AHC: More Independent Native Nations

The goal here is, with a POD no earlier than the 1640s (mid 17th century, essentially), to have more independent nations founded the natives exist in the world. We had a few in Asia, some in the Middle East and one in Africa OTL, so the focus here is the Americas, but it should be more than possible to squeeze more into the 'colonized areas' than there were IRL. Having natives that were previously colonized gain their independence is viable here, so long as they don't get re-colonized by someone else later down the line.

Personally, I think the best bet in the Americas would be the Mapuche although I suppose you could have the Maya, Inca or even Aztecs (however few of them there may have been left at this point) launch a more successful rebellion than they did OTL while maintaining plausibility.
 
The mostly-Maya Yucatan had a rebellion from Spanish authorities from the 1840s well into the 1930s, when the last major Yucatan town was finally taken by Mexican authorities.
 
I had a few arise in my Napoleon TL in the 1820s, with extensive support from the British after the War of 1812 (or "Great Lakes War" in the TL). Long-term I haven't written about yet (up to 1834), but I can't see them lasting forever.

- BNC
 
In the Americas, the Yucatec Maya ran their own rebel government for most of the 19th century. So a Yucatan state is really the best bet. I think a Neo-Inca country in the Peruvian highlands is also plausible given the whole Tupac Amaru mess in the 1700s.

The rest are kinda problematic because their low population densities, making it impossible to domesticate epidemics, mean they're likely to be overwhelmed by the sheer flood of Europeans. Some successes are possible for decades, even centuries, as the Pueblos or the Abenaki or the Mapuche showed. But once a European foothold is successfully established--and by the 1640s they already have been--in the long term, and definitely by industrialization, colonial society will expand and the indigenous world will contract. This is the case for both North America and the Southern Cone.

OTOH Paraguay's main language is Guarani, which is actually more widely understood than Spanish. Brazil could plausibly have turned out similar and become a Nheengatu-speaking country. I dunno if you consider these "native" nations though.
 
There's pretty much nothing outside of the Andes and Mesoamerica which could succeed long-term, and as time goes by any rebellion won't be an indigenous led one. The main issue everywhere else is the low population density and in general the low numbers of people of that group.

For the Mapuche, I don't see why at some point they wouldn't be grinded down by the Argentines and Chileans as in OTL. Both were modernising nations with much immigration and a need to expand. Who will protect them? The British or French, who might also want their land (although they'll treat them better maybe on the level of the Maori)? It'll piss off some otherwise reliable allies in Latin America to declare a protectorate over land which they claim, which would make it unappealing. Although in terms of mid-19th century American Indian groups, they're definitely the most likely to succeed by far outside of Maya, if only because for every other American Indian group, it was only a matter of time before they got smashed by the overwhelming numbers and industry of Euroamerican nations.

In the Americas, the Yucatec Maya ran their own rebel government for most of the 19th century. So a Yucatan state is really the best bet. I think a Neo-Inca country in the Peruvian highlands is also plausible given the whole Tupac Amaru mess in the 1700s.

The rest are kinda problematic because their low population densities, making it impossible to domesticate epidemics, mean they're likely to be overwhelmed by the sheer flood of Europeans. Some successes are possible for decades, even centuries, as the Pueblos or the Abenaki or the Mapuche showed. But once a European foothold is successfully established--and by the 1640s they already have been--in the long term, and definitely by industrialization, colonial society will expand and the indigenous world will contract. This is the case for both North America and the Southern Cone.

OTOH Paraguay's main language is Guarani, which is actually more widely understood than Spanish. Brazil could plausibly have turned out similar and become a Nheengatu-speaking country. I dunno if you consider these "native" nations though.

Yeah, an early POD is the best. But once Euroamericans have a foothold (as the Anglos did by the late 17th century), it's going to be insanely difficult for any native group to survive independently. People like to cite the Proclamation Line and Britain making an American Indian protectorate, but I don't see why that wouldn't be abolished at some point and Euroamericans grab the land, even if the result for the native peoples there is less horrible than in OTL.

Nheengatu would've taken an early POD, although it would be a very interesting signifier of Brazilian identity. But wasn't Nheengatu a simplified version of the original Tupi language? Guarani is also interesting. But in both cases, it was widely spoken by both indigenous people and mixed-race people, who made/make up the majority of the population. And if the majority of the population is of indigenous descent...
 
In the Americas, the Yucatec Maya ran their own rebel government for most of the 19th century. So a Yucatan state is really the best bet.

I think that a Yucatan state makes the most sense to me. I've heard of separatist movements among the Maya to have their own country. Probably if in the 1800s a Mayan separatist movement could organise a referendum bill taken to parliament for approval. If approved by the Mexican parliament, a referendum could be held. If the people of the Yucatan vote 'Yes', then we could see a Mayan state. However, I think a referendum would be best for post-1900. A sort of civil war, a Mexico vs Yucatan battle resulting in Mexico letting the Yucatan go, would be more likely in my books.
 
The original challenge was for the survival of a nation "founded by natives", not "majority native till the present day".

So, how about this: a native culture in the illinois/wisconsin area rediscovers their sedentary/agricultural (mississippian) roots in the 1640s. By the 1740s, they have a number of large towns scattered throughout the region but are under threat of attack by their nomadic neighbours who have obtained muskets from the fur trade. In order to obtain European tech themselves they invite in settlers who find they have more in common with this settled chiefdom than with the nomadic fur trappers.

