“European” Native Americans

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by TheOpossum, Mar 17, 2019.

  1. Umbral Member Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Make it agriculturalists, and I'd expect the much the same displacement of hunter-gatherers as we had in Europe.
     
    Albert.Nik likes this.
  2. Albert.Nik Transhumanist,Aspiring Metaphysicist Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Displacement? Hmm,let's see. You would need to have a significantly large group that comes out from the Fertile Crescent,Anatolia,Caucasus and Europe after the spread of Agriculture and moves into Americas settling down and multiplying. Hunter Gatherers living there would then slowly start to assimilate.
     
  3. Umbral Member Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Well, not really. The thing about agriculturalists is that they produce far, far more calories per square mile of land than hunter-gatherers, and that leads to an incredible difference in population. Hunter-gatherers bump their head against their population ceiling much sooner. A small seed group of agriculturalists would grow exponentially, displace or absorb locals with 100 times their numbers or more and move outwards, repeat. The displacement of hunter-gatherers in Europe is a good model.
     
    ramones1986 and Albert.Nik like this.
  4. Albert.Nik Transhumanist,Aspiring Metaphysicist Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Then,I think the whole premise of this thread is solved. Have more migrations at least a little more from the regions I listed to westward directions and you have the OP challenge met. Within 4000-5000 years,you could have People in Canada appear Northern European and progressively tend towards Turkish/Iranian/Italian/Greek/Spinard/Levantine/Egyptian/Caucasian type in the Central Americas and lighten again towards the cone.

    Edit: A possible scenario: You could have the European/Anatolian/Caucasian/Leventine settlers settle in North America in the Canada and Northern USA practicing agriculture and a bit primitive aquaculture and due to this swell in population and eventually spread out into the whole North and South Americas evolving as per diet and climate. Even if you can't have people looking like Swedes or Norsemen as the diet may not fully permit this,you could have a majority or a good chunk of people looking like the Frenchmen,Italians and the Spinards. The correction from the previous message is that Northern European appearence might not be possible here. People who migrate by sea from Europe/West Eurasia to Americas would have to rely on fish for food and that solves their Vitamin D problem to an extent. So they depend on fisheries and farming as I described. So the starting appearence can at far begin from Frenchmen/Spinards of OTL.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
  5. Jan Olbracht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Location:
    Polska
    I tought main premise of this thread was "would Natives be threated better by European colonizers if they looked like them". With European agriculturalists getting to Americas ( black, white, green or purple-doesn't matter) we'd have more massive changes. Small band of Euro settlers on the other side of Atlantic would not wipe out Natives completly (Western Hunter-Gatherers also were not completly displaced, and source of agriculturalist settlers was way closer). But they'll bring their crops, adapted to temperate climate, which would increase population of North America. That would be far more important change than different skin tone of Natives.
     
  6. Umbral Member Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Yes. Like I said, the most likely source population would be the megalith building cultures of western Europe. So you'd get henges, standing stones, long barrow graves etc :)

    Displacement of local populations were far more a matter of local climate than distance from the source populations. The source areas, after all would be blocked from further expansion after a couple of centuries by their own settlements. The UK experienced near-total replacement of the previous population, whereas the Eastern Baltic didn't really have much if any replacement. It is speculated that the fertility of the local environment allowed high enough population to hold off the agriculturalists, it was pretty far north after all, until the techniques had diffused.
     
    Albert.Nik likes this.
  7. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    In an era of epic misstatements this doesn't quite rate with "Alternate Facts" but it is up there.

    The last thing you want is the "attention" of any of the Mods, unless it is due to writing a really nice T/L or some direct discussion in a thread on a mutual subject of interest. There are half a dozen reports in this thread that all seem to have at least a degree of merit and I'm trying to make sense of the entire mess. It is probably a really good idea to allow the Mods to sort through this properly.
     
  8. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Okay.

    Normally when there is a decision to take no action in a thread the Mods do not comment, simply finish the evaluation and file the decision. However, since, in this case a member has gone out of their way to make the reporting a big deal some comments appear to be due.

    1. In order to make sense of the reports in this thread it has been necessary to at least skim most of the entire thread. This is rarely done for reasons I hope are fairly obvious since we get 15-30 reports daily. That has increased the turn around time on the reports.

