At the same adopt a more tolerant view of intermarriage, like the French did.
How much of this was due to the lack of female settlers for them to marry, though?
At the same adopt a more tolerant view of intermarriage, like the French did.
How about you get the Norse colonies in America about the 11th century to survive, introducing wine, at least, to the Natives.You might be able to reduce tensions somewhat by introducing strong alcohol to the America's somehow back around 500 AD or so. It takes about 1000 years or so for a culture to evolve functionality in the presence of "demon rum", and its a damned ugly process (even now, Mediterraneans handle it way better than Northern Europeans). Not sure how you'd get it though.
How much of this was due to the lack of female settlers for them to marry, though?
I also don't see why the government would even care about having better relations with the Native Americans. What does it gain them if they pursue better relations? There are just not that many Native Americans and they are not growing at a significant rate so it seems like it would benefit the government more by pushing them out and opening the land to Americans who will have greater populations and create cities that could actually be taxed.
That might help a little, but history shows it takes nearly 1000 years for a society to adapt to it. It might tamp down the worst of the whole 'firewater' thing though, because it wouldn't be a totally alcohol-naive genetic population. 400-500 years is better than 0.How about you get the Norse colonies in America about the 11th century to survive, introducing wine, at least, to the Natives.
Wait a minute. What if the Polynesians somehow started trading with the Chinese/India, exposing them to alcohol, than the discovery of Easter Island and Hawaii led them to discover the Americas (with the expeditions leading to Polynesian landings in California and Central America, respectively). Now, the Polynesians only discovered Hawaii around 500 AD, so Polynesians in California would probably land around 550, introducing various Indian, Chinese, and Polynesian alcohols to the Natives. And there's your "alcohol in the Americas 1500 years ago"That might help a little, but history shows it takes nearly 1000 years for a society to adapt to it. It might tamp down the worst of the whole 'firewater' thing though, because it wouldn't be a totally alcohol-naive genetic population. 400-500 years is better than 0.
Wait a minute. What if the Polynesians somehow started trading with the Chinese/India, exposing them to alcohol, than the discovery of Easter Island and Hawaii led them to discover the Americas (with the expeditions leading to Polynesian landings in California and Central America, respectively). Now, the Polynesians only discovered Hawaii around 500 AD, so Polynesians in California would probably land around 550, introducing various Indian, Chinese, and Polynesian alcohols to the Natives. And there's your "alcohol in the Americas 1500 years ago"
Only problem would be is we would have to rely on trade for alcohol to pass through the whole Native population, as the Polynesian would most likely stick to the California coast. Plus there's the little tiny teensy weensy problem that the Natives are exposed to Polynesian and Asian illnesses, probably most of them dying. In 1000 years I'm sure they would rebound, but it still won't be any different when the Europeans land, aside from we won't see firewater poisoning.Yeah, liquor via the Polynesians would do the job. It'd cause hardcore social disruption from about 550 to about 1050, and massive disruption probably till around 1500 or so. Then I'd reckon they'd have problems associated with alcohol about on the level of present day Finns.
I've read some books and the like from some of my ancestors that lived in the Idaho/Oregon territory areas back in the time of early American settlement of said area. There's an overriding theme there of traders illegally selling the local tribes whiskey and all hell breaking loose. Its not the only driver of friction, but it's a massive aggravating factor. A lot of the readers probably remember with some trepidation their own earliest experiences with drinking. Take that and square it or cube it, and then take the most extreme 5% or so.
Only problem would be is we would have to rely on trade for alcohol to pass through the whole Native population, as the Polynesian would most likely stick to the California coast. Plus there's the little tiny teensy weensy problem that the Natives are exposed to Polynesian and Asian illnesses, probably most of them dying. In 1000 years I'm sure they would rebound, but it still won't be any different when the Europeans land, aside from we won't see firewater poisoning.
Very true, on both your points, but when I said "trading for alcohol", I simply meant it would become part of Native American culture. In fact, Natives might engineer alcohols with a low proof due to their low tolerance. I'm not sure how prominent Smallpox and Influenza were in medieval Asia, but since they were the main killers of Natives when the Europeans landed, tolerance to these diseases would later develop, and drastically help the Natives when it came to European colonial expansion. However, while the Polynesians might introduce Asian illnesses and alcohol to the Natives in the west, we might ALSO need Vinland to survive to spread those to the east. And the Norse were actually quite friendly to the Natives (probably being so outnumbered, but they were soon painted in a friendly light). So, around 1500, Columbus actually lands, and America is still majority Native, of course, especially the Caribbean, where he landed, which was about as far away from earlier influence, but other Natives would be influenced by the Norse in the Northeast and the Polynesians in California and South America. On a side note, this is quickly becoming less and less about strictly United States-Native American relations, but honestly it's taken an interesting turn.Well, they'd want to learn how to make wine and other liquors, not just trade for them. And exposure to Asian illnesses might well include some of the huge killers when the Europeans land, making it less of a green field epidemic.
