Even If Successful Amerindian Immunity...

[Finn]

Let's say, for whatever reason, Amerindians develop a sufficient immunity to Old World diseases. Why is not important.

So, why does everyone assume this means the Americas are going to be colonisation resistant?

Look at it this way: Africa and Asia were still colonised. Mughal India was a bright center of civilization, and a scant century and a half later, was British territory. There are many reasons for this and none of them were inevitable or even likely, but suffice to say disease immunity did nothing to stop this. Hell, Africa gave early Europeans tons of diseases, but that didn't stop them from eventually carving up the place arbitrarily!

We should also face another fact: Africa sucks for human habitation. The Americas were so much richer. The Pre-Columbian Caribbeans had a population in the millions. Mesoamerica and the Andes were fairly densely packed. Even the Mississippi Watershed and East Coast had a good amount of people for mostly hunter-gatherers.

But the lesson of India should teach us one thing: All this population doesn't mean jack-shit in the face of superior technology and political disunity. True, these colonies would never have a white-majority (or East Asian, for that matter) barring Afrikaaner style settlement, but they would still be under the rule of European imperialism, for however brief a time.

Essentially, what I am saying is that you should go ahead with immunization attempts, but don't be so naive to assume this gives them the ability to keep out the white man forever.

 

[Midas]

They probably "assume" that because the thought experiment of wondering how the Americans might've developed with a First Nations still around in a larger minority / majority.

Native Americans also did a pretty good job of keeping British settlers out of their lands despite major demographic, health and socio-economical issues for a long time. I think what Cortez did in Africa would also be borderline ASB in an alternative universe where he wasn't successful .

 

[Thande]

It's not necessarily about avoiding colonisation, but it gives colonisation a different character. Colonisation of North America (less so of Central and South) took the form of pushing a small number of Indians out of the way and whites (and blacks) settling in large numbers, with the eventual resulting countries having only a tiny proportion of natives in the population.

Africa and Asia on the other hand never had possibility of white colonists becoming a majority, except perhaps in South Africa. Colonies there were primarily economic or imperialist, not settler-based. So decolonisation came on the natives' terms, with Europeans as a minority. Language might change, especially if the former peoples had no lingua franca, but cultural continuity would be preserved.

You can make a case for that being somewhat true of Latin America, but it certainly divides North America from the situation in Africa and Asia.

 

[Hawkeye]

Eh? The Europeans were only able to go deeper into Africa due to technology that was invented in the 19th century (guns that didn't take you five minutes to take a shot) and even then Europeans had to resort to pretty draconian policies to maintain the colonies. And last time I checked, most of sub-Saharan Africa is still black today so you argue that Africa was never truly colonized.

 

[Tobit]

I think it very simply changes dramatically the spanish conquest of americas. In fact it stops it in it's tracks. The spanish conquistadors had very limited resources and were dealing with a very lucky situation. The lack of disease changes that totally. However I hate scenarios where the Incan, Aztec or Mayan civilizations last in perpetuity. I am of the the opinion that civilizations rise and fall. So likely if the Spanish come upon a disease resistant civilization, I don't agree that they would simply respond to the Spaniards and go on existing. The Incan or Aztec system would inevitably fall if introduced to such a radical change. Partly it has to do with the whole, Sid Myer's Civilization outlook of things which I think exists in the Alternate History mindset.

I think that disease resistance for Natives would end up with highly Mestizo societies. Direct rule would be a lot harder to implement, but it wouldn't be impossible. Likely purely native societies would continue to exist since in OTL examples like the Araucanians and the Caste Wars of Mexico prove it enough.

However the whole idea of an entirely disease resistant Indian population is ASB. After all with any isolated population disease is likely. The big what if of diseases concerning the Native Americans is what if the Europeans contracted diseases unique to the Americas on the way back. After all it is only fair that if some kind of disease infection is inevitable for the Americas, why shouldn't Cortes bring back a "black plague" or two. Syphilis would be much more interesting if it was an early AIDS.

 

[Atom]

I think it very simply changes dramatically the spanish conquest of americas. In fact it stops it in it's tracks. The spanish conquistadors had very limited resources and were dealing with a very lucky situation. The lack of disease changes that totally. However I hate scenarios where the Incan, Aztec or Mayan civilizations last in perpetuity. I am of the the opinion that civilizations rise and fall. So likely if the Spanish come upon a disease resistant civilization, I don't agree that they would simply respond to the Spaniards and go on existing. The Incan or Aztec system would inevitably fall if introduced to such a radical change. Partly it has to do with the whole, Sid Myer's Civilization outlook of things which I think exists in the Alternate History mindset.

I think that disease resistance for Natives would end up with highly Mestizo societies. Direct rule would be a lot harder to implement, but it wouldn't be impossible. Likely purely native societies would continue to exist since in OTL examples like the Araucanians and the Caste Wars of Mexico prove it enough.

