When did the total conquest of native America by "white" men become inevitable?

[Byzantine fanatic]

I dont like the term "white" but couldn't think of another way of saying what I mean. "Europeans" doesn't really work, because the conquest of much of America's 'wild west' took place after the USA became independent.

Basically, from the Native American Indians' point of view, when did the complete conquest of America by "the white man" become inevitable? Did the Apache, Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee and other native peoples ever have a chance? And when did their conquest by the invaders from the old world become unavoidable?

What year do you think was the turning point?

 

[Max Sinister]

You know "Guns, Germs and Steel"?

 

[Sol Zagato]

Before 1861, when Chile started conquering the Mapuche. The Mapuche need foreign allies sometime before that- not sure how far though. No other native group I can think of was strong and independent that late in the game.

Everyone else is doomed way before then. The Maya could have maintained their quasi-independence, but they were basically already conquered.

Edit: If you mean natives on US territory only? When the first English colonies got firmly established.

Edit2: The Mapuche are in a particularly good position because they're on the coastline with good ports. Someone gets in a tiff with Chile or the Spanish colonies, they could achieve protectorate status if they play their cards right.

 

[RightHoJeeves]

Pretty much once the colonies are firmly planted in America it's all over for the Native Americans and their subjugation is inevitable. Disease and the disparity in technology is too much to prevent.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

As soon as the white men wanted it, sadly. But there are gradations in 'total conquest'.

 

[BBadolato]

Are we taking North America only, or the whole landmass?

 

[Vuu]

The instant they arrive and are more advanced

simple

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Depends, but what it comes down to most of all IMHO is that you only had one dominant power- Spain in the south, England in the north- which limited the natives' abilities to play them off.

Also we need to be careful about this, since a big part of native "die off" in Hispanic America was them "assimilating" into colonial culture.

So. A few things-
1) stop American Indpewndwnce. A big part of the war for independence was because the colonists wanted to expand but Britain for various reasons (treaty obligations) didn't want to let them, losing that war means Britain's allied native tribes probably do better- the Cherokee for instance were quite prosperous sedentary farmers, but endured genocide from the colonists as punishmen/part of the war.

2) keep French and/or Dutch forays into Brazil as a rival for the Portuguese and eventually the Spanish.
3) have France keep her North American holdings longer

4) prevent any one power from controlling the entire atlantic seaboard

 

[UCB79]

Pretty much once the colonies are firmly planted in America it's all over for the Native Americans and their subjugation is inevitable. Disease and the disparity in technology is too much to prevent.

Plus all the white colonizers of North Amer-
ica- whether English, French, or Spanish-
agreed that all the Native Americans had to go. The Native Americans, OTH, lacked this
unity.

 

[Deleted member 90563]

The moment the Europeans noticed that the continent had something that they wanted.

 

[Jared]

You know "Guns, Germs and Steel"?

This would be by Jared "The Americas were behind because their best cereal had only 1% protein while Old World cereals were 7-12% protein" Diamond, who didn't notice that he was using dry weight figures for the other cereals and wet weight for maize, and so naturally the protein content appeared nearly zero?

 

[Max Sinister]

Even so, there are many other reasons he lists. But if people can refute, say, at least half of them...

 

[thekingsguard]

The instant the 1st Spaniard sneezes

 

[Richard V]

When the transmission of horses, iron, and disease failed during the 1000-1200AD Norse contact - later conquest became highly probable, though inevitability is up to debate.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

It is possible for England to adopt French/Dutch style colonization? So English settlers and their descendants are far less numerous-hunderts thousands instead of millions at the end of 18th century.

 

[twovultures]

What year do you think was the turning point?

A few potential answers:

1537-The Inca come within a hairs breadth of victory against the Spanish during the seize of Cuzco. Really a different roll of the dice could have seen the Inca drive the Spanish out of Cuzco and keep at least a rump empire, but if you want a different decision, my reading of the book "The last days of the Incas" is that the fatal mistake on Manco Capac's part was sending soldiers to face the Spanish at Lima, where coastal terrain made it easy for Spanish heavy cavalry to kill some of the Inca Empire's best strategists (it has been a while since I read the book, so I may be misremembering). Had they ceded the low ground and focused on defeating the Spanish in the highlands, I think an independent Inca state could have survived.

