Last Chance for a Native North America?

Highlander

Banned
One of my favourite subjects- so what PoD do you feel is best for a native controlled North America? What would such a place look like?

I remember King Georges War brought up. Thoughts?
 
One of my favourite subjects- so what PoD do you feel is best for a native controlled North America? What would such a place look like?

I remember King Georges War brought up. Thoughts?

Post-Columbus seems too late for a native _controlled_ North America, although surviving native American nations seem possible. I think you need earlier contact with the old world, tentative enough to avoid mass invasion, but sustained enough for the locals to build up some disease resistance and pick up horses, etc. from the outsiders. Something might be done with the Vikings or the Chinese, or even Medieval Europe, with feudal lords carving out their own little states but sans heavy reinforcement from a centralizing state eventually either failing or to some extent "going native."

Bruce
 

Highlander

Banned
I think that last idea would be really neat - give everyone a more level playing field.

Could Medieval Europeans navigate the Atlantic though?

Maybe the Muslim world will have to start it, considering their superior (if I'm remembering correctly) naval technology at the time.
 
Hmm, you could always have one or several of the larger native American powers (something like the Iroquois or the Mexica or Maya) to be more stabilized and create something of an independent nation. In turn, said native nation will have propping up more independent natives be something of a primary goal as to ensure their own survival, as allowing a European power to grow unchecked near their turf would be a threat to security. A totally independent native nation isn't that impossible, the Iroquois lasted until the War of 1812 IIRC. And in truth, the Spanish establishment (if not those lawless conquistadors) were not out for conquest themselves. Having Cortez croak (maybe he and all his companions sink or are killed during La Noche Triste?) would help the chances of a native nation which would help the chances of even more native nations which would help the chances of a native-American dominated North America.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Somewhere a few thousand years ago, serious you need to raise the population density of North America several times, so that they both survive the diseases, and have densely enough farming that Europeans doesn't replace them.
 
The absolute latest POD? If you mean a substantial part of North America as Indian rather than the whole continent entirely Indian, the latest possible POD would involve Zapata as president of Mexico rather than Carranza. And to get there you have to imagine a victory over Carranza's general Obregon, Villa agreeing to Zapata as president, Zapata somehow overcoming one ambitious plotter after another, and the US not successfully undermining him.

But it'd be a Mexico much like Bolivia potentially could be today, or perhaps a few years from now. An Indian leader in a largely Indian country with a white elite and mestizo middle class seeking to hold onto every shred of privilege and being willing to tear the country apart to do so. Culturally you'd see Mexico going through a transformation much like Guatemala did in the 90s after their civil war, Indians cautiously promoting cultural pride, languages, etc.

For a North America entirely Indian, the latest possible POD would be killing Cortez early on and adopting the tech learned from Spanish prisoners. A few Euro enclaves on the east coast are still likely.
 

maverick

Banned
The absolute latest POD? If you mean a substantial part of North America as Indian rather than the whole continent entirely Indian, the latest possible POD would involve Zapata as president of Mexico rather than Carranza. And to get there you have to imagine a victory over Carranza's general Obregon, Villa agreeing to Zapata as president, Zapata somehow overcoming one ambitious plotter after another, and the US not successfully undermining him.

Wouldn't it be easier with Benito Juarez?
 
Well, sometimes I feel that if Columbus had not turned up then perhaps Europeans might've been a lot slower in the Americas. With no one to show the world the gold and silver of the Americas, I'm thinking that it might take years to have the Europeans penetrate to the interior of the continent. The Portuguese would have discovered Bahia, and the English quite likely would have found Newfoundland, but neither of those are places that really excite the explorers mind. Further south I can see Tierra Del Fuego found, and the same with the far north as Europeans search for routes around the Americas to Asia, but fairly quickly I imagine they will be attracted by the much richer beds of Asia and Africa.

We will also need to make the Europeans poorer and less interested in exploration. With this we can have at least a native dominated South America (If the Incas can successfully keep things together against the Europeans, not very hard considering the terrain, and we'll need some group occupying Argentina/Chile, perhaps a southern ally of the Europeans in Tierra del Fuego? The Amazon and the Caribbean coast aren't as hard, not much to attract conquerors for a while), and depending on how the Tribes around the East Coast play their cards we might have most of North America free as well, depending on how far the Russians penetrate from Asia. it might be easier to have the Russians be defeated early in the time they move east by someone, to distract them.

So yeah, 1491 POD here. Rambly and a bit implausible but it's there.

Even later, we might be able to achieve something with a weak native dominated Mexico, a victorious Britain in the war of 1812 (A native Confederacy in the Southern Great lakes area would be the point of this, and we might be able to get most of the Louisiana valley under Native control as well, depending on what the British are interested in), and in South America, we might be able to get some kind of Amazonian state, have the natives in the Andes be stronger and we can come, close-ish. With a lot of implausibilities.
 
Wouldn't it be easier with Benito Juarez?

Juarez was Indian by blood but very assimilated in his thinking. A strong believer in the Liberal program that said Indian communal lands had to be broken up and the Indians westernized. Now if you can come up with a POD where he rejects this POV...but then it becomes unlikely he'd be the Liberal leader. He'd be a Conservative. Perhaps a late in life realization, a moment of clarity where he realizes the harm Liberal ideals will cause, combined with a longer life and someone besides Diaz to succeed him.

And the thread did ask for the absolute latest this could happen...
 