    2. The most actionable posts in the thread were made while BKW was participating in the thread. As he did not find anything actionable as he read in real time that tends to indicate that the most questionable posts were part of an acceptable flow of conversation. This is reinforced by the fact that the most worrisome posts were made several weeks ago, a fairly clear indication of the "conversational flow" aspect. With that in mind rereading (multiple times) the posts reported, especially one that is arguably the most questionable it appears that the member was not discussing the greater world, simply the members in this discussion.

    3. If this member making said posts was, in actuality, making statement regarding IRL he is incorrect and undoubtedly will repeat the same sort of comments in the future when proper action will be taken.

    4. Complaints that the thread has been derailed, at least in the context of this Board, seem unsupported. The conversations here have never been accused of having a laser focus and are unlikely to ever be so characterized. What has occurred is a debate between two members within the course of the general discussion based on the interpretation of a post. Again, remarkably common.

    5. It is NEVER acceptable to use the threat of or the actual reporting of a member as a club in order to stifle debate or "win" an argument. This is a long established policy that predates my time here a a member. I STRONGLY recommend that everyone in this discussion takes this to heart. If you make a report, it has been made and will be or has been reviewed, probably more than once. Once you hit the report button, move on.

    6. Everyone in the thread is reminded to follow Board policies regarding debate and respect for other members.

    In conclusion there will be no formal actions at this time.

    Go forth and sin no more.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2019
    BellaGerant and Zwide like this.
  9. Skallagrim Not the one from YouTube. Different other fellow.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Thanks for the weighed and considered response, and for not closing the thread because things got off track for a bit there.


    Now, to put them back on track. Some time ago, I replied with a post that was meant to speculate on what would happen if Europeans did (somehow) arrive in 1492 and encountered people who looked a lot like them. Obviously, not everyone agrees with my speculation on how that would play out, but it does provide an answer to the OP. It takes the premise as a given and runs with it. I'll now take a shot at the other side of the issue: a discussion of plausibility and possibilities. I want to preface this by making clear that I'm not an expert, but that I like to read a lot, and have tried to keep up with the relevant scientific findings. The thing is... Regarding the migration of the first Native Americans (often called "Paleo-Indians"), very little is set in stone. Hypotheses that were considered very well-supported have been put on shaky ground by new discoveries. This has happened more than once, and may well happen again. Previous "consensus opinions" have been demonstrably incorrect, and at present, there isn't even a consensus. There is a majority opinion, but various minorities views exist that have serious academic support. Any of them can be correct, or the truth may combine aspects of these competing models.

    I've noticed that some people in this thread have taken certain models/theories/hyptheses, and presented them as being near-certainties. What I'm going to do is to lay out the various models (very generally and roughly) that are (as far as I'm aware) defended by any serious academics at this time. What I hope this will demonstrate is that what some people implicitly assume to be The Facts may not be quite so certain. In fact, there's pretty much guaranteed to be a competing model that also has serious, credible and dedicated supporters in academia. At the end, I'll go into the consequences this all has (or can have) for the subject of this particular discussion. (I stress again that I'm a layman, not an expert. My summation of the various competing theories is bound to be overly simplistic.)

    First, we have the long chronology theory. This model is based on the idea that there was an early population of settlers, possibly present before 40,000 years ago. It has been suggested that this wave of migrants may have been related to Australian Aboriginals— a product of the same early wave of human migration. If such a population existed, they were pushed aside or assimilated by a later second wave of immigration. Some genetically distinct communities may have survived in relative isolation for quite some time. (For instance, some think that the original "Botocudo culture" consisted of a population that was ethnically distinct from modern Native Americans, because the ancient skulls are noticeably different.) Since these presumed early settlers were either wiped out or (if assimilated) weren't numerous enough to leave noticeable phenotypical heritage in the later population, we may assume that this would hold true no matter who forms the second wave of immigrants. But the POD "what if no later migration occurred" can give us an ATL where the Americas aren't empty (as some scenarios have it), but populated by distant cousins of the Australian Aboriginals. I'd call that interesting, and therefore worth mentioning.

