WI: No Native American civilizations

[Escape Zeppelin]

Possibly the entire two continents end up like California or Uruguay, with no modern equivalent of Bolivia with large Native populations and powerful Native political movements

Not likely, though. I think the Andes will be less disturbed in this timeline, and left largely uncontacted by Europeans for centuries.

I think colonization of the Andes will be left until much later than OTL but remember the reason the Spanish were there in the first place, gold and silver. Once the silver in Bolivia and elsewhere is discovered there's going to be a gold rush equivalent to the ones in the US west and the easiest way to access it is across the Andes. I think California is a very good analogy to what it would end up looking like. Any natives are going to be pushed out pretty quickly except in the most remote valleys.

 

[Tyr]

The problem with your premise that there were agricultural societies that didn't make monuments or complex religions and complex politics ignores that those agricultural societies were either- a) barely agricultural because of climate. b) barely agricultural because they hadn't been agricultural very long

Even Easter Island went on to do monuments and complex politics. It is an inevitability. You'd have to come up with some real good reason why fertile lands and good crops such as potatoes and maize don't lead to civilizations.

Disagree. You need to come up with some real good reasons why they do really. There are far more examples of peoples who didn't start building monuments than of those that did.
When people do start coallessing into groups beyond what is naturally supportable by a farming community then you;re getting into historical exceptions. It just may not seem that way because these exceptions tended to soon overpower their neighbours who stuck to the old ways.

 

[It's]

Possibly the entire two continents end up like California or Uruguay, with no modern equivalent of Bolivia with large Native populations and powerful Native political movements

Why the sad face?

Uruguay was one of the better run countries in South America, which almost uniquely had democracy as the rule not the exception.

California is by far America's richest state. It's such a terrible place to live in that millions immigrated there- not just from other parts of America but around the world.

 

[Gloss]

Why the sad face?

Uruguay was one of the better run countries in South America, which almost uniquely had democracy as the rule not the exception.

California is by far America's richest state. It's such a terrible place to live in that millions immigrated there- not just from other parts of America but around the world.

Maybe because there is less cultural diversity in South America/World, anyway I don´t think you could replace Bolivian problem with European population, as far as I know problems in Bolivia are not of the ethnic conflict type.

 

[twovultures]

Why the sad face?

Uruguay was one of the better run countries in South America, which almost uniquely had democracy as the rule not the exception.

California is by far America's richest state. It's such a terrible place to live in that millions immigrated there- not just from other parts of America but around the world.

The sad face was for all the genocide, which was even worse in those two areas than in places like Mexico or even the U.S. west of the Rockies.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Why the sad face?

Uruguay was one of the better run countries in South America, which almost uniquely had democracy as the rule not the exception.

California is by far America's richest state. It's such a terrible place to live in that millions immigrated there- not just from other parts of America but around the world.

Implying you need to wipe out the indigneous population to make way for people who can really make use of the land.

 

[Emperor RyRy]

Possibly the entire two continents end up like California or Uruguay, with no modern equivalent of Bolivia with large Native populations and powerful Native political movements

Not likely, though. I think the Andes will be less disturbed in this timeline, and left largely uncontacted by Europeans for centuries. When European exploration does happen, European colonists are given to a surprise comparable to when Europeans first flew over Highland New Guinea, finding densely packed mountain valleys where the people have adopted bits of agriculture from the outside world but otherwise have developed almost independently of it.

Horse cultures will still develop as per OTL. They may even be more widespread, with nomadic cultures in the American southeast adapting horses for use in oak savannas to help increase their mobility for hunting and warfare. ITTL the term "civilized tribe" will be given to horse cultures instead of farming cultures.

