WI: Aboriginal Australians and/or (US) Native Americans genocided to extinction, on purpose.

In a post war situation the male population would have been decimated, what few survivors were left wouldn´t have anywhere to go. I´d imagine a rapid population decline would take place and what few survivors remained would have to assimilate more thoroughly, and still be largely marginalized. The loss of culture would be irrecoverable.
I mean sure but on that perspective native communities already have small numbers, this scenario is figuratively and literally brute forcing it although I guess that's kinda the point, but personally I think the scenario I showed is a more realistic approach to it given natives could only put up so much resistance even if they were given 0 land over some, especially because it's not like European settlers would immediately flock to whatever land is available, the process would still be gradual, afterall there is a reason why all of Oklahoma was initially given to the Amerindians, the government didn't have the hindsight to think the settlers would eventually go even after that land.
 
I mean sure but on that perspective native communities already have small numbers, this scenario is figuratively and literally brute forcing it although I guess that's kinda the point, but personally I think the scenario I showed is a more realistic approach to it given natives could only put up so much resistance even if they were given 0 land over some, especially because it's not like European settlers would immediately flock to whatever land is available, the process would still be gradual, afterall there is a reason why all of Oklahoma was initially given to the Amerindians, the government didn't have the hindsight to think the settlers would eventually go even after that land.
The problem with having 0 land is that even if you adapt your small society to survive in your current territory, you will inevitably find yourself in settler territory, sooner or later. Roughly 50 years for Oklahoma. They could either work for the agricultural settlements and gradually assimilate, and further divide the tribe or try moving to the booming cities where even if segregated together would still be assimilated in time. In this horrific timeline you wouldn´t have many people identifying as fisrt nations.
 
Yes on this we can agree. It was an unwarranted use of violence and deceit, but people didn´t just magically grow a conscience in the 18th century, there were europeans vouching for indian rights from the get go, especially in Spanish and Portuguese Americas, with de Las Casas and António Vieira.

I the case of Spain it was the crown and the royal institutions. You have the leyes de Burgos from 1510, the leyes de Indias from 1555 (after the Controversial of Valladolid) and there are a lot of publications from the School of Salamanca. In the Spanish viceroyalties, Indians had the same (or probably more) rights than europeans. In Europe, child labour was first abolished in France in late XIX century, in the Spanish America it was abolished in the XVI century.
 
I the case of Spain it was the crown and the royal institutions. You have the leyes de Burgos from 1510, the leyes de Indias from 1555 (after the Controversial of Valladolid) and there are a lot of publications from the School of Salamanca. In the Spanish viceroyalties, Indians had the same (or probably more) rights than europeans. In Europe, child labour was first abolished in France in late XIX century, in the Spanish America it was abolished in the XVI century.
I was aware of the legal protections, but not in such a degree. The only problem with said legislation, was the ability to enforce it. Many blantently disregarded or turned a blind eye, to incorrect practices, but it certainly proves that measures were taken to improve the status of natives in certain colonies.
 
Top