How can you reduce the destruction of North American First Nations?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by lord protector 99, Nov 30, 2019.

  1. lord protector 99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    south American native peoples experienced mass genocide, but they seem to have faired better than North American indigenous nations. How can you make North American political identities be more of a forced union between Europeans and indigenous peoples. Basically, how do you create an English version of the mestizo identity?
     
  2. Wendell Wendell

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Location:
    Lost in what might have been
    The thirteen states go their own way after independence, and, separately, cannot subdue the Muscogean peoples and the Cherokee, who form states, under the various protection of one of the states and/or Britain, France, or Spain, and a similar thing happens in the Great Lakes region.
     
    KingDracula, Guaire, Rath and 6 others like this.
  3. Matteo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    No. South American natives and more globally native Amerindian in continental Latin America’s did not experience mass genocide. Nor even ethnic cleansing except in some localized areas such as Patagonia in the late 19th century.

    The Caribbean islands natives were indeed almost killed but not because of genocidal intentions but of extremely brutal exploitation by the Spanish conquistadors.

    And in continental Latin America, roughly 90% of the death toll was due to the microbial shock.

    The Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors did not want to get rid of the Amerindians. They just wanted to take their precious metals, rule them and exploit their workforce. This explains why, today, there are so many Amerindians and Mestizos in the population of most Latin American countries.

    it is only in British North America that Amerindians have experienced what can be described as a mass long run ethnic cleansing.

    So you have keys to answer your question. If you want to keep more Amerindians in North America, you need the anglo-saxon settlers to have a more Spanish-like colonization or you need them to be less successful in their colonization (for example remaining east of the Appalachians).
     
    Lenwe, Guaire, NAF and 16 others like this.
  4. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    The issue with US is the natives always had shitty luck of picking wrong side during war(British). Americans did not take to kindly to them raiding them and siding with British more often. If natives for some reason side with US more often they are probably more protected under legal system or less hated.

    Immigration is also going to be issue. I think they can survive in south and west but not north for most part in the long run. Besides maybe up state New York.

    This is my opinion but I do think many natives did just fade away into population and lied about being white in US. Native Americans aren’t always look super dark or dark at all in US. Many do have more pale skin but with long thick black hair and certain features. They can blend into white population. It’s better to lie about being white often times back then. The natives did assimilate at times and centuries of immigration from Europe and diseases death rates of natives probably made it where their blood is become a small percentage of Americans dna.

    South and Central America often also had bigger native populations and more established civilizations.

    My ancestors got to stay east of Mississippi River because when US enforced trail of tears they did give you option. Renounce all tribal ties and pledge loyalty to US or leave. My choose the first and faded into local white population.
     
  5. Jürgen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2016
    Latin American natives did better thanks to bigger population density and land less good for European settlement.
     
    Samedi, Wendell, KazuyaProta and 3 others like this.
  6. Umbral Member Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    You probably need some way of blunting the disease-shock. When you are sitting on desirable land and lose 90+ % of your population upon contact, your situation afterwards is bound to be poor. Bit of a tech boost wouldn't do any ham, either.

    Norse blending into the native populations and transferring horses, stirrups and ship tech, with the occasional contact (selling narwhale tusks and cod) with Europe, bringing diseases back with them might do it.
     
    Coalition, Driftless, Rath and 2 others like this.
  7. Atterdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Didn't many south and mesoamerican countries force interbreeding between settlers and natives to eradicate native culture though?
     
  8. Jan Olbracht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Location:
    Polska
    Perhaps England adapts the same model of colonization as France and Netherlands (so by the end of 18th century there are not millions but hunderts of thousands of white settlers in North America).
     
  9. KingOnTheEdge Vive La Revolucion

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2019
    English are less successful and idk have Mississippi natives domesticate some sort of foul. This should bolster their initial population when Europe comes a knocking and might give them a disease to return fire with
     
  10. Richard V Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Short of something near miraculous, like variola minor getting there before variola major, the native population has to adopt European agriculture to rebuild their population faster.

    One of the things that made this possible in the Spanish colonies is they enslaved the natives and forced them to plant wheat and raise livestock. In some places the introduced crop was better than native crop, for example in the land of the Mapuche. They also successfully rebelled and kept the wheat, cattle, horses and chicken. They also learned iron making from prisoners, as a result not only did they experience a population boom but expanded their territory.

    The Spanish didn’t do this every where though. They largely ignored California.
     
  11. Cryptic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Humans being humans don't need a lot of force to intermarry.
     
