AHC/WI: American Indian wank post-1815
- Thread starter Alferiz
- Start date
twovultures
Donor
The caste war of Yucatan is successful, and the Maya succeed in creating a fully independent Chan Santa Cruz state. Balkanized Mexico helps with this, but isn't absolutely necessary IIRC from the last time this came up.
Possible Runasimi or Aymara rebellions in the Andes could also lead to the creation of Native-controlled and Native-majority states.
Pacific Islanders normally aren't counted as "Native Americans", but an independent or at least protectorate Hawaii is also possible with a POD after 1815. How much of it counts as a 'native' state is debatable-it would have a westernized elite ruling over a majority of Asian immigrants-but it would be a surviving indigenous monarchy.
Possible Runasimi or Aymara rebellions in the Andes could also lead to the creation of Native-controlled and Native-majority states.
Pacific Islanders normally aren't counted as "Native Americans", but an independent or at least protectorate Hawaii is also possible with a POD after 1815. How much of it counts as a 'native' state is debatable-it would have a westernized elite ruling over a majority of Asian immigrants-but it would be a surviving indigenous monarchy.
Geronimo never surrenders, and as many more Apache become renegade, these marauding bands of a few to over 50 remain separate political identities without citizenship of either Mexico or America, who's cattle they stole ranchers the killed as late as 1924.
By the 1950s most would have been pacified, or killed, but I think they might remain nomads to this day, or, unwilling to become citizens, were given a small size of land by either nations, or both, like the fictional nation of Opium, either by modern liberals, the American Indian Movement, or by the US goverment fearing Axis-Apache cooperation against the American nuclear program.
Greenland might count, and you have the autonomous Inuit region in Canada.
By the 1950s most would have been pacified, or killed, but I think they might remain nomads to this day, or, unwilling to become citizens, were given a small size of land by either nations, or both, like the fictional nation of Opium, either by modern liberals, the American Indian Movement, or by the US goverment fearing Axis-Apache cooperation against the American nuclear program.
Greenland might count, and you have the autonomous Inuit region in Canada.
What he said.
The only possibilities are e.g. the Maya, as mentioned, and maybe somewhere in South America. Even those are pretty unlikely.
The Yucatan had a three-way civil war, iirc, Mexico vs local whites vs Mayans. Even if the Mayans won, could they keep control? or would the Mexicans reinvade later.
twovultures
Donor
Huh, didn't see this answer last time. But, I have a relevant answer: If the Mapuche got wind that Orelie-Antoine was claiming to have any sort of authority over them, and worse that he was trying to back that authority up with white troops, they would kill him pretty damn quickly. Orelie-Antoine said that he was 'elected king', but whatever authority the Mapuche gave over him they did not have monarchs in any European sense of the word and rejected Native American kings who tried to impose authority over them, such as the Inca.
The US keeps its' gods-damned promises for once?
Problematically even if they kept their promises that time those would again go right out the window when valuable resources are discovered or its time to build the transcontinental railway. I doubt the Natives would be in a position to check that expansion for long.
TFSmith121
Banned
You're expecting a lot from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries
You're expecting a lot from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, sorry to say.
For lack of better terms, partially assimilated local societies/ cultures/ groups/ peoples did not do well anywhere in terms of territory the "developed" world (Western and Eastern) was interested in, in terms of actual colonialism (as in settler colonies) or simple imperialism, in this era; the demographic, organizational, economic, and technological gaps were simply too large between traditional peoples and the industrial world (and that part of the industrializing world that had access to the products of the industrial world)...
Even the states that maintained their independence (China, Persia, Japan, Thailand, Ethiopia, etc.) did so largely by either a) adapting the same organizational cultures the West had brought into being, or b) on the sufferance of the West (or East, depending on how one defines such) as buffer states.
It took until the mid-Twentieth Century for the absurdities to really penetrate, as Orwell said.
Best,
You're expecting a lot from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, sorry to say.
