The nations once again?
The answer to that question is probably no. Divergence points that gave this outcome would be based on a totally different history i.e suppose the Crown had won in the American War of Independence/ white settlers revolt. The Mohawks and Cherokees were allies of the Crown and were not happy at Brtitain signing the peace treaty.
America loses the War of 1812. The Cree Shawnee and Lakota nations were allies of the crown Britain's mkistake was not to embrace Tecumsah fully as an ally. A buffer state in the West backed by Britain is a popssiblity although how long it would have lasted is a question.
Eric Flint has a scenario in his rivers of war series with an Indian state to the West of the Mississipi but it involves Indians being moved westwards and I don't thinki it has been developed beyond 1834 the Arkansas war. The Indians themselves could have stopped there own internation wars as they were vulnerable to divide and rule i.e Pawnee scouts served under Custer and within a few years Sioux scouts were fighting Pawnees. Tecumsah tried to unite the nations
The Buffalo destruction and not mentioned by Derek germ warfare i.e smallpox infected blankets. Could they have been avoided? Canada had a more tolerant approach to Indians, they were merely cheated and driven off their land rather than exterminated but it was Canada where Sitting Bull went after the Littlwe Big Horn to seek and gain asylum. The Mohawk nation was the most succesfull nation in coming to terms with the white man having adapted and playing a role in the construction industry. I suspect the Canadian scenario would have been the outcome of any British victories. The Crown didn't want to stop settlement West of the Appalachians merely to licence it.
Can we avoid the term "Native Americans" which smacks of political correctness and is rejected by some chiefs. The Canadian term First Nation Canadians" sounds a lot better
The answer to that question is probably no. Divergence points that gave this outcome would be based on a totally different history i.e suppose the Crown had won in the American War of Independence/ white settlers revolt. The Mohawks and Cherokees were allies of the Crown and were not happy at Brtitain signing the peace treaty.
America loses the War of 1812. The Cree Shawnee and Lakota nations were allies of the crown Britain's mkistake was not to embrace Tecumsah fully as an ally. A buffer state in the West backed by Britain is a popssiblity although how long it would have lasted is a question.
Eric Flint has a scenario in his rivers of war series with an Indian state to the West of the Mississipi but it involves Indians being moved westwards and I don't thinki it has been developed beyond 1834 the Arkansas war. The Indians themselves could have stopped there own internation wars as they were vulnerable to divide and rule i.e Pawnee scouts served under Custer and within a few years Sioux scouts were fighting Pawnees. Tecumsah tried to unite the nations
The Buffalo destruction and not mentioned by Derek germ warfare i.e smallpox infected blankets. Could they have been avoided? Canada had a more tolerant approach to Indians, they were merely cheated and driven off their land rather than exterminated but it was Canada where Sitting Bull went after the Littlwe Big Horn to seek and gain asylum. The Mohawk nation was the most succesfull nation in coming to terms with the white man having adapted and playing a role in the construction industry. I suspect the Canadian scenario would have been the outcome of any British victories. The Crown didn't want to stop settlement West of the Appalachians merely to licence it.
Can we avoid the term "Native Americans" which smacks of political correctness and is rejected by some chiefs. The Canadian term First Nation Canadians" sounds a lot better