    Tomislav Addai likes this.
  12. TRH Tyrannosaurus Rex Handler

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    I’m not convinced picking the wrong side mattered that much. Look at the Five Civilized Tribes - the Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw all sided with the US in 1812, as did half of the Creek. Didn’t save any of them.
     
  13. Modern Imperialism Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    Andrew Jackson was kind of a redneck asshole even for that time period. That man literally shot people in front of White House and got in duels over people insulting his wife. He destroyed White House in party to celebrate becoming president. He easily out done anything Trump has ever done or any modern politician you don’t like. He was a character and Five Civilized Tribes did get screwed over hard by him. Even some southerners thought he went to far.

    George Washington and many in south were getting more of Latin American stance on natives before trail of tears. They had no problem will native who assimilated or adopted more European/western customs. Washington himself said natives culture was “backwards” but also stated that could change and they could “civilize” which he did think some were starting to do.

    Racial science doesn’t become more fanatical and dogmatic until later in 1900th century starting around civil war and time of Darwin. The “curse of Cain” was seen as backwards and outdated by some churches and newer and less Calvinistic Protestant sects in years leading up to civil war. The issue with Protestant nation colonization is Catholic Church isn’t there to lower racial barriers as much. For all it’s negatives the Catholic Church itself does at least try to not be racist as much. They do care more about just having more Catholics. The whole race stuff not so much.

    Protestants due to being not centralized like Catholics do often follow culture more often and doesn’t play as much of a middle man between Europeans and natives like Catholic Church. Protestants are often just regional and state religions so they often are very tied or similar to Europeans or nation they are from. Catholic Church does know how to be more universal.

    But you did see Protestants in Americas especially US start to break away from this for a short time due to there being multiple ones in US. Evangelicals of 1900th century for example could be described as more “liberal”(in classical sense) while Baptist are your more racist Calvinistic and conservative sect.

    Its “white man’s burden” mindset. Evangelicals and many more of newer classical liberal Protestant sects did believe it was their duty to “enlighten” these people. This included ideas based on reformation and enlightenment era ideas.

    This mindset did not fully fade until after civil war and due to shortcomings of reconstruction. Europeans did not adopt more strict biological racial ideas until they felt non whites/Europeans were “unchangeable”. A long series of events lead to this and introduction of Darwinism only added to it. But basic of it is natives of multiple colonized lands kept resisting understandable and Europeans/whites got pissed and lost their shit when some actually won somewhat at times(Mutiny in India being great example). This wasn’t just America or US but a global thing. White liberals looked at stuff like Revolts in India, native resistance in west, and killing and rape of their women(did happen at times but often exaggerated greatly by news outlets back then) did make them think these people were just “inclined to be savages”.

    White liberals in US are often more northern and New England base. They are often indirectly influenced by British culture more often even if it is often very subtle or unintended. New Englanders are often just trading and reading British literature so that’s where they get many of their ideas from or influenced by.

    This is reason more natives helping US in it’s early years is big unless you go with colonies breaking apart somewhat after independence. That is alt route you could take with this pod to help natives.

    If majority of natives help US in both revolution and alt war of 1812 that is big. In New York most tribes did not support US. Those tribes did largely get wiped out or moved to Canada after the or more west. That left only few tribes which means more space for Europeans/whites in these lands. If most help Americans or nearly all they will have a much better public image in US because if most fought on US side that is less whites who get raided, attacked, and at odds with natives. The few tribes that do still side with Brits could be quickly wiped out by American native allies before they attack any white Americans or settlements.

    Many people who went after natives were people who actually fought and inactive with them a lot. They had family kidnapped, killed, or tortured by some tribes. Iroquois and Appalachian natives could be brutal at times. Many people in back country remember this and did hold grudges.

    If they are all killing brits together that isn’t only a coming together movement but very helpful in revolution. All those partisans in Appalachia or backcountry with majority of native tribes on its side could end war quicker. They would not be busy fighting each other like otl. It’s more like Latin America in their revolutions. The natives and pro independence criollos/whites are fighting loyalist and Europeans.

    The US might honestly take Canada with more native support. It would hinder brits greatly in southern colonies and Canadian border areas. The British would be bleed dry from hit and runs tactics and by combination of native and white colonist partisans while continental army picks off the rest when they are weak.

    This means many more tribes survive the war and have a lot less colonist resentment aimed at them. They help them win the war and maybe even gain more land then otl. More tribes and more mutual cooperation means more legal say/influence in US political system. They would be more ingrained in system and westernized(in long run) then otl.