By 1800 you have a society which is majority native peasants and with a native chief on top but with a large European middle class. By 1850 or so, this chiefdom shares a border with an alt-USA and has become an ally of this alt-USA against the nomadic peoples farther west. The cultural majority is still native but a majority of them have at least 25% european ancestry and more euro-american immigrants arrive every year.

In the 1860s or 1870s the alt-USA sponsors a coup trying to annex their allied chiefdom. The coup fails with the chief finding an unlikely ally amongst a number of European immigrants who specifically came to this chiefdom to escape the politics/culture of the alt-USA. However the coup shows the chisf the need to modernize and, with the help of the anti-alt-USA immigrants, the chiefdom is transformed into a modern constitutional monarchy.

By 2017, immgration has reduced the native population to a small minority although the chief is still in power as a figurehead. The native language has co-official status with english but anglophones are still the vast majority. The national culture of this state is centred around it being more tolerant than the alt-USA, but it still prides itself on its native roots.
 
I think that a Yucatan state makes the most sense to me. I've heard of separatist movements among the Maya to have their own country. Probably if in the 1800s a Mayan separatist movement could organise a referendum bill taken to parliament for approval. If approved by the Mexican parliament, a referendum could be held. If the people of the Yucatan vote 'Yes', then we could see a Mayan state. However, I think a referendum would be best for post-1900. A sort of civil war, a Mexico vs Yucatan battle resulting in Mexico letting the Yucatan go, would be more likely in my books.

Would require a more democratic Mexico. Porfirio Diaz would never allow that. And the leaders of the Mexican Revolution seemed more about building a strong Mexico free of foreign domination rather than allowing bits to fragment off. That mindset dominated Mexico for most of the 20th century. And then you have to ask would the Maya of Yucatan nowadays vote to become independent? I don't know if they would, even though major centers like Cancun and Cozumel have been built on the backs of the modern Maya, and at the same time given some Maya a major boost.

A Maya state in mid-19th century Yucatan would be very, very interesting. Maybe a European state would help protect it for leverage in Mexico? The British IIRC had decent relations with Chan Santa Cruz, but for something more than that, you'd need either Britain or someone else to help them out a bit in the otherwise hostile environment.

The original challenge was for the survival of a nation "founded by natives", not "majority native till the present day".

So, how about this: a native culture in the illinois/wisconsin area rediscovers their sedentary/agricultural (mississippian) roots in the 1640s. By the 1740s, they have a number of large towns scattered throughout the region but are under threat of attack by their nomadic neighbours who have obtained muskets from the fur trade. In order to obtain European tech themselves they invite in settlers who find they have more in common with this settled chiefdom than with the nomadic fur trappers.

By 1800 you have a society which is majority native peasants and with a native chief on top but with a large European middle class. By 1850 or so, this chiefdom shares a border with an alt-USA and has become an ally of this alt-USA against the nomadic peoples farther west. The cultural majority is still native but a majority of them have at least 25% european ancestry and more euro-american immigrants arrive every year.

In the 1860s or 1870s the alt-USA sponsors a coup trying to annex their allied chiefdom. The coup fails with the chief finding an unlikely ally amongst a number of European immigrants who specifically came to this chiefdom to escape the politics/culture of the alt-USA. However the coup shows the chisf the need to modernize and, with the help of the anti-alt-USA immigrants, the chiefdom is transformed into a modern constitutional monarchy.

By 2017, immgration has reduced the native population to a small minority although the chief is still in power as a figurehead. The native language has co-official status with english but anglophones are still the vast majority. The national culture of this state is centred around it being more tolerant than the alt-USA, but it still prides itself on its native roots.

What would suddenly help them re-establish their Mississippian roots? The groups the French encountered in their first voyages were descendents of those peoples, but their culture had changed. If this was a movement throughout the Midwest/Upper South, that would be very interesting, since the trend was toward decentralisation and more nomadic organisation compared to the sedentary nature of the Mississippian period, and this resulted in cultures massively changing so they shared little with what came before them.

But I think your scenario is interesting and somewhat plausible. The main problem at that point is how do you find a "chief" (who would be a "chief of chiefs"), and how big is this state that it only has one major native language and not several?
 
What would suddenly help them re-establish their Mississippian roots? The groups the French encountered in their first voyages were descendents of those peoples, but their culture had changed. If this was a movement throughout the Midwest/Upper South, that would be very interesting, since the trend was toward decentralisation and more nomadic organisation compared to the sedentary nature of the Mississippian period, and this resulted in cultures massively changing so they shared little with what came before them.

Yeah this bit is kinda the least plausible. Maybe it would be better to start with a Nation like the Cherokee who were OTL fairly settled and willing to adapt European ideas. The biggest problem with trying to wank the Cherokee this way is that they're a little too close to the East Coast and Gulf Coast than I would like, and sitting on land coveted by European colonialists. I was thinking somewhere further North and West on the Upper Mississippi could go unmolested by Europeans for a little longer...

But I think your scenario is interesting and somewhat plausible. The main problem at that point is how do you find a "chief" (who would be a "chief of chiefs"), and how big is this state that it only has one major native language and not several?

Well, the Cherokee did have one language and were a fairly populous Nation, however they weren't politically centralized. Maybe the POD could be a rise of some sort of conqueror amongst the Cherokee who would establish a centralized complex chiefdom and would expand Cherokee power by subjugating their neighbours??
 
Top