|
|
Post by futurist on Jan 3, 2019 8:24:53 GMT
One thing that I really like about U.S. history is the U.S.'s territorial expansion and the massive movement of its population from the East to the West. I did some number crunching (with the help of U.S. Census Bureau data) and I discovered that around 43% of Non-Hispanic White Americans currently live in territories which the U.S. acquired in either 1803 or later.
Considering that the territories which the U.S. acquired in 1803 or later had almost no Non-Hispanic Whites back in 1803 (with the partial exception of Louisiana), this indicates that an extremely massive migration of Non-Hispanic Whites occurred over the last 220 years from the eastern U.S. to the western U.S.
In turn, this motivated me to ask this question--could there have been any other realistic cases where a country could have acquired an extremely massive amount of territory after 1800 (or after 1750, or after 1700), annexed this territory, and had almost half of the population of its main ethnic group (or ethnic groups) move to these newly acquired territories?
For instance, could almost half of all ethnic Russians have moved to the territories that Russia acquired after, say, 1700? If so, how exactly would one have accomplished this?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jan 3, 2019 10:59:21 GMT
One thing that I really like about U.S. history is the U.S.'s territorial expansion and the massive movement of its population from the East to the West. I did some number crunching (with the help of U.S. Census Bureau data) and I discovered that around 43% of Non-Hispanic White Americans currently live in territories which the U.S. acquired in either 1803 or later. Considering that the territories which the U.S. acquired in 1803 or later had almost no Non-Hispanic Whites back in 1803 (with the partial exception of Louisiana), this indicates that an extremely massive migration of Non-Hispanic Whites occurred over the last 220 years from the eastern U.S. to the western U.S. In turn, this motivated me to ask this question--could there have been any other realistic cases where a country could have acquired an extremely massive amount of territory after 1800 (or after 1750, or after 1700), annexed this territory, and had almost half of the population of its main ethnic group (or ethnic groups) move to these newly acquired territories? For instance, could almost half of all ethnic Russians have moved to the territories that Russia acquired after, say, 1700? If so, how exactly would one have accomplished this?
Not Russia really because its later gains were either pretty inhospitable [i.e. Siberia] or already fairly heavily populated [Poland, the settled parts of central Asia] However Canada and Australia very much did the same. You basically need a large area of land which is attractive for settlement, a large potential pool of settlers and either a very low native population or a willingness for mass killings/expulsions.
|
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Jan 5, 2019 6:16:00 GMT
One thing that I really like about U.S. history is the U.S.'s territorial expansion and the massive movement of its population from the East to the West. I did some number crunching (with the help of U.S. Census Bureau data) and I discovered that around 43% of Non-Hispanic White Americans currently live in territories which the U.S. acquired in either 1803 or later. Considering that the territories which the U.S. acquired in 1803 or later had almost no Non-Hispanic Whites back in 1803 (with the partial exception of Louisiana), this indicates that an extremely massive migration of Non-Hispanic Whites occurred over the last 220 years from the eastern U.S. to the western U.S. In turn, this motivated me to ask this question--could there have been any other realistic cases where a country could have acquired an extremely massive amount of territory after 1800 (or after 1750, or after 1700), annexed this territory, and had almost half of the population of its main ethnic group (or ethnic groups) move to these newly acquired territories? For instance, could almost half of all ethnic Russians have moved to the territories that Russia acquired after, say, 1700? If so, how exactly would one have accomplished this?
Not Russia really because its later gains were either pretty inhospitable [i.e. Siberia] or already fairly heavily populated [Poland, the settled parts of central Asia] However Canada and Australia very much did the same. You basically need a large area of land which is attractive for settlement, a large potential pool of settlers and either a very low native population or a willingness for mass killings/expulsions.
The interesting thing is that, even in 1926, only Uzbekistan had a large population out of the Central Asian territories. Indeed, Central Asia was still mostly sparsely populated in the early 20th century. For instance, Tajikistan had just one million people in 1926. What's interesting is that while almost half of U.S. Non-Hispanic Whites live in territories which the U.S. acquired in 1803 or later, a significant number of them live in U.S. states where they are minorities (in large part as a result of a lot of Hispanics and Asians moving into these states in recent decades). Thus, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a lot of Russians moving to, say, Central Asia even if they will remain a minority there (albeit a much larger minority than they previously were). Very interesting points about Canada and Australia. I'll have to check their demographic data to see if their scale of migration was comparable to that of the U.S. BTW, what about Nazi Germany if it wins WWII, kills or expels most of the Slavs in Eastern Europe, and survives for hundreds of years afterwards? I mean, this certainly isn't a road that I want to go on, but I'm nevertheless curious about this. |
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Jan 5, 2019 12:25:45 GMT
Not Russia really because its later gains were either pretty inhospitable [i.e. Siberia] or already fairly heavily populated [Poland, the settled parts of central Asia] However Canada and Australia very much did the same. You basically need a large area of land which is attractive for settlement, a large potential pool of settlers and either a very low native population or a willingness for mass killings/expulsions.
The interesting thing is that, even in 1926, only Uzbekistan had a large population out of the Central Asian territories. Indeed, Central Asia was still mostly sparsely populated in the early 20th century. For instance, Tajikistan had just one million people in 1926. What's interesting is that while almost half of U.S. Non-Hispanic Whites live in territories which the U.S. acquired in 1803 or later, a significant number of them live in U.S. states where they are minorities (in large part as a result of a lot of Hispanics and Asians moving into these states in recent decades). Thus, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a lot of Russians moving to, say, Central Asia even if they will remain a minority there (albeit a much larger minority than they previously were). Very interesting points about Canada and Australia. I'll have to check their demographic data to see if their scale of migration was comparable to that of the U.S. BTW, what about Nazi Germany if it wins WWII, kills or expels most of the Slavs in Eastern Europe, and survives for hundreds of years afterwards? I mean, this certainly isn't a road that I want to go on, but I'm nevertheless curious about this.
It might be possible to swamp at least some of the C Asia nations with Slavs, especially if you avoid communism and the distastes of the civil war, communism and WWII,
With Australia and Canada while the absolute numbers are far less the proportions are probably simular compared to the US. Argentina might be another example. Canada wasn't as brutal for the native populations as the US but there were some nasty cases in Australia.
If somehow Nazi Germany won WWII and lasted for a few decades with the planned policies then there are likely to be massive and probably permanent demographic changes. A hell of a lot of deaths, in the tens of millions at least I would fear and the Poles, Czechs and Ukrainians are probably going to suffer the worst as their in areas more attractive to settlement by Germany.
|
|