    There is also the short chronology theory, which comes in a number of flavours, which cover basically every other serious model. They are all rooted in the notion that the first migration occurred after the Last Glacial Maximum, which went into decline after c. 19,000 years ago. The old "Clovis consensus" held that the Clovis Culture was the "mother culture" of all Native Americans. It appeared c. 13,000 years ago, which meant that the ancestors of all Native Americans had migrated across the Bering Bridge between 19,000 and 13,000 years ago, via a supposed ice-free corridor. They moved into North America, producing the Clovis Culture, which then produced countless offshoots that went on to populated the Americas. This is no longer the dominant view, although it still has some defenders.

    The fact that a substantial number of older sites have been discovered suggests very strongly that Native Americans (of Siberian origins, so not meaning the supposed 'early arrivals') were present at an earlier time than 13,000 years ago. Sites dating back to 16,000 and 15,000 years ago have been found. Those who still defend 'Clovis first' have criticisms of the dating of each of these sites individually— yet the idea that the dating is wrong every time a pre-Clovis site is discovered is quite implausible. The Clovis first model is looking less credible by the day.

    Also, the whole existence of any ice-free corridor has been called into question. Even if that corridor existed, though, those older sites are too old to fit with the idea of entry into the Americas via such a corridor. If there was a corridor, the peoples inhabiting those sites must've arrived before it became passable. The idea that they arrived by boat (the "coastal route" model) has now become increasingly embraced. This would also explain why there are sites in South America that are older than one would expect if settlement occurred via migration on foot. But if settlers went down the western sea-board by coast-hugging boats, things make much more sense. This model assumes that the original settlers from North-East Asia arrived quite shortly after 19,000 years ago. (Some academics place their arrival as early as 23,000 years ago, but that's a distinct minority view.) The original migrant population is generally believed to have been small: about 250 people or so.

    Does that give us a shiny new consensus, then? No. Because there are still two competing sub-models. The most broadly accepted one holds that the initial 'Bering migration' was followed up by multiple later waves. Three or four waves of migrants from North-East Asia are believed to have moved into the Americas, with the one around 19,000 years ago being the first. (This model makes any scenario where Native Americans of Asian origin are fully absent quite unlikely, as Burton K Wheeler has noted.)

    However, there is also a competing model—less widely supported, but certainly not some fringe belief—which holds that there was just one group of immigrants from North-East Asia. Those c. 250 people who arrived c. 19,000 years ago. They form the ancestral population of all subsequent Native Americans. The subsequent 'waves' of migration throughout the Americas isn't disputed, but the adherents of this model believe that those waves originated with the one ancestral population. So instead of Asians making it to America three or four times, they just made it once, and offshoots of the resulting population migrated throughout the Americas in multiple waves. If we assume that to have been the case, it would explain a few things that have puzzled researchers. For instance, one single and small ancestral population would handily explain why Native American HLA profiles are dominated by an unusually small number of types. (Which is one of the reasons why they were so susceptible to epidemics.) It fits. The odds of one population finding its way into America is also a bit more credible then three or four waves of migration finding the way, thousands of years apart.

    You can probably tell that I'm a supporter (albeit a cautious and tentative one) of the notion that there was just one ancestral group of immigrants. In any event, the model is credible enough to reasonably serve as the basis for a POD. You can say "that one group didn't make the trip" and you're done. That still doesn't give you any credible way to populate the Americas with anything even vaguely "white", however.

    Of course, there is always the Solutrean hypothesis, which claims that Europeans of the Solutrean Culture moved in from across the Atlantic before anyone arrived from North-East Asia. I find the arguments in favour of this model to be pretty lacking, but it's not pseudo-science. Just very unlikely to be true. Both proponents and opponents tend to politicise this theory very heavily. One thing that is of interest is that supporters of the Solutrean hypothesis have pointed out that there is more "Western Eurasian" DNA in Native Americans than one would expect if their ancestors were fully of East-Asian descent. This is all pretty controversial, and studies are conflicting. Also, critics have argued (not unreasonably) that a lot of claims of "white DNA" in Native Americans are based on DNA taken from modern populations, and reflects no more than simple inter-breeding with Europeans as of 1492. Seems a lot more plausible to me.