You know, here's a cool idea. Have some cavemen from, say, France come over the Atlantic a few thousand years after the Ice Bridge is gone. They contact the Natives, give some trade, and some Natives come back with them, Squanto style.

Eventually, a large Native American trade with Europe, possibly migration. To be honest, I dont' see how this creates a Native America, but it sounds cool.
 
I've actually had an idea for how to do this.

Have the Vikings establish a small colony on Newfoundland. They bring over several hundred settlers, the full complement of domestic animals, blacksmithing skills, and European diseases.

Like OTL, smallpox and other European diseases still cause a giant pandemic in the Americas, temporarily emptying most of it. However, the Native survivors aren't under pressure from colonizing Europeans like OTL (the Viking colony on Newfoundland will have a very small population base-probably less than 1000). After a few generations, the native population gradually develops immunity to the European diseases and begins slowly rising again. Meanwhile domestic animals (horse, cattle, sheep, pig, etc), European crops such as wheat, and European metalworking and construction all gradually diffuse throughout North (and eventually South) America. By the time the Europeans start trying to earnestly colonize the Americas, the Native Population has recovered to about where it was when the Vikings first came and has both an early medieval technology level and exposure to European diseases such as smallpox. The Europeans still have superior technology and will probably wind up taking over most of the Americas, but the native population won't go away, so the resulting colonies would be more like British India, with Europeans a small minority of the population, and native cultures and languages surviving. The colonies would eventually gain independence through some form or another, and you now have North and South America full of surviving Native American nations.
 

terence

Banned
Somewhere a few thousand years ago, serious you need to raise the population density of North America several times, so that they both survive the diseases, and have densely enough farming that Europeans doesn't replace them.

Raising the population level would mean monkeying around with genetics.
Native Americans are 100% lactose intolerant, compared to 5% of British and Scandinavians and 20-25% of Africans. Native Amricans had no dairy animals so Native American women had to breast feed their offspring for three to four years, reducing pregnancy and limiting family size, excavations at Cihuatecpan suggest a nuclear family average of four. If one allows for a primitive level of mortality, this is insufficient to maintain stable levels which may account for the polygamy and the wars to gain slaves. But this was just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
Raising the population level would mean monkeying around with genetics.
Native Americans are 100% lactose intolerant, compared to 5% of British and Scandinavians and 20-25% of Africans. Native Amricans had no dairy animals so Native American women had to breast feed their offspring for three to four years, reducing pregnancy and limiting family size, excavations at Cihuatecpan suggest a nuclear family average of four. If one allows for a primitive level of mortality, this is insufficient to maintain stable levels which may account for the polygamy and the wars to gain slaves. But this was just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Where are you getting your information? Extremely bizarre or outdated archaeology from the look of it.

Indians have no lactose intolerance I've ever seen. I certainly don't have it and neither do any of my family. Milk and cheese are as widely used by us as most other Americans. Goat cheese is a regular part of the diet in Mexico's rural Indian population. Cheese of all kinds is a regular part of every kind of Indian taco I've ever seen at powwows.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/queenkv/52567205/

Did it ever occur to you that Indian women nurse their kids for longer for the same reason most women have worldwide, as birth control? Which is considered a right to most Indian cultures, unlike traditional Christian.

Indians generally don't have nuclear families unless they've become very assimilated Christians. We have extremely extended families called clans. Sometimes the uncle takes the place of the father in raising kids, so it's not clear if those excavations actually include the birth fathers, short of DNA testing on remains.

Polygamy was generally practiced to provide for widows and keep kids from being orphaned, unless you're talking about some Mesoamerican or Caribbean elites.

I suspect you're confusing the wars for sacrifices with wars for "slaves". Generally what's misleadingly called Indian slavery is actually captive taking, where the captive can become a full member of the tribe in a relatively short time.

I also wonder where people are getting these bizarre notions Indian populations were low. Read books written after 1970, people. Most of today's estimates of Indian population are over 100 million, easily greater than Europe. I've seen credible estimates as high as 135 million, and up to 18 million for what becomes the continental US alone. The only relatively unpopulated areas in North America are the Great Basin and the Arctic. Even in the deserts, the population of the Anasazi towns is comparable to London at the same time, both in the low tens of thousands.
http://www.storyoflondon.com/module...icle&sid=474&mode=mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be easier with Benito Juarez?

Not really, Juarez was not too focussed on the rights of the Indigenous Mexicans. He was more concerned with limiting the power of the church and the military. Most of his generals / second in command were "liberal" middle class mestizos/criollos like Lerdo de Tejada (his vice president) and Porfirio Diaz (who later made sure Mexico was more European than Indigenous). We can actually credit Juarez and Diaz for creating the Mexican national identity.

If you want to go earlier and much easier you could have the Independence movement under Hidalgo and Morelos be successful.
 
I also wonder where people are getting these bizarre notions Indian populations were low. Read books written after 1970, people. Most of today's estimates of Indian population are over 100 million, easily greater than Europe. I've seen credible estimates as high as 135 million, and up to 18 million for what becomes the continental US alone. The only relatively unpopulated areas in North America are the Great Basin and the Arctic. Even in the deserts, the population of the Anasazi towns is comparable to London at the same time, both in the low tens of thousands.
http://www.storyoflondon.com/module...icle&sid=474&mode=mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
It should be noted that I'm a high-counter, but at the same time the consensus among archaeologists isn't that strong. like anything pre-Colombian I can walk into a bookstore and find a book that will contradict at least half of everything in another book by an expert in the field. It can get very confusing to people who don't care that much.
 
Top