    They will still have conflict but now it is more within US legal system and like Latin America. More tribes that are westernized are more who can actually read English and understand treaties or shit they sign. If they can actually argue and know US laws they can play that in there favor.

    Some would still get overwhelmed by immigration in north with down line but south does start looking more like Latin America and mix. The native roots probably get much more mixed and stay more prevalent especially in Appalachia or upper south. This could have impact of racial views and ideas down line especially relating to slavery and Africans.

    I would not be surprised down line if native issue becomes more about tribal ties over race. Even trail of tires did give natives choose to renounce tribe and pledge loyalty to US or leave for west.

    The US after losing multiple legal cases against natives decides screw it and majority of congress still being white dominated vote for more general and less strict definitions of race. Due to slavery still being touchy issue they decide to have censuses that has nationality box and multiple racial classifications. Nationality is just American or “resident”(non-citizen). This basically makes it where tribal ties aren’t recognized. If they are born on US soil they are citizens that are expected to follow US laws(tribal ties are ignored). Ones that lived in area before US takes it have to either pledge loyalty to US, leave, or can stay as residents(less legal protection, less land access, and might have to pay special taxes or nice way of saying tributes). The US still will expand west but more like Russian Empire about it.

    Native allies and more assimilated natives often helping bring more into the ranks as they move west. Many still get overwhelmed demographics wise but more rural areas keep its native populations and many mix and unique enclaves pop up across the west especially Rockies and Great Plains. Tribes who westernized first or in east play a much more important role in US history as they expand west. To get around tribal ties not being recognized anymore many start legal organizations and churches as a way to keep their communities intact and from being overwhelmed. This would actually lead to many new colonist mixing into and joining these groups in areas where they are dominant. This makes them more mestizo cultures and groups. This helps eventually get rid of disease issue(they mixed with Europeans enough to point of being as immune to diseases as them and are actually more suited to live in hotter climates too more south you go).

    The mestizo population in south could experience a baby boom or higher fertility rates to help not only preserve their existence but actually expand west. South is still racist but more like how Latin America or Brazil use to be. At least with natives. They still might not be ok with mixing with black people as much yet outside of Louisiana.

    The new mestizo population helps provide the south with more surplus of people to help send west to create new slave states. The south less dogmatic view of race might actually help it expand in Latin America and Caribbean more.

    For this pod let’s say US is more focused on gaining complete control of North America. The addition of taking parts of Canada in revolution then rest in alt 1812 war(they are in stronger position then otl when brits are focused on napoleon). These states have to be let in as free states which leads to south to worry and talks of succeeding lead to north ceding a bit on slave issue by letting southern politicians push for expansion of US south, west, and into Caribbean(filibustering and buying islands from Europeans and maybe even a war for few colonies against a weaker empire. British are basically pushed out of Western Hemisphere by this point). Unlike otl Missouri comprise does work.

    US outside of its navy and economic structure is decentralized in every other way more so then otl especially politically. The south being a more mestizo like culture is able to gain local support in area by putting in place Spanish like caste system(they support each other “institutions” in political coalitions. This America would have multiple political parties that work together in coalitions). The south gets its golden circle while north keeps balance between free and slave states by taking all of North America and few European colonies in north east coast of South America. The slave issue is still heated by caste system does linger into many otl southern states as well. Slaves status can be different state by state. Mestizo in this caste system aren’t always equal to white but they do also often benefit from it system too and many are often looked at as being “exotic”(southern aristocrats bragging about their Cherokee roots). This even gets to point some southern states like Louisiana have laws protecting free mutallo and even some blacks as legal citizens(this helps preserve slavery longer then otl because mix race people are often used as example of how slavery is “civilizing” Africans and mixed race and some black people support system themselves often times way more so then otl). They have mix race people in political power and office but it does vary by state. They even have some black people later on. This does vary from state. Mississippi for example is still much more strict on race then a states like Louisiana, Cuba, or somewhere in Mexico. The US does leave this more up to states(“state rights” being used excuse for this).

