In intellectual circles maybe. If you're a farmer out for money and a good lifestyle, that doesn't matter at all. Once you don't need the tribes to keep a military alliance (since you have settlers there), your policy on that front will be to protect settler interest. At that point, the best hope for the American Indian is to end up like the elites of the Five Civilised Tribes did pre-Indian Removal--powerful landowners and planters, at the expense of the poor in the tribe.
I don't buy for a minute British North America wouldn't throw the American Indians under the bus when it became convenient. These are same people who utterly destroyed India and much of, after all.
One more suggestion. Inuit Native Americans and other Native Americans that live in Alaska/Northern Canada?
They were not Stone Age people, but rather more advanced, at least along the level of many peoples in Africa--their agriculture was better than white settlements, even if it depleted the land quicker. That still isn't good enough for a modern society, but these were not primitives.
Ah I think I remember you from previous discussions of this nature. While your low opinion of the British is noted, the fact remains there were alliances between the British and Native Americans from the American Indian Wars through to the war of 1812 which were honoured. The Brits even gave lands in Canada to Native Americans who fled the USA after the ARW, having supported the British and lost. What is certain is that American Independence was the nail in the coffin of many thousands of Native Americans.
Change "low opinion of the British" to "low opinion of people living in the 18th and 19th century" as I think most countries would have done the same including non-European ones.
They'd certainly have problems. But if they beat Cortez, as they could have, and captured horses and smiths from the Spanish army and effectively used them (getting less likely here), they might have been able to hold out. They DID have their own allies, they weren't hated by EVERYONE (just most).Aztecs are impossible, since everyone in Mesoamerica hated them, and it was time for a regime change there which Cortes took advantage of. And even if Cortes fails, they will collapse as violently as they rose.
Oh, they're 'Cherokee' alright, but in a watered down sense. It won't mean much, though, as I said. They'll be less distinct from e.g. Georgia than the French/Spanish Louisiana would be from either. (Genetically they might manage to stay a plurality 40% Cherokee, 35% each white and black, perhaps.)If the Cherokee gain that much westernisation, they aren't the Cherokee, they are an independent Trans-Appalachia state, probably with actual Cherokee in the minority.
They were stone age. Very like the early civilizations in Egypt, the Middle East and China. Stone Age =/= primitive.They were not Stone Age people, but rather more advanced, at least along the level of many peoples in Africa--their agriculture was better than white settlements, even if it depleted the land quicker. That still isn't good enough for a modern society, but these were not primitives.
Especially when it would cost so very much to station enough military force to keep US/white/whatever settlers off the sparsely populated Indian land. No, the Brits aren't going to support Indians over their trading relations with the US. Heck, they didn't do a good job of supporting their own subjects in Canada against the US in various treaties. No need to get nasty about India here.I don't buy for a minute British North America wouldn't throw the American Indians under the bus when it became convenient. These are same people who utterly destroyed India and much of, after all.
Well they didn't in Canada, for the most part they honoured previous arrangements. I'm not pretending they were perfect but they were a lot more enlightened than the US settlers proved to be. As for India, that's a whole different debate, but other than some extreme heavy-handedness in quashing rebellions and religious violence they did their best to maintain peace and prosperity comparable to any others at the time. Like I said in my first post, the British [while far from perfect as I perhaps should have stated initially] were the best hope for maintaining an independent native American state of some description. Looking at India that would most likely be a puppet state that later gained independence, or at Canada a semi-autonomous reservation where the natives weren't nearly entirely decimated.
They'd certainly have problems. But if they beat Cortez, as they could have, and captured horses and smiths from the Spanish army and effectively used them (getting less likely here), they might have been able to hold out. They DID have their own allies, they weren't hated by EVERYONE (just most).
Are the British controlling the entire continent of North America? Because the trans-Appalachia region has plenty of land which white settlers want. These settlers can influence Indian policy, and eventually the colonial offices will favour them over the natives. Even in Canada this will still happen. After all, why preserve primitives when you could be giving their land to good Englishmen or whatever?
Ok, sorry, I misjudged you as one of a few people here who have a historical grudge against Britain. However I would still maintain that though the Brits were undoubtedly cruel and overbearing by modern sensibilities, by the standards of the time they were among the more enlightened and civilised. By a very small margin.
I don't think the British were quite so narrow-minded and ethnocentric as you think. In fact several prominent Indian leaders visited Britain and even Royalty and were treated with great respect. Yes there was a slightly naive and condescending attitude towards them, the 'noble savages', however there was also a general sense of respect towards them as a warrior culture. I think there is a tendency now to view the British Empire as existing solely to delight in murdering primitive native peoples, however the British Empire was largely modelled on the Roman Empire, which basically tried to assimilate it's subjects rather than oppress them.
Which is on British terms and not native terms. That land is very inviting. And at some point, Britain will want to take it on behalf of their colonial populations who are clamouring for it. Subjugation seems inevitable.
Then why didn't it happen earlier? Why didn't the British start colonising native lands before or even after the ARW when they were up for grabs?
Then why didn't it happen earlier? Why didn't the British start colonising native lands before or even after the ARW when they were up for grabs?
They were sick of paying for colonial warfare, perhaps? And afterwards, why not just leave it to the Americans to pay for the fighting it would (did) cause if they really wanted it that badly?
They did, the 13 colonies didn't come into existence via magic. Just prior to the ARW a lot of the area was claimed by the French and the Spanish which meant war with either party. After the ARW all colonization would have to come via Canada which had a population shortage as is.
Well that's rather the point, the big evil Brits didn't take all the land from the Natives, they took much of it from other colonial powers.