For lack of better terms, partially assimilated local societies/ cultures/ groups/ peoples did not do well anywhere in terms of territory the "developed" world (Western and Eastern) was interested in, in terms of actual colonialism (as in settler colonies) or simple imperialism, in this era; the demographic, organizational, economic, and technological gaps were simply too large between traditional peoples and the industrial world (and that part of the industrializing world that had access to the products of the industrial world)...
Even the states that maintained their independence (China, Persia, Japan, Thailand, Ethiopia, etc.) did so largely by either a) adapting the same organizational cultures the West had brought into being, or b) on the sufferance of the West (or East, depending on how one defines such) as buffer states.
It took until the mid-Twentieth Century for the absurdities to really penetrate, as Orwell said.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
The problem is that these sorts of cultures
It depends on what you are defining as "independent entities" - if it entails political independence or sovereignty, then the reality is that these sorts of cultures (tribal/ traditional/ indigenous/ whatever term one wishes to use/ etc) didn't really survive anywhere as independent actors in a political sense, certainly not in the international arena, even in nation states that gained their independence from Western imperialism in the Twentieth Century - much less the "settler" states.
Not to pick on (say) Delhi, but Indian policy toward (say) the "something other than Indian" traditional cultures in the northeast or northwest has not been largely different than that of the Raj, in any significant way - certainly not in terms of surrendering sovereignty.
Not any different in terms of China and the Tibetans, Japan and the Ainu, etc. Same goes for most of the rest of the large post-imperial nation states, much less the US, Canada, Australia, Russia (as opposed to the USSR, which was/is somewhat unique in its views toward what became the successor states), etc.
Even in somewhere like New Zealand, which is probably one of the (relative) "success" stories as such, the Maori are not politically independent of the nation state of New Zealand.
Best,
It depends on what you are defining as "independent entities" - if it entails political independence or sovereignty, then the reality is that these sorts of cultures (tribal/ traditional/ indigenous/ whatever term one wishes to use/ etc) didn't really survive anywhere as independent actors in a political sense, certainly not in the international arena, even in nation states that gained their independence from Western imperialism in the Twentieth Century - much less the "settler" states.
Not to pick on (say) Delhi, but Indian policy toward (say) the "something other than Indian" traditional cultures in the northeast or northwest has not been largely different than that of the Raj, in any significant way - certainly not in terms of surrendering sovereignty.
Not any different in terms of China and the Tibetans, Japan and the Ainu, etc. Same goes for most of the rest of the large post-imperial nation states, much less the US, Canada, Australia, Russia (as opposed to the USSR, which was/is somewhat unique in its views toward what became the successor states), etc.
Even in somewhere like New Zealand, which is probably one of the (relative) "success" stories as such, the Maori are not politically independent of the nation state of New Zealand.
Best,
Wow thats something I never knew. That it was that controversial. Which only makes it bittersweet that with someone like JQ Adams in charge it could have gone better for them. I say him because I think he would respect the Supreme Court more.
The law brought in huge criticism as giving the president too much power and blatantly stealing land the natives owned, especially in the north. Davy Crockett himself opposed it.
Jackson's counterargument was that he was only doing what northerners had done for two centuries, and that he was genuinely helping them survive by sending them west.
As TFSmith121 states, it is almost impossible for a fully sovereign and culturally distinct Native American nation to survive after 1815.
Speaking of North America, I think the most likely opportunity might involve a combination of (1) native tribes adopting the structural, governmental, and technological attributes of Anglo-American culture (such as the Cherokee or others of the "5 Civilized Tribes), that (2) somehow manage to become a more valuable as an independent buffer between two competing European (or Anglo-American) settler societies than as land for direct settlement. This second requirement is tough, given the general and fairly quick rapprochement between the new USA and Britain, the fact that the US was an extremely aggressive settler society, and that the USA soon obtained a clearly dominant position vis a vis other powers (Spain/ Mexico, France) in North America.
However, even with the best conditions, the end result will not be a fully sovereign and Native nation. Given the nature of 19th Century imperialism, a sovereign Native American nation would probably soon
-(like Hawaii) find its native population outnumbered by Europeans and others allowed to move in to establish businesses and provide modern and labor services,
-(like the Cherokee) find its native power elites diluted by intermarriage with whites, and linked to foreign economic and political systems,
-(like almost everywhere) find itself eventually facing a situation where it is absorbed into the USA or another non-native American nation.
