AHC - Major Asian(Non Hindustani/Middle Easterner) demographic is South America

zarathustra

Thinking about some different scenarios for South America. One thing struck me is about Asian diaspora/immigration to South America nations. I know, Brazil has a very noticeable Japanese diaspora, also Peru to a lesser extend. I've read about some Koreans and Chinese here and there, but I would like to entertain the idea of having a more noticeable demographics of specially South East Asian nations. The rules are
- South America specifically(so no Caribbean)
- "Asians" as East Asian and South East Asian. So no , "The Dutch bring in 100000 Indian indentured workers" like Guyana and Suriname don't count. Neither Middle easterners(as Brazilian Syrian-Lebanese)

- Easy mode: East Asians
- Hard mode: South East Asians

I was seriously considering posting this on after1900. A considerable amount of Asian Americans/Australians/Canadians for example came after 1900. The problem is: why go to Brazil or some random south American county...when you can go to a first world Anglo Country?

I guess to make this "work" you could have a different Portuguese Colonial Empire with more influence in Asia, and somehow this lead to a influx of these people to South America. As far as I know, the indenture system was not only with people from India, but to a few extend Chinese and Malays . We could also work with the Chinese following a similar American-Australian pattern. Maybe the Immigration act lead them to South America etc

But again, the main idea here is having a noticeable Filipino/Thai/Indonesian/Vietnamese etc demographic in South America.
It can also be a ethnic group partially Asian like some sort of Luso-Asian mestizos. (not only about Portugal obviously).

About the definition of "major demographic"/"noticeable demographic", or raw population numbers I'm not sure. Asking them to maintain their language is also asking too much

(I don't know if Hindustani is a derogatory term or if can be used to "people from the Indian subcontinent" so sorry)
 
Metempsychosis

Metempsychosis

Importing Filipinos and other Austronesian peoples to Latin America also seems like easy mode, TBH. Just have the Dutch fail, and increase trade and migration between the Iberian Union's Asian and American colonies.
 

Hohensaufen

I think the biggest population of Japanese outside the Home Islands is in Brazil, so some is OTL already. There are also large Japanese communities in Peru and Chile if memory serves me well.
 

Nivek

sarapen said:
Hindustani
Click to expand...
That's how Muslim call the Indian peninsula (the land of the Hindi river) so...

North America has better economics so jobs that's what they were looking for...

I was reading how there where japanese and Koreans in the sugar industry in Valle del Cauca (colombia) but those emigrated back their countries post WW2. Maybe Colombia absorbs More Korean after the japanese conquer them?
 
Gabingston

Gabingston

East/Southeast Asia and South America being antipodes makes this a bit more challenging. Then again, Europe and Australia/New Zealand are antipodes, and that didn't stop the white man from settling there.
 

Gildedthorn

Maybe if Brazil and Japan establish and mantain closer relations, then Brazil's policy towards the Japanese will focus more on actual integration, allowing for Japanese increased migration.
 
Metempsychosis

Metempsychosis

zarathustra said:
Valid. But how? I know very little about Dutch Indonesia, so I wonder how this could happen
Click to expand...
There were already some Filipinos who were moved to Latin America for whatever purpose: the Manilamen of Louisiana settled in the bayou as early as the late 18th century because they wanted to escape from the ill-treatment of Spanish galleons, so this implies there were some populations of Filipinos already manning the galleons even on the Latin American leg of the trade.

As for Dutch Indonesia, the Dutch had few colonies in America so it's hard to get many of those into the Americas using the Dutch: you need the Spanish Empire to continue functioning and moving Asians across the Pacific.
 

prani

Banned
zarathustra said:
(I don't know if Hindustani is a derogatory term or if can be used to "people from the Indian subcontinent" so sorry)
Click to expand...
Archaic term, Hindustani before independence meant a person from Hind, or the Indian subcontinent, same like how you use the term European, used mostly by people in the middle east and people in Indian subcontinent but after independence, Pakistan used the word Pakistani while India used the word Indians or Bharathiya or Bharath Vasi, the word Hindustani was still used but used less and less from 1990s onwards, a side effect of Sanskritization of Languages in India and association of the word Hindu with the religion Hinduism
 

prani

Banned
zarathustra said:
But again, the main idea here is having a noticeable Filipino/Thai/Indonesian/Vietnamese etc demographic in South America.
Click to expand...
Problem with them is that there weren't many of them to go around unlike the Indian people and also the Han Chinese who experienced demographic expansion with the introduction of crops of the new world, so any large scale movement of these whom you mentioned, people forced or otherwise would have negative impact on the viability of the economics of those regions, there is a natural disincentive for the rulers to allow migrations and lot of incentive for the native to stay put and not offer themselves as indentured servants.