That's definitely true, but I think we can certainly argue that the fall of Tenochtitlan would probably be the same even with immunity. Only later with the Incas and Maya does the (early) Spanish conquest radically change. The situation in Tawantinsuyu was, complicated, to say the least before the arrival of Pizarro; it's hard to say whether the Spanish could have succeeded in conquering the Andes. Certainly the radical shock tactics used by the Spanish could have worked; however at the same time without the plague of 1528, Atawalpa would never have faced the death he did in OTL. Without the succession crisis the Incas could have been more successful in fighting the initial Spanish conquest, but it really depends on the particulars of the situation.

The greatest effect of a disease resistant Native Ameircan population is after the initial defeat. In OTL, the various Native American societies had tremendous trouble organizing a resistance to the European powers, and were unable to capitalize on the greatest advantages they had (knowledge of the land, numbers) due to the rapid collapse of traditional society to Eurasian diseases. So, the Nahuatl nobility was incapable of resiting effectively, since the Spanish offered the only continuous strong organization in the area. The Inca suffered even more from this, and in ATL might be able to limit the Spanish extremely, due to the severity of the terrain (they had some success even OTL). The Maya again would present more challenges (Tayasal remained independent until the late 17th century, and would be even better suited to resist the Spanish).

As Thande said, it changes the fundamental character of colonization. Now the Europeans cannot possible simply force remnants of nations to the side, they'll have to fight the nations entirely, push and grind them aside like in Africa. Even when the leadership is crushed

QUOTE=Tobit;3403243]I think that disease resistance for Natives would end up with highly Mestizo societies. Direct rule would be a lot harder to implement, but it wouldn't be impossible. Likely purely native societies would continue to exist since in OTL examples like the Araucanians and the Caste Wars of Mexico prove it enough.[/quote]See, I;m not so sure about this. One of the great benefits of Mestizos was resistance to disease. In ATL that won;t be significant, so the mass native population may be able to swamp the white/mixed minorities. If we look at the closest analogue to a Settler society in a situation like this, South Africa, you'll notice that Coloureds only make up 8.5% of the population. An imperfect analogy of course, but I think you see my point.

QUOTE=Tobit;3403243]However the whole idea of an entirely disease resistant Indian population is ASB. After all with any isolated population disease is likely. The big what if of diseases concerning the Native Americans is what if the Europeans contracted diseases unique to the Americas on the way back. After all it is only fair that if some kind of disease infection is inevitable for the Americas, why shouldn't Cortes bring back a "black plague" or two. Syphilis would be much more interesting if it was an early AIDS.[/QUOTE]Ah, yes, but its so depressing. Theres only a certain kind of person who really wants to describe 2/3rds plus of the worlds population dieing.

 

[Tobit]

Good points Atom

One society that we know little about, but disease resistance would make a big difference, is the Mississippi region. Apparently it was extremely densely populated and agriculturally productive. Yet in little time, the societies collapsed. If they were disease resistant I would imagine that they would constitute another great empire of the Americas for the Europeans to deal with. It stands to the facts though that when De Soto traveled through that area, he often ended up lost in Native fields of Corn.

A key point is that the Spanish and Portuguese had a very small settler base for their colonization. English colonization was the most successful but they too only colonized through private efforts originally. Which aren't doomed to failure, but there is huge difference if the Puritans in building their New Jerusalem are unable to steal from native graves to survive their first winter. The English therefore might seek to create treaties of trade and an informal empires as opposed to settler colonies.

 

[Finn]

Read the post, I said I know the population would never be majority white. Yes, it changes the nature of the colonisation. But the Europeans simply will carve up the majority of the continent regardless.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Good points Atom

One society that we know little about, but disease resistance would make a big difference, is the Mississippi region. Apparently it was extremely densely populated and agriculturally productive. Yet in little time, the societies collapsed. If they were disease resistant I would imagine that they would constitute another great empire of the Americas for the Europeans to deal with. It stands to the facts though that when De Soto traveled through that area, he often ended up lost in Native fields of Corn.

Same in regards to the Amazon. There is increasing evidence for, if not cities, then extremely large settlements that previously existed in the Amazon but collapsed entirely from disease most likely.

 

[Tobit]

Read the post, I said I know the population would never be majority white. Yes, it changes the nature of the colonisation. But the Europeans simply will carve up the majority of the continent regardless.

I don't think that is necessarily true. It really depends on how things play out. For instance India was only really able to be annexed by the British with the consent of the local elites. Even if the British had the machine gun, they wouldn't have the ability to forcibly conquer every Indian statelet, or even the majority of India. In fact I would imagine that the British, would find it unprofitable and pointless to forcibly conquer India.