I think this is probably squirrelling the question slightly because your question seems to imply an independent US but my first thoughts were that the best way to do this would be to have the Patriots lose the War of Independence (or butterfly it away in some other way). Although I think it can be exaggerated how good relations were between the British and the Native American tribes, the various colonial governments certainly demonstrated more of an ability to treat with tribal leaders as other nations than the independent federal and state governments did.
I wonder whether the following scenario might work:
Then I think you've got an interesting future for the rest of North America that might be a good jumping-off point for a TL. But I wonder whether this could plausibly result in a series of British protectorates being over the Native American tribes between the Appalachians and the Mississippi? I was thinking maybe some territorial division for the Iroquois and the 'Five Civilised Tribes.' Obviously you then have a delicate political settlement with restive American colonists to their right and the Spanish to their left so it remains to be seen how this develops down the line...
- Seven Years War and the 1763 Proclamation happens as in OTL.
- Tensions between colonists and London rise as normal and break out in the 1770s.
- Key Native American tribes remain loyal to the British.
- The American rebellion is put down quickly (my first thought would be the Battle of Long Island ending with the capture of Washington and the rest of the Continental Army but I'm sure there are loads of others).
- Maybe throw in Chatham living another 10 years and Frederick another 20 for a bit of spice.
I think under that set of scenarios the best that happens parallels to a considerable extent the the story of the First Nations and Canada. Destructive in many ways, but not the holocaust the United States inflicted.
After pushing out Britain, the independent 13 colonies don't coalesce into a single country and become multiple competing states who on occasion war over each other for western land. The Native American tribes could potentially play the states against each other and suffer relatively less displacement from their traditional homelands without the power of an unified US threatening them. Think less Manifest Destiny and more like Russia's expansion into Siberia.
But wasn't one of the major lead up events to Seven Years War in North America the conflict between the French and British over control of the Ohio River Valley. If they just fought a war to obtain it and then kept control of the American colonies why wouldn't the British eventually open settlement up west of the Appalachians? Also how could they realistically enforce the proclamation line? Even if the Americans are still part of Britain they will have to eventually give some autonomy to the colonies especially as the population of the colonies continues to increase and part of that autonomy will probably be in dealing with western expansion.Snip.
But wasn't one of the major lead up events to Seven Years War in North America the conflict between the French and British over control of the Ohio River Valley. If they just fought a war to obtain it and then kept control of the American colonies why wouldn't the British eventually open settlement up west of the Appalachians? Also how could they realistically enforce the proclamation line? Even if the Americans are still part of Britain they will have to eventually give some autonomy to the colonies especially as the population of the colonies continues to increase and part of that autonomy will probably be in dealing with western expansion.
This is true I think, up to a point. You're definitely looking at giving the various tribes a two or three decade window to solidify their position as much as possible before a renewed threat from the white colonists. I think this putative TL's equivalent of the French Revolution would definitely pose a problem to the Native Americans and the British presence in North America... But, depending on the attitude of the British government, I think that could turn out any number of ways.
You're right about the causes of the Seven Year's War (at least partly, there was obviously a bunch of European dynastic stuff going on but that's not important for these purposes). But 'control over the Ohio River Valley' can mean a lot of things. With the French expelled from the continent east of the Mississippi control can equally well be achieved by having your nice friendly Native American tribe in charge. I mean, that's basically what happened in India. Obviously, things can change down the line but all sorts of butterflies are being set free by this point.
Correct but the rulers of India had vastly larger numbers and economies than any hypothetical Native American state. Even all of the Natives in what would become the U.S. and Canada combined together wouldn't equal the power of some of even the mid sized Indian princes let alone a princely state like Hyderabad. The situation is also completely different. In India it was entirely about making money from trade with limited settlement and numbers of British in contrast the American colonies were vast settlement projects with large numbers of people moving from Europe to these colonies. Having a Native American tribe in charge of the Ohio River Valley wouldn't really gain anything for the British in anything other than short term either. They can make money from the fur trade but as the population of the colonies increases settlers are going to push west proclamation line or no. The British are going to have a hard time stopping settlers just because of the incredibly large area needed to be covered and the expense of it. I just don't see it lasting for much longer because it seems to go against the best interest of the British government to limit settlement.