    However... DNA research of ancient human remains found in Siberia (c. 24,000) years old has revealed these to have far more genes linked to Western Eurasian populations than previously thought (instead of being exclusively linked to East Asian populations). Furthermore, it seems that these Siberian remains belonged to people related to the Paleo-Indians. This opens the door to a new hypothesis: namely that the original population that moved in from North-East Asian may have been a mixed group, including people with more Western Eurasian genetic heritage than anyone had previously suspected. This isn't so unlikely: it's becoming ever more clear that ancient nomadic peoples all over Northern Eurasia were highly nomadic, and travelled greater distances than previously suspected. People whose ancestors came from Western Eurasia ending up in East Asia is no longer just a theory. That happened. And it may just be the case that some of them, nearly twenty millennia ago, were among those who made that fateful journey into a new world. If it should turn out that (some) Western Eurasian DNA in Native Americans is older than 1491, this explanation makes infinitely more sense than the Solutrean hypothesis.

    I think it's also our best bet to fulfill the OP's idea, insofar as that can be possible. Assume that an ATL group consisting exclusively or near-exclusively of nomads of Western Eurasian descent ends up in the right place at the right time, and makes the journey to the Americas instead of the OTL group. You'd have to furthermore assume that the "one migration" model is correct, but that's not an unreasonable position. Even if the long chronology theory is correct, and there were earlier inhabitants already present beforehand (presumably related to Australian Aboriginals), we may safely assume that they would likely meet the same fate as they supposedly did in OTL.

    That's about the closest you can get to the actual gist of what the OP asks. Is this all just as case of "mighty whitey gets there first"? Actually... no. These ATL ancestors of ATL Native Americans might be genetically related to Western Eurasians... but they wouldn't be white at all. As has been observed in this thread, the genetic mutations responsible for that only became prevalent later. These guys wouldn't look like Europeans, and (assuming a butterfly net) come 1492, the Europeans wouldn't recognise them as being related to them in any meaningful way. The revelation would only come with much later genetic research, and would no doubt end up being highly controversial. (The suggestion that some of the original ancestral group of migrants may have had Western Eurasian DNA is already controversial in OTL.)

    No matter what, though, speculation on this subject provides major fodder for ATL scenarios. But the idea of Native Americans who are "white", while interesting to discuss as a hypothetical, remains firmly ASB. You'd need to assume the "one migration" model, and you'd probably have to reject the long chronology theory. That would allow you to have "those original c. 250 people never cross into America" as a POD, which gives you an empty America. Then, assuming a butterfly net, you could have the Norse show up as per OTL. They wouldn't encounter "Skraelings", and their little colony might thrive. This would make their descendants the ATL Native Americans. Literally the first people born there. And yes, they'd be white. That's just about the only way to do it, and it takes quite a few assumptions (although not ones that are outside the realm of defensible academic views). I somehow don't think it's quite what the OP had in mind, though...
     
  10. Jan Olbracht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Location:
    Polska
    I'm looking for some analogies in Russian Far East.
    Ainu people hmm were once thought to be "lost Caucasians" by Westerners (now we know, that despite their pseudo-caucasian look they are closely related to Northeast Asians). Ainu people lived in Hokkaido and Sakhalin. Sakhalin was conquered by white people-Russians. Was Russian treatement of Ainus different from their treatment of other natives of Pacific coast, like Nivkh, Nanai, Itelmen? I don't think so.
     
    Albert.Nik likes this.
  11. Umbral Member Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    I had a memory of a paper prodding the back of my head in relation to this , and it finally surfaced. We do not have to guess at what the Siberian peoples who drifted or conquered their way into Europe in the neolithic look like. There is still a relic population extant! A 2002 study, "Genetic structure of human populations", Science, by Rosenberg et al. divided human populations into groups based on genetic differences and found six groups: Africans, Europeans/Middle Easterners/South Asians, East Asians, Oceanians, Native Americans and the Kalash. A small group of people sufficiently distinct genetically to warrant its own group.

    The Kalash number a few thousand people, in a few hard to access mountain valleys in Pakistan near Afghanistan. They have been genetically isolated from other people for about 12 000 years. Their own tales state that they are descended from Alexander the greats soldiers and officers, but repeated genetic studies have failed to find any Greek admixture, or admixture in general. One study from 2014 did report to have detected an admixture event around 300 BC, but later studies have not been able to replicate that.