Colonization during the Scramble for Africa and even the Empire of India was in the long run unprofitable. Direct rule of the majority of the American continent I would imagine would strain the resources of the Europeans totally, and would require them to pursue it out of totally ideological reasons.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Good point, much of India retained their local leadership as well. See the princely states.

 

[Riain]

Even if Amerindians were disease resistant they didn't fight as violently as Europeans. There doesn't seem to be the heavy, crew-served weapons and the unbiquitous fortifications in the Americas that were commonplace in all the way back in deep antiquity in the old world.

I think the Spanish would have had a far tougher time if the Americas was studded with walled towns and castles and American armies used ballista, mangonels and trebuchets.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Even if Amerindians were disease resistant they didn't fight as violently as Europeans. There doesn't seem to be the heavy, crew-served weapons and the unbiquitous fortifications in the Americas that were commonplace in all the way back in deep antiquity in the old world.

I think the Spanish would have had a far tougher time if the Americas was studded with walled towns and castles and American armies used ballista, mangonels and trebuchets.

The Amerindians certainly were as violent as the Europeans when it came to battle. If you intended to say that their weapons weren't as destructive, then I agree w/you.

 

[Kalan]

The Amerindians certainly were as violent as the Europeans when it came to battle. If you intended to say that their weapons weren't as destructive, then I agree w/you.

The point is that the Amerindians were mostly in the neolithic. Only the Inca had reached the bronze age. So the simply had less advanced weapons which were consequently less deadly.

 

[Tyr]

Eh? The Europeans were only able to go deeper into Africa due to technology that was invented in the 19th century (guns that didn't take you five minutes to take a shot) and even then Europeans had to resort to pretty draconian policies to maintain the colonies. And last time I checked, most of sub-Saharan Africa is still black today so you argue that Africa was never truly colonized.

Its always been majority black but the ratio was far far less back in the day- the Africans have bred like rabbits over the last century and over the past few decades most white people have emigrated from Africa.

I don't think that is necessarily true. It really depends on how things play out. For instance India was only really able to be annexed by the British with the consent of the local elites. Even if the British had the machine gun, they wouldn't have the ability to forcibly conquer every Indian statelet, or even the majority of India. In fact I would imagine that the British, would find it unprofitable and pointless to forcibly conquer India.

Colonization during the Scramble for Africa and even the Empire of India was in the long run unprofitable. Direct rule of the majority of the American continent I would imagine would strain the resources of the Europeans totally, and would require them to pursue it out of totally ideological reasons.

Especially with Britain imperialist profits are...iffy.
Imperialism itself was a loss maker. Government is rarely a profitable buisness, you can't take over somewhere and tax them to an extent you're earning money.
However, the chief reason for the imperialism was that western corporations were already out there, doign there thing and making money. Buisnesses don't operate long if they're making a loss, they did make a profit. So for a wide range of reasons- stopping your rivals moving in, over estimating the potential profits, humanitarian concern, attempting to reign in the corporations, etc... imperialism did happen.

 

[Malta]

Has anyone actually ever done a TL for Ameridian Immunity?

Lets also look at Ethiopia in Africa as well as Thailand and Japan in Asia.
If anything I think those who actually could remain Independent would be likely the Inca, with possibilites for some Mexican Statelets but also those focused in the Central regions of the Continents such as the Great Plains tribes.

The point is that the Amerindians were mostly in the neolithic. Only the Inca had reached the bronze age. So the simply had less advanced weapons which were consequently less deadly.

The way I see things is that the Americas were much more populated and urbanized before the arrival of the Europeans, such as the Missisippian Civilizations as a good example of this. The plague and diseases caused in most cases a total collapse of social order and population, such as those who lived on the Mississipi and throughout Mesoamerica and South America as the disease caused population loss and abandonment of their urban centers going from highly populated farming communities back to the Hunter-Gatherer levels in any areas.

Yes, all in all it seems likely that the Europeans at first would be able to carve up portions of the Americas but or how long they could do that is much more limited then OTL. It didn't take very long for the Native Americans to adapt, look at the extent the Cherokee did prior to the Walk of Tears, not to mention the examples of the 'Five Civilized Tribes' except in a more orderly ATL there would be more then 5.

Good point, much of India retained their local leadership as well. See the princely states.

The situation could possibly be more like India, with the Europeans,especially the English and French, more likely to rule by proxy with very little actual settlement except in coastal areas where the settlers would become a elitest class who many would be ousted later on as the various Indian Nations gain Independence creating a back-migration to their home nations not unlike the Loyalists post-American Revolution or Spanish-Mexicans post-Mexican Independence.

While their would be a adoption of European practice it also stands likely that with more people and introduction of writing the traditions of the hundreds of tribes that were competey wiped out via plague and conquest would be better recorded.