Speaking of North America, I think the most likely opportunity might involve a combination of (1) native tribes adopting the structural, governmental, and technological attributes of Anglo-American culture (such as the Cherokee or others of the "5 Civilized Tribes), that (2) somehow manage to become a more valuable as an independent buffer between two competing European (or Anglo-American) settler societies than as land for direct settlement. This second requirement is tough, given the general and fairly quick rapprochement between the new USA and Britain, the fact that the US was an extremely aggressive settler society, and that the USA soon obtained a clearly dominant position vis a vis other powers (Spain/ Mexico, France) in North America.
However, even with the best conditions, the end result will not be a fully sovereign and Native nation. Given the nature of 19th Century imperialism, a sovereign Native American nation would probably soon
-(like Hawaii) find its native population outnumbered by Europeans and others allowed to move in to establish businesses and provide modern and labor services,
-(like the Cherokee) find its native power elites diluted by intermarriage with whites, and linked to foreign economic and political systems,
-(like almost everywhere) find itself eventually facing a situation where it is absorbed into the USA or another non-native American nation.
The only possibility is that the democratic Mapuche succeeded in kicking out the settlers from Araucania successfully, because they'd already lasted forever against Spain.
On Nappy 3, you mean the man whom lost Paris and Mexico? And Why think Euro domination (what he wanted) is a help or answers the thread?
There were other long American resisters, but they were obsoleted by Sam Colt's revolver.
On Nappy 3, you mean the man whom lost Paris and Mexico? And Why think Euro domination (what he wanted) is a help or answers the thread?
There were other long American resisters, but they were obsoleted by Sam Colt's revolver.
I guess having some British protectorate to check American expansion? You'd need to change post-war of 1812 British policy towards America though.
TFSmith121
Banned
Nice summary
Nice summary.
The other possibility - and it really doesn't fit the criteria, being a syncretic society - are the Metis. If the British and Americans remained confrontational after 1815, then by 1820-30, I could see the US being supportive of a Metis-Cree alliance aimed at closing off that part of the continent from the British.
Of course, given how little the HBC got for their claims when they sold out, the US could probably have just bought them out, as well.
Best,
Nice summary.
The other possibility - and it really doesn't fit the criteria, being a syncretic society - are the Metis. If the British and Americans remained confrontational after 1815, then by 1820-30, I could see the US being supportive of a Metis-Cree alliance aimed at closing off that part of the continent from the British.
Of course, given how little the HBC got for their claims when they sold out, the US could probably have just bought them out, as well.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Yeah, but its not like "British" expansionist societies were
Yeah, but its not like "British" expansionist societies were exactly reluctant when it came to shoving the "natives" out of the way when there was money to be made, either.
In fact, none of the European powers, whether colonial or simply imperial were.
And the non-European powers that followed the same policies were not, either.
As has been said:
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Not exactly unique in human affairs.
Best,
Yeah, but its not like "British" expansionist societies were exactly reluctant when it came to shoving the "natives" out of the way when there was money to be made, either.
In fact, none of the European powers, whether colonial or simply imperial were.
And the non-European powers that followed the same policies were not, either.
As has been said:
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Not exactly unique in human affairs.
Best,
It also occurs to me that Mexico is an excellent example of what could, but also could not, have been. Central Mexico had a long history of native civilizations with a semi-feudal system of land tenure not dissimilar from Spain, a very large Indian population, and was subdued by Spain in part by coopting and incorporating native nobilities into the power structure. While it would take a lot of butterflies stretching back at least to 1519, one could conceivably imagine an alternate Mexico achieving independence from Spain that took on a more "Indian" cast, that saw itself as much heir to the Mexica/Aztec empire as it did European conquistadors, and that incorporated its large Indian population more fully into the power structure. This Mexico would still probably speak Spanish as its principle language and be Roman Catholic, but it could at least see itself as a Native American nation, not an extension of Europe in the new world.