Indonesia had a estimated population of 16 million in 1800, 5 Million in Thailand, and Vietnamese and Filipinos were roughly 5-7 million put together, now compare this to the estimated 150 million in the Maratha empire alone which held onto the most fertile area of the country but did not include provinces like Bengal or Tamil country adding those areas you get around 215 million people, to say that India had a surplus population would be an understatement, plus Indians are already familiar with crops like cotton, tobacco, sugarcane and other stuff that were used in plantation economies, it just made sense to use Indians and Chinese as indentured servants than say people of south east asia who were rather spread out, had plenty of land to go around, you had Indians volunteering to go to the Americas in search of better conditions and the only reason why Indians were no enslaved en mass by the Europeans to be transported to the new world is that the transportation costs would be high and as ships became better, we saw the rise of the British rule in India and they were no exactly fans of enslaving Indians, they thought it was far more sporting to put us into poverty and make us desperate enough that we begged to be sent off overseas, so you have a reasonable large number of Indians in south America is a product of demographics and British rule.

Same goes for China, by the time China opened up, slavery fell out of fashion and was illegal and there was more money to be made in the good ol US of A, the trans pacific railroad had a lot of Chinese migrant labour in employment. So Chinese demographic expansion was more into south east asia unlike Indian demographic expansion which brought Indians to south Africa to south America.
 

HyperMuscularDemon

I mean, this might be too early, but you could have the Polynesians both establish contact with South America and reestablish contact with the Phillipines around 1200 AD, and start trading with both, forming a trans Pacific trade route. That might get quite a few native Filipino traders to establish settlements in costal South America and intermix with the Native Americans, especially with the rich cultures of Peru, forming large Filipino settlements in South America.
 

sarapen

Metempsychosis said:
There were already some Filipinos who were moved to Latin America for whatever purpose: the Manilamen of Louisiana settled in the bayou as early as the late 18th century because they wanted to escape from the ill-treatment of Spanish galleons, so this implies there were some populations of Filipinos already manning the galleons even on the Latin American leg of the trade.
Click to expand...
Besides Filipino sailors jumping ship in the Americas there were also Filipino women brought along as, err, sex slaves by the Spanish for the long voyage across the Pacific. There's a small but noticeable genetic legacy on the Pacific coast of Mexico where the galleons made land, primarily around Acapulco.
prani said:
Problem with them is that there weren't many of them to go around unlike the Indian people and also the Han Chinese who experienced demographic expansion with the introduction of crops of the new world, so any large scale movement of these whom you mentioned, people forced or otherwise would have negative impact on the viability of the economics of those regions, there is a natural disincentive for the rulers to allow migrations and lot of incentive for the native to stay put and not offer themselves as indentured servants.

Indonesia had a estimated population of 16 million in 1800, 5 Million in Thailand, and Vietnamese and Filipinos were roughly 5-7 million put together, now compare this to the estimated 150 million in the Maratha empire alone which held onto the most fertile area of the country but did not include provinces like Bengal or Tamil country adding those areas you get around 215 million people, to say that India had a surplus population would be an understatement, plus Indians are already familiar with crops like cotton, tobacco, sugarcane and other stuff that were used in plantation economies, it just made sense to use Indians and Chinese as indentured servants than say people of south east asia who were rather spread out, had plenty of land to go around, you had Indians volunteering to go to the Americas in search of better conditions and the only reason why Indians were no enslaved en mass by the Europeans to be transported to the new world is that the transportation costs would be high and as ships became better, we saw the rise of the British rule in India and they were no exactly fans of enslaving Indians, they thought it was far more sporting to put us into poverty and make us desperate enough that we begged to be sent off overseas, so you have a reasonable large number of Indians in south America is a product of demographics and British rule.

Same goes for China, by the time China opened up, slavery fell out of fashion and was illegal and there was more money to be made in the good ol US of A, the trans pacific railroad had a lot of Chinese migrant labour in employment. So Chinese demographic expansion was more into south east asia unlike Indian demographic expansion which brought Indians to south Africa to south America.
Click to expand...
Right, historically Southeast Asia had low population density and the number of people didn't really take off until the 19th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top