 

[Tom Veil]

For instance India was only really able to be annexed by the British with the consent of the local elites.

In principle, then, the same method could be applied to Immune North America, which would still be far more backward and far more internally divided than India was.

 

[Tom Veil]

Its always been majority black but the ratio was far far less back in the day- the Africans have bred like rabbits over the last century and over the past few decades most white people have emigrated from Africa.

20th Century Africa's birthrates are almost indistinguishable from pre-WWI European birthrates. The reason why the African population is rising now, and not before, is sanitation and medicine.

 

[kasumigenx]

For instance India was only really able to be annexed by the British with the consent of the local elites. Even if the British had the machine gun, they wouldn't have the ability to forcibly conquer every Indian statelet, or even the majority of India. In fact I would imagine that the British, would find it unprofitable and pointless to forcibly conquer India.

The spanish did the same in the philippines, so I think the British learned that from the spanish...

 

[Atom]

The point is that the Amerindians were mostly in the neolithic. Only the Inca had reached the bronze age. So the simply had less advanced weapons which were consequently less deadly.

This is actually not true. The P'urhepecha were certainly Bronze workers in Michoacan, and one of the major benefits of joing the Triple Alliance was gaining access to the Bonze trade throughout Mesoamerica (a get article on the subject is here). The main point to make is that Native American metal working seems to have had different goals, particularly in the Andes, where it was valued far more for aesthetic purposes then functional.

Good points Atom

One society that we know little about, but disease resistance would make a big difference, is the Mississippi region. Apparently it was extremely densely populated and agriculturally productive. Yet in little time, the societies collapsed. If they were disease resistant I would imagine that they would constitute another great empire of the Americas for the Europeans to deal with. It stands to the facts though that when De Soto traveled through that area, he often ended up lost in Native fields of Corn.

Thank you. The Mississippian region would be far more more important in this TL, although I would hesitate to call them an empire. It's unclear what exactly was going on in the Mississippi, but it appears to have been in a state of disorganization even before Europeans showed up. I suspect it to be more along the lines of a large group of informal alliances and empires.

QUOTE=Tobit;3403290]A key point is that the Spanish and Portuguese had a very small settler base for their colonization. English colonization was the most successful but they too only colonized through private efforts originally. Which aren't doomed to failure, but there is huge difference if the Puritans in building their New Jerusalem are unable to steal from native graves to survive their first winter. The English therefore might seek to create treaties of trade and an informal empires as opposed to settler colonies.[/QUOTE]Yes, that's quite possible. The things that drove English colonization are still there however, so I would expect the English to have slightly larger settler populations, which in turn creates more friction with local elites, so they may be more limited. Obviously however, the British were adept at creating alliances opposed to other powers, so that may well be the case.

Same in regards to the Amazon. There is increasing evidence for, if not cities, then extremely large settlements that previously existed in the Amazon but collapsed entirely from disease most likely.

True. The effects of having an actual Amazonian civilization would be immense. The ability to harness rainforests in a long term sustainable way for agricultural (or more likely silvicultural) purposes would be enormous. The effects on the Amazon alone are... tremendous. let alone when the crops spread to the Congo or Indonesia.

I don't think that is necessarily true. It really depends on how things play out. For instance India was only really able to be annexed by the British with the consent of the local elites. Even if the British had the machine gun, they wouldn't have the ability to forcibly conquer every Indian statelet, or even the majority of India. In fact I would imagine that the British, would find it unprofitable and pointless to forcibly conquer India.

Colonization during the Scramble for Africa and even the Empire of India was in the long run unprofitable. Direct rule of the majority of the American continent I would imagine would strain the resources of the Europeans totally, and would require them to pursue it out of totally ideological reasons.

Well, India was quite profitable, and probably could have stayed that way if the British hadn't been... distracted, although to what levels oppression might have to been ramped up I'm unable to say. The British conquest of India was also very lucky, since the series of events that lead to their conquest could easily have been prevented by other European powers, which would have allowed native states to ally with them and prevent conquest by playing foreign states off each other. Mysore or the Sikhs, I think could probably have managed to stay in some way independent, if the British had not been able to provide such focus.

Even if Amerindians were disease resistant they didn't fight as violently as Europeans. There doesn't seem to be the heavy, crew-served weapons and the unbiquitous fortifications in the Americas that were commonplace in all the way back in deep antiquity in the old world.

I think the Spanish would have had a far tougher time if the Americas was studded with walled towns and castles and American armies used ballista, mangonels and trebuchets.

What are you talking about? native American states were just as violent as you would expect them to be to a comparable technological level in the Old World (the Early Bronze Age), and were defeated as a consequence of brittle political systems and the utter collapse of society faced with 80%+ death rates. The Inca probably could have forced the Spanish out after the first defeat if everyone hadn't died even before trying.