1862-invention of the Gatling gun.
Before the invention of this weapon, the Plains and Pampas nations could go toe to toe with European-style armies and win. But the creation of rapid-fire guns doomed them militarily.

Null-Bolivia is a majority Native American nation with an Aymara president; Greenland is autonomous, with a majority Inuit population and the right to secede from Denmark if it so chooses; the Florida Seminoles, having avoided removal from their land, consider themselves unconquered. So, the total conquest of Native Americans by whites never became inevitable because it has not permanently happened.

 

[Luminous]

1862-invention of the Gatling gun.
Before the invention of this weapon, the Plains and Pampas nations could go toe to toe with European-style armies and win. But the creation of rapid-fire guns doomed them militarily.

I wouldn't even argue this, particularly, is a major turning point. The Texans, later Americans, could contest the Comanche and others with assistance of Native Scouts and after adopting native tactics, raid native camps, etc. While a standard infantry army was run around in circles, and there wasn't much of the way in Cavalry in the Old West, the Rangers did well enough, though the first rangers (back in the 1830s, if I recall correctly) had to be recalled to teach the newer rangers who were reinstated a few decades later.

If there's a better turning point/new weapon that changes the calculus, it isn't the Gatling gun, it's the creation of the Colt Single Action Army revolver, if you want to pick a single firearm that gave settlers a major advantage over the natives. Moreover, it allowed them to operate in the saddle and exchange fire directly instead of being forced to dismount to fire.

And it isn't to say they could have defeated a European Style Army in a straight-on battle and guaranteed a win (though they could certainly perform well enough to route unsupported infantry); most of the Comanche victories were against military outposts that were not expecting battle and against townships, and then it consisted mainly of Cavalry vs infantry without their own cavalry support, field artillery, etc. They attempted not to put themselves against a field army in preparation for battle (I can't think of one in the time period until the examples in the late 19th century, with Custer's defeat being a notable one).

-

As to the OP, one thing that might help some of the natives remain in their original homelands would be the Indian Removal Act not passing - it only made it through Congress 101-97, with 11 not voting. You only need 2 voters to flip and one that didn't vote to say nay to make the act fail (or some other combination thereof). It wouldn't necessarily result in a good ending (what would the Georgians do in reaction to being told the Cherokee et al still maintain their sovereignty by the Congress and the Supreme Court), but it would uphold Cherokee sovereignty... though the question is for how long.

 

[Admiral Brown]

Before 1861, when Chile started conquering the Mapuche. The Mapuche need foreign allies sometime before that- not sure how far though. No other native group I can think of was strong and independent that late in the game.

Everyone else is doomed way before then. The Maya could have maintained their quasi-independence, but they were basically already conquered.

Edit: If you mean natives on US territory only? When the first English colonies got firmly established.

Edit2: The Mapuche are in a particularly good position because they're on the coastline with good ports. Someone gets in a tiff with Chile or the Spanish colonies, they could achieve protectorate status if they play their cards right.

The Dutch were quite active in the Southern Cone in the firat part of the XVII century. Not only around Tierra del Fuego. I read somewhere that a Dutch expedition visited Southern Chile and was recieved by independent Mapuche, wearing armours and bearing arms captured from the Spanish. If they formed an alliance that early, chances for the survival of a Mapuche state till the preaent day increase. Another possibility would be to have them allied with France in the first half of the XIX century, but by then Mapuche population was comparabily too low (at least in Eastern Patagonia, an area they had expanded into).

 

[Jared]

Even so, there are many other reasons he lists. But if people can refute, say, at least half of them...

There are some valid points in GGS. However, few if any of them are original to Diamond, and his work contains enough errors that I'm reluctant to refer people to it, since it means there's a lot to unlearn after reading it.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Are we taking North America only, or the whole landmass?

I was thinking of the USA in my OP, but I welcome posts about the full Americas, including North America, central America and South America. The encounter between the Aztecs and others with the Spanish in the early 16th century was indeed the start of it all. Aztecs, Incas, all native American peoples across the full landmass are a perfectly valid part of the discussion.