are any left around, are too small when it comes to numbers and percentages to matter much when it comes to political and economic discourse.
In Africa, I think it's possible to increase the amount of European settlement in Kenya, Nambia, and Eritrea, among other places.
In Africa, I think it's possible to increase the amount of European settlement in Kenya, Nambia, and Eritrea, among other places.
Well Namibia came pretty close to it as it was not that populated before the arrival of the Germans, although it had less sovereignty. After WWI it was in a way as "part" of South Africa. Other imaginable colonies to become predominantly white are the other desert states which typically are sparesly populated. Lybia and Western Sahara are most likely as they have a small population and a coast. But if something valuable (Gold, Diamonds) is found for example in Mali, Chad or Niger these are also possible.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Yeah but I think what Strategos' Risk means are more independent states with either a very dominant European-descended political and economic elite or a European-descended majority living there. Libya wouldn't necessarily count since it would remain part of Libya had the Italians not lost it in the aftermath of World War II.
The Pieds-Noirs represented roughly 1/10 of the population of Algeria before independence so maybe you could have a "european" enclave split off from it.
Do the Portuguese holdings in Africa count? Or is it more like Latin America in that the colonizers mixed with the colonized to a large extent?
White settlers were always a tiny minority in Portuguese colonies, and in the post-war era the Salazar regime encouraged mixed marriages to promote the idea that Portugal is a tropical/African country, thus justifying its rule.
Realistically, only temperate climes with sparse and non-sedentary indigenous populations can become white settlement colonies. That only leaves North America, the Southern Cone, Australia, New Zealand, and the Khoisan part of South Africa. The Maghreb is possible, but as in OTL is difficult.
EDIT: Also include the better parts of Siberia. But that's OTL.
Last edited:
Taiwan and Hokkaido/Ezo, that is if the whites colonize and settle them before somebody else does.
Is Eritrea really going to be a good place to settle for whites? Seems unlikely to me.
What about Southern Brazil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Ethnic_groups
EDIT: Seems like Eritrea is better land than I gave it credit for. It would be great if people could find a map of fertile land in Africa...
What about Southern Brazil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Ethnic_groups
EDIT: Seems like Eritrea is better land than I gave it credit for. It would be great if people could find a map of fertile land in Africa...
Last edited:
Dunno if it counts as cheating, but there's no particular reason that the larger dominions (especially Canada, Australia and South Africa) had to settle down as single countries. I think with British Columbia and Western Australia in particular it was quite a close call that they ended up merged into larger entities.
As for other territories in addition to those already mentioned, is there any chance that Europeans could colonise Hokkaido before the Japanese seriously started settling there in the 19thC, or would any attempt to do so only produce a violent response from the Shoguns?
As for other territories in addition to those already mentioned, is there any chance that Europeans could colonise Hokkaido before the Japanese seriously started settling there in the 19thC, or would any attempt to do so only produce a violent response from the Shoguns?
Chile is very mixed if you include that you may as well include Mexico but Argentina and Uruguay fit the bill in my opinion.
Whites made-up about 5% of the population in Angola at independence; while Cape Verde was originally populated by the Portuguese but over time saw a large degree of intermarriage between various groups leading to a mixed population*, likewise Sao Tome and Principe is primarily descended from Europeans and Africans, though with more African heritage than Cape Verde.
Essentially when it comes to Portugal it depends on which colony and at what time period.
*Genetically speaking Cape Verdeans are 57% African and 43% European, however their is a massive disparity between genders genetically speaking, with males being 84% European and Females 90% African.
Feck!
Had a big reply but my browser crashed.
Not going to retype it all, summary-
Other countries did things differently. Whilst Britain tended to set up colonies as seperate bodies France liked to integrate them into France- e.g. Morocco, French Guinea.
Italy is maybe the best bet. They did a lot of settlement of their colonies. The trouble is they tended to settle places with significant numbers of natives.
Dominion status is a bit overrated. It was just a formal recognition of the significance of a/a collection of, already self-governing colonies.
Had a big reply but my browser crashed.
Not going to retype it all, summary-
Other countries did things differently. Whilst Britain tended to set up colonies as seperate bodies France liked to integrate them into France- e.g. Morocco, French Guinea.
Italy is maybe the best bet. They did a lot of settlement of their colonies. The trouble is they tended to settle places with significant numbers of natives.
Dominion status is a bit overrated. It was just a formal recognition of the significance of a/a collection of, already self-governing colonies.
A neutral Italy in WW2 could probably do it. I remember reading that under Mussolinni's Fourth Shore program Libya was projected to be majority Italian by 1960. When fascism inevitably falls its hard to predict whether Libya will become an indepedent majority Italian nation or if it remains part of Italy proper. I see the same thing happening with Eritrea but Ethiopia and Somalia are unachievable imo.
A less self-conscious and stable Spain releases Cuba as a dominion to ward off American advances?
Peru remains loyal to Spain in the 1820s and are rewarded a generation later with dominionship?
If the Italians manage to establish their Fourth Shore, I doubt the white population would push for dominionship unless Italy messes them about - they're going to be surrounded by free republics decidedly upset by the displacement of the native Libyans.
Peru remains loyal to Spain in the 1820s and are rewarded a generation later with dominionship?
If the Italians manage to establish their Fourth Shore, I doubt the white population would push for dominionship unless Italy messes them about - they're going to be surrounded by free republics decidedly upset by the displacement of the native Libyans.