    The Kalash have a close genetic affinity with the MA-1 specimen, an individual that died 24 000 years old in south-central Siberia. This specimen also shared affinity with Native Americans. We can assume that the Native American branch split off before the Kalash. And that the Kalash, due to their split time is a good proxy for the third major population that contributed to the present European gene pool. The source population would have expanded from Siberia into the Pakistani mountains at about the same time as they expanded into Scandinavia along the northern route and into Ukraine and the steppes along the southern Europe.

    These are the Kalash:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    (Images from GnosticWarrior.com and istmira.com. No other information beyond illustrations from these sources)

    This can be expected to be a good proxy for what the EHGs who first exhibited light skin and the old Siberian population that migrated into Europe looked like.

    The Yamnaya arose from a mixture of this population and Iranian/Caucasus hunter gatherers.

    The Early European Farmers probably looked very, very similar to todays Sardinians, the Sards.
     
    Albert.Nik likes this.
  12. Optical_Illusion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    The Kalash are just a typical early Indo-Aryan population with lots of genetic drift.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746362/ - "The Kalash Genetic Isolate? The Evidence for Recent Admixture" - "As Ayub et al. showed and has been reported previously, the Kalash experienced strong drift effects—among the highest of Eurasian populations studied to date ... (C)ontrary to the claim of Ayub et al. that the ancestors of the Kalash have been isolated from the ancestors of other extant populations for over 8,000 years, there is in fact strong evidence that they have not been isolated over this time frame."

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/292581v1.full - Vagheesh M. Narasimhan - "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia" - "Setting Steppe_MLBA to its smallest possible proportion of zero to estimate the minimum fraction of Indus_Periphery ancestry that could have existed in the ASI, we obtain ~39%. Setting AASI to its smallest possible proportion of zero to estimate the maximal fraction of Indus_Periphery ancestry that could have existed in the ANI, we obtain ~72%. In fact, we find four tribal groups from southern India (Palliyar, Ulladan, Malayan, and Adiyan) with close to the maximum mathematically allowed proportion of Indus_Periphery-related ancestry, and we find a population in northern Pakistan (Kalash) with close to the minimum. Thus, nearly unmixed descendants of the ASI and ANI exist as isolated groups in South Asia today ...

    Using admixture linkage disequilibrium, we estimate a date of 107 ± 11 generations ago for the Iranian agriculturalist and AASI-related admixture in the Palliyar, corresponding to a 95% confidence interval of 1700-400 BCE assuming 28 years per generation (28). This date is consistent with a previous estimate of 110 ± 12 generations ago for the Kalash. These results suggest that the ASI and ANI were both largely unformed at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, and imply that the ASI may have formed in the course of the spread of West Asian domesticates into peninsular India beginning around 3000 BCE (where they were combined with local domesticates to form the basis of the early agriculturalist economy of South India, or alternatively in association with eastward spread of material culture from the Indus Valley after the IVC declined
    "

    Kalash are not even the most representative of early Indo-Aryan populations, which would be Haryana Rors - https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdfExtended/S0002-9297(18)30398-7 (who are still quite different from those people). Kalash not a proxy for the "Ancient North Eurasians" or anything like this, just a highly inbred early Indo-Aryan population that formed about 2000-3000 years ago.
     
  13. DougM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Back to the original premise. If Europeans found basically Europeans in the new world very little would change assuming the same relative technology and cultures.
    If you look at history the fact that people looked the same or looked different has very little outcome on the question of invasion.
    The great example of that is Williams invasion of England and the way the local population was suppressed.
    It is not like the Europeans shy’ed away from ruthlessly invading and subjugating their neighbors.
    Nor did the other ethnicities avoid this either. Asians were constantly attacking each other and the same holds true in Central/South America and Africa.
    So as far as we can tell from a historical perspective ethnicity did little to change how folks were treated when they encounter more powerful groups.
    The one change you will notice is that by this point pretty much the reservations and the separate status would not exist. The reason for this is that in the 1800s and early 1900s many if not most of the “Native Americans” would have passed themselves off as being Europeans as without the obvious physical differences they could do this with relative ease.
    So they will be subjugated and Europeans will take over very much as happened but eventually they will be assumed into the general population.
     