    The north has less political fuel against south when system is more classist and oppressive then straight up racist. They also start worrying about rapid abolishment of slavery will lead to many mix race and black people moving north. They stay much more European and white outside of a few areas and enclaves. Also, the large amount of raw resources they are flooding northern industries with leads to US becoming economic giant much earlier and in more states earlier on. They won’t slavery to end but take gradual approach. The caste system and compensation for free slaves being used. They basically go from slave to serf(sharecroppers but basically a serf) to freeman/citizen(more white and kiss ass you act being what decides your success a lot). Sharecropping system with minor compensation on top of it might convince them to drop slavery and it save them money in long run if they just have to pay them pennies(wage labor) instead of life needs(food and housing).

    This all together would create a highly mixed society in Americas. Tribes out west that resist or don’t westernize become like Gypsies or set up enclaves in rural west. The west might be more populated then otl and more “wild”. The US only goes after them if they attack people or break the law.
     
  14. xerex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Location:
    Trinidad and Tobago
    More like a bunch Spanish /Portuguese guys invade but bring very few women with them.
    Mixing whether due to force or just plain survival had to happen.
     
  15. Talus I of Dixie From Gòešh and My'lhni

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Location:
    Muslim City, Brazil
    Nope, after the conquests (and, sometimes, even before the conquests) in Latin America the natives saw the whites as prestigious and didn't had problems with intermarrying, a portuguese explorer for example, married an brazillian woman and stayed with her for life (and it was reciprocal), portuguese settlers in Brazil didn't just intermarried with the natives, they even assimilated into them, until Pombal (officially, the language was popularly spoke 'til the 20th Century) Brazil had the "Língua Geral", an modified and aportuguesed version of popular Tupi, that was spoke by indians, settlers and colonial government alike.

    In Spanish America the same was true, because of the intermarrying the Quechua/Nahua/Guarani languages even boosted in span, as settlers married with the natives and their sons continued speaking the native language. The decreasing in use of the native languages in Latin America is mainly because the post-independence governments were installed by the upper class criollos that were spanish speaking and soon the governments started to be only spanish speaking (actually, the fact that Mexican independence had a greater popular presence is one of the reasons that Mexico is very native-speaking).

    Mass genocides just occured in North America, tough the case of Patagonia can be discussed if it is or not

    Edit: I confused Patagonia with Araucanía, heck, the Conquest of the Desert was completely a genocide
     
    Guaire, Thon Taddeo, Matteo and 4 others like this.
  16. Wendell Wendell

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Location:
    Lost in what might have been
    That, and the indigenous Latin Americans had built more complex societies with larger populations than groups farther north over all.
     
    MorningDew likes this.
  17. Samedi MPLA HOTSHOT

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2017
    Not to mention how they treated the Oneida
     
  18. Blorg Credit to comics I post is SMBC or flork of cows

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Location:
    Somewhere in Canada
    We simply never get the idea to cross the ocean.
     
  19. A Most Sovereign Lady Princess of the Kingdom of Maryland

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2014
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    All Colonizers are terrible, but if you want to "help" the North American Native Americans, in the sense that more of them survive than their experience with the English/British and Anglo-Americans/Anglo-Canadians then have Spain colonize the entire continent. A lot can be said about the terribleness of the Spanish Empire, but from Mexico to Argentina, most of the peoples are descendant from the locals, you can't say that about Canada or the U.S.
     
    Samedi likes this.
  20. Father Maryland Enemy of Neo Secesh Everywhere

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Location:
    The Grand Duchy of the Chesapeake
    I've thought about this problem quite a bit. The only way I can reasonably think to prevent the large scale collapse of the more organized Pre Columbian states via the disease portion of the Columbian exchange is to have it happen earlier. Somehow have there be for at least a period prolonged contact between Asia or Europe and the America's at least long enough for the worst of the disease to transfer. Then have that contact cut off for a couple hundred years. Say a somewhat longer Vinlandic presence but that ending until some time around OTL's 1492. The diseases would much like OTL lead to mass death across the Americas spreading via the pretty complicated and long range trading networks. This will pretty assuredly lead to the destruction of many if not most of the existing more organized states. However the local population's will have time to recover before prolonged contact is resumed. Without the same scale of almost immediate mass deaths post later contact European powers will find it impossible to actually completely conquer the new local powers and would probably end up in positions similar to their earlier conduct in India/ Asia. Namely having small fortified trading posts in or near the more major powers but not being able to completely rule them.

    It's pretty much the only plausible way I can imagine post 1492 contact not leading to the collapse of the major local powers. The problem is of course that this divergence still leads to the deaths of millions if not tens of millions of people and the butterfly effect would likely lead to few of the OTL powerful Amerinidian states existing. So no Axtecs or Inca's.
     
    Scott Washburn and Umbral like this.