Two questions about British India

Mar 2013
1,031
Breakdancing on the Moon.
I think it's odd that you're positing such a strong divide on an ethnolinguistic basis. It's always seemed an easy divide to overcome to me. England and Wales, England and Wales, England and Scotland, France and Britanny, France and the Navarre etc.

If I was a 19th C British aristocrat or whatever and I saw the region essentially sharing an Islamically derived culture, I'd have a go at sticking them together if it would benefit me. It's not as if you're sticking Tibetan Buddhists with Scandinavian Lutherans.

re: 2) I can't comment authoritatively, but Peter Hopkirk's books here are really, really, great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
Is there any evidence the Czars were concerned about a demographic time bomb? That doesn't sound like the Czars or any other imperialist power. Britain had only a small population but had no problem ruling 1/4 of the world's population. Equality of all peoples was not a British concern. I don't think the Czars were any different in that regard. Communism, on the other hand, did have at least a theory of equality. Russians maintaining control of a diverse Soviet Union was problematic. How does one reconcile minority rule by Russians with the Communist ideal of equality? But I don't think the Czars cared about equality nor did they have any problem with minority Russian rule.
You might be right about this. I'm not completely sure. I do know that some Americans--such as John C. Calhoun--advocated against a US conquest of all of Mexico in 1846-1848 because they were worried about absorbing too many non-white people into the US. For that matter, Charles de Gaulle talked about the demographic threat that keeping Algeria posed to France over a century after Calhoun. I don't know to what extent Europeans had such a view about demographic threats at the turn of the 20th century, though.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
I do want to make a point here, though--Tsarist Russia did style itself as a Slavic and Eastern Orthodox state and was also not a fan of huge-scale religious conversions unless it involved Eastern Slavs (for instance, converting Uniate Ukrainians to Eastern Orthodoxy). Would a state that styles itself as a Slavic and Eastern Orthodox state and that generally isn't a fan of huge-scale religious conversions actually want to acquire an extremely massive non-Slavic and non-Eastern Orthodox population?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,463
Dispargum
I do know that some Americans--such as John C. Calhoun--advocated against a US conquest of all of Mexico in 1846-1848 because they were worried about absorbing too many non-white people into the US.
Absorbing even just a few non-white people bothered Americans at that time. The Texas Republic always considered Albuquerque and Santa Fe to be part of Texas. Look at maps of Texas before the US annexed it. When Texas became a state it was chopped down to its current size. Since all Texans became US citizens, it was decided to cut Albuquerque and Santa Fe out of Texas and create New Mexico Territory. That way, the people of Albuquerque and Santa Fe would not have voting rights or be represented in Washington. In addition to skin color, religion played a role, too. Albuquerque and Santa Fe were Catholic towns.

The big difference between the US and Russia was democracy vs monarchy. Democracy must address the issue of equality (not always accept it as in the example of New Mexico) but monarchy is under no obligation to address equality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
Absorbing even just a few non-white people bothered Americans at that time. The Texas Republic always considered Albuquerque and Santa Fe to be part of Texas. Look at maps of Texas before the US annexed it. When Texas became a state it was chopped down to its current size. Since all Texans became US citizens, it was decided to cut Albuquerque and Santa Fe out of Texas and create New Mexico Territory. That way, the people of Albuquerque and Santa Fe would not have voting rights or be represented in Washington. In addition to skin color, religion played a role, too. Albuquerque and Santa Fe were Catholic towns.
Interestingly enough, that wasn't a long-term solution to this issue since New Mexico later became a US state and since AFAIK people who were born in US territories also acquired US citizenship at birth after 1868. Plus, even if a US territory remains a US territory, its people can still move in unlimited numbers to US states where they will be able to vote. In fact, millions of Puerto Ricans literally did just this.

The big difference between the US and Russia was democracy vs monarchy. Democracy must address the issue of equality (not always accept it as in the example of New Mexico) but monarchy is under no obligation to address equality.
That makes sense, and it's worth noting that Charles de Gaulle's France was also a democracy. However, it would still be very strange for a country to refer to itself and style itself as Eastern Orthodox if a majority of its population isn't actually Eastern Orthodox or even Christian at all.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,463
Dispargum
Interestingly enough, that wasn't a long-term solution to this issue since New Mexico later became a US state and since AFAIK people who were born in US territories also acquired US citizenship at birth after 1868. Plus, even if a US territory remains a US territory, its people can still move in unlimited numbers to US states where they will be able to vote. In fact, millions of Puerto Ricans literally did just this.
Yes, but by the time New Mexico became a state most of the population was white. Also, in the 1840s, the US was only starting to confront the possibility of large numbers of Roman Catholics. Previously, there had only been a cluster around New Orleans and then a scattering of Catholics here and there. Only the Irish potato famine brought large numbers of Catholics to America so that we could no longer describe ourselves as a purely Protestant country. By 1912, when New Mexico became a state, Roman Catholics were better tolerated. Same thing with race - by 1912 racial attitudes had moderated slightly and there was more tolerance for Latinos. Things were still bad, and even today are not perfect, but it wasn't 1848 any more.

Another objection in 1848 was that the people of Santa Fe and Albuquerque did not speak English. That also changed by 1912.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
Yes, but by the time New Mexico became a state most of the population was white.
A lot of Hispanics back then might have been viewed as being white, but it's worth noting that New Mexico was over 40% Hispanic in 1940:


Also, in the 1840s, the US was only starting to confront the possibility of large numbers of Roman Catholics. Previously, there had only been a cluster around New Orleans and then a scattering of Catholics here and there. Only the Irish potato famine brought large numbers of Catholics to America so that we could no longer describe ourselves as a purely Protestant country.
You forgot to mention the Catholic Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, and other Eastern Europeans who settled in the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

By 1912, when New Mexico became a state, Roman Catholics were better tolerated. Same thing with race - by 1912 racial attitudes had moderated slightly and there was more tolerance for Latinos. Things were still bad, and even today are not perfect, but it wasn't 1848 any more.
That might be true--though it is worth noting that Al Smith's 1928 presidential campaign failed to some extent because he was a Catholic. I mean, Yes, he would have lost in a landslide either way, but he lost several Southern US states that Democrats have previously carried for decades.

Another objection in 1848 was that the people of Santa Fe and Albuquerque did not speak English. That also changed by 1912.
Yeah, mass education can certainly do wonders. :)