    TheOpossum likes this.
  14. Umbral Member Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Well, we shall see. The first link seems to be a short retort to the original paper by the author of the 2014 study. Lots of papers have them and sometimes they turn out to be right. Two sources were used in the original paper, and this one seems to point out that the first yields a significant signal of of admixture when using certain population groups as models. And the second source of information may have its signal of admixture obscured in Admixtools by genetic drift and in Treemix by the large search space.

    At no point are things like the similarity to MA-1 addressed. The first point they raise do bring up an admitted possibility of admixture in one approach, but the rest is just trying to explain why the other methods did not find any admixture. Basically it sums up to: If you use these populations as a base the results can indicate admixture, and here are our explanations for why none of the other methods picked it up... It looks like a possibility but not a large one, it requires too many extra factors for why the other tests did not pick it up if it is there.

    The second one references this letter, so its basically the same again.

    It would be somewhat peculiar for a drifted Indo-European population to have drifted into sharing drift with a 24 000 years old paleo-siberian specimen. And it would have to be some drift for Rosenberg to find them outside all the other population groups forming their own little genetic continent:) On the other hand, being an isoalted offshoot of one of the eastern source populations of modern Europe would explain quite handily why there are similarities to both Europeans and ANI, as they would be close to the split.

    Occams razor says I am nowhere near convinced.

    Anyway, as a point of interest, the 2015 paper notes that the Kalash have no gene for lactase persistence, but have no problem drinking milk as adults. They speculate that this may indicate another gene or mechanism for adult lactase tolerance.

    Personal speculation: Stomach flora adaption?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019
  15. Optical_Illusion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    As the Harvard papers have said, they are among the most drifted populations encountered in Eurasia, so yes, it's definitely some genetic drift. Of course it's impossible for them to drift towards MA-1, but their drift with MA-1 by the f3 measure isn't very high compared to their neighbours.

    I don't have an example for MA-1 to hand, but see https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j....ent/711bfd84-99c1-44e6-8b40-fbde264460f6/mmc1 - Figure 7 for examples for shared drift with Eastern Hunter Gatherers and Steppe_EMBA - less shared drift than Yaghnobi Tajiks and Haryana Rors. Just not really an outlier. If you can find any paper that explicitly compares shared drift between MA-1 and Kalash with MA-1 and other Pakistani populations, you'll see it shows no specially high degree in the Kalash.
     
  16. Mark E. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Location:
    Forgottonia, USA
    If Caucasians, instead of east Asians, had migrated across the Bering Strait some 15,000+ years ago, they still wouldn’t look the same as Europeans. So, consider the only credible scenario for native Americans to be Europeans. Say the Asian migrations fail, for whatever reason: disease, animal attack, massive storms, etc. The new world is free of humans until the Vikings land in the 11th century. With no hostile natives, they continue to migrate and populate the eastern seaboard for a couple of centuries. Now suppose the migrations stop, the black plague hits Europe and the records of settlement become lost as in OTL.

    Then come Columbus and the 16th century explorers. How much of America is settled? Probably not the whole of two continents, but the eastern parts of what is now the US, Canada and West Indies would be inhabited by people who look like Europeans. How much European culture would they have retained? Would Christianity be their faith? Hard to say. Would there be less racism? Well, considering the way people who “look” Italian, Irish, Polish, Scandinavian, etc. have endured racism and discrimination over the centuries, there would still be problems.
     
  17. TheOpossum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2019
    And what happens to the rest of the Americas?
     
  18. Transhumans of the Avengers Universe Posthumans of the Multiverse

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2019
    If the case of "Viking only" America does happen, then Vikings would probably be limited in higher concentrations around the North East and the Great Plains and probably a bit more sparsely around the Mediterranean like West Coast.

    Even this is being too optimistic.

    I think few if any, could even cross into OTL Mexico.
     
  19. Mark E. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Location:
    Forgottonia, USA
    Vikings are maritime people and would likely make it down the east coast into the West Indies. So 15th century explorers might encounter them where they land as in OTL. I doubt the west coast and South America would be inhabited yet at all. Probably not Mexico, except for coastal spots. Mississippi valley, yes, high great plains, no.
     
  20. TheOpossum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2019
    So what happens next in South America and the West coast?