DBWI There Were No Red Indians?

How could we get a scenario in which North America (South America too, but I'm focusing primarily on the French and British influenced places) is mostly devoid of Red Indians, or at least to the point where they constitute a miniscule minority?

For extra points, make it so that not only are there no Red Indians left, but whatever nations/peoples that replace them are relatively/mostly uninfluenced by the originial preoccupants of the continent.
 
DBWI means double-blind what if. it's lookin at OTL from an ATL
:rolleyes:

He is.

It's a thread pointing out that most likely, from many ATL's point of view, it's extremely strange(if not outright ASB) that Native American tribes not only have no nations of their own, but their history and culture has little to no bearing on that of their current nation and they've been reduced to a tiny minority in most of those countries. Most of those ATL's probably would expect at least some bounce-back population wise for them, not this constant 1-2% we have IOTL.

That explain it for you?
 
:rolleyes:

He is.

It's a thread pointing out that most likely, from many ATL's point of view, it's extremely strange(if not outright ASB) that Native American tribes not only have no nations of their own, but their history and culture has little to no bearing on that of their current nation and they've been reduced to a tiny minority in most of those countries. Most of those ATL's probably would expect at least some bounce-back population wise for them, not this constant 1-2% we have IOTL.

That explain it for you?

:rolleyes: wow, it's late i read it and just didn't comprehend
 
OOC: Thanks Jord!

IC: Huh, no takers? I'll throw a couple of my ideas out there first.

Maybe if the assorted Northern European settlements on the Eastern Seaboard expanded into the Mississippi basin? Since they were the only serious settler colonies on the continent (discounting New Spain and its environs), it seems more likely that Indians would be seen as rivals instead of potential trade partners.
 

Susano

Banned
Sure, but that pressure would lead to counter-pressure. One could even say that this was the reason why the colonies did not, as originally envisioned expand further westwards (okay, that the pacific coast was not as originally thought only some 100km away was part of that, too). It was simply decided that trading was much more profitable than aggressively pushing westwards. If the colonies had done so, you would most likely say even larger Amerindian national confederations, and even without trade the rivalry of the single European colonial power would probably ensure that European technology and weapons are leaked to them.

You are probably right that this is the best bet, but you would also have to provide a reason why 1) the colonials would be able to win so overwhelmingly and 2) why they would keep up the struggle despite all the losses in life and finances that surely would accompany it.
 
Sure, but that pressure would lead to counter-pressure. One could even say that this was the reason why the colonies did not, as originally envisioned expand further westwards (okay, that the pacific coast was not as originally thought only some 100km away was part of that, too). It was simply decided that trading was much more profitable than aggressively pushing westwards. If the colonies had done so, you would most likely say even larger Amerindian national confederations, and even without trade the rivalry of the single European colonial power would probably ensure that European technology and weapons are leaked to them.

You are probably right that this is the best bet, but you would also have to provide a reason why 1) the colonials would be able to win so overwhelmingly and 2) why they would keep up the struggle despite all the losses in life and finances that surely would accompany it.

Good point, and that process did indeed happen on the East Coast during the establishment of the colonies there.

It's not an issue of questionable victory, as the Europeans in Our World always were better matched in terms of leadership and centralization (among other advantages), but more of an issue stemming from your second point. After all, the colonies were mainly overseas trading oriented, so we need a reason for them to look to land expansion instead of influence on the high seas.

Is it vaguely plausible that maybe the European mother countries prohibit their daugther colonies to conduct their own trade, thus limiting their interest in naval matters? That would neatly solve our problem, but from the perspective of a 17th/18th century ruler it makes very little sense...
 
How about increased immigration from Europe to support these wars of conquest and expansion?

Increase the political unrest just a bit, maybe add some religious unrest as well -- in fact, this could certainly lead to some political unrest -- and the colonial powers send the refugees/rebels to America. Islamic conquest of Southern Europe post-Columbus (A reverse reconquista)? Maybe a spread of Eastern Orthodox into Central Europe?

Or even some sort of schism within the Catholic Church itself? I recall there were a few disputes with the church into the late sixteenth century before the Reformer Popes came in and started to get rid of corruption (Okay, so they don't exactly call it corruption, I know, but...)
 
Top