#NobodyAppreciatesCaliforniaNatives
#OnlyCulturesInTheAmericasToExtensivelyUsePlanksInOceanGoingVessels

#ImTooTiredForHashtags

 

[Sycamore]

IMHO, the discovery and colonisation of the Americas ITTL probably pans out in a similar fashion to the discovery and colonisation of Australia IOTL. Discovered, and getting its (Eastern) coastline chartered pretty much as it was IOTL, but with no real attempts at colonisation by any of the Europeans (or South-East Asians ITTL- you never know) for another century or two. The far less developed civilisations of the native Americans get wiped out and/or assimilated far more gradually, in a manner akin to the Aborginal Australians- which would arguably represent a significant improvement on the fate of the native Americans of OTL, with regards to net casualties and their population rebound by the present day. A die-back on a par with that of OTL's Aborigines would see the total native American population rebounding to exceed the pre-contact numbers of i.r.o. 30M (assuming that the estimated pre-Columbian population of OTL would be roughly a third that of OTL, owing to the lower levels of endemic civilisation) again within 250 yrs of the Columbian Exchange, on course to complete the population rebound by 1750.

They'd still be outnumbered by the Europeans (back in Europe) by 5:1, but over in the Americas, they'd still outnumber the total population of Old World Settlers (even if we were to assume that first-wave settlement would proceed as swiftly ITTL as it did IOTL, when there'd almost certainly be far fewer settlers) by 3:1 nonetheless. This is in stark contrast to OTL, in which the native American population only stood at roughly 10M (roughly 1/10th of the pre-Columbian native population) at this stage, would be overtaken by that of the colonial settlers within another decade or so, and still only stands at a meagre 60% of the pre-Columbian native population today. Ironically, having no advanced Native American civilisations may actually benefit the Native Americans in the long run ITTL. Or, it could just lead to the colonial history of the Americas ITTL panning out in a manner more akin to that of Africa IOTL, leading to a more populous post-colonial America which is almost entirely dominated by native Americans and winds up being completely screwed as a result.

 

[Salvador79]

Or, it could just lead to the colonial history of the Americas ITTL panning out in a manner more akin to that of Africa IOTL, leading to a more populous post-colonial America which is almost entirely dominated by native Americans and winds up being completely screwed as a result.

Why would it wind up completely screwed as a result of being dominated by native Americans?

 

[Sycamore]

Why would it wind up completely screwed as a result of being dominated by native Americans?

Because it would be only be dominated by them demographically. The Europeans would still be more advanced, and the greater numbers of native Americans along with their more dispersed populations' swifter recovery from the Columbian epidemics would make them prime targets to be enslaved and work on the plantations just as their establishment comes into full swing, with Native American slave labor ITTL becoming far more convenient and profitable than shipping over slaves from Africa- and with several unscrupulous tribes, chiefdoms and newly established kingdoms ITTL probably more than willing to go along with it and make profits by selling the captured peoples of competing, rival tribes on to the European settlers as slaves.

The Europeans have the technological advantages, and they have the numbers at home. They're also far stronger culturally and religiously compared to the natives ITTL than they were IOTL- the indigenous American cultures will probably fare just as poorly or even worse than they did IOTL, in spite of their far greater numbers, due to their markedly increased social and organisational deficiencies. Which region is more dominated by non-native, colonial religions and cultures IOTL- the Americas, or Africa? It's pretty much toss-a-coin.

Also, even with the swifter population rebound for the natives, if the number of European emigrants in the 19th century ITTL (around the time when the first American gold rushes would be scheduled to commence ITTL, if they adopted the same approach to the colonial exploitation of mineral resources in the Americas ITTL that they did in Australia IOTL, without any metalworking native civilisations ITTL who'd bring these lands' precious metals to the attention of the earliest settlers) is comparable to the number of European emigrants in the 19th century IOTL, and the majority of these still choose the Americas as their preferred destination, the native population could still potentially be outnumbered by the settler population by the start of the 20th century.

Also, the more sporadic nature of colonial settlement in the Americas ITTL, coupled with the discovery and subsequent full-scale exploitation of its resources at a far later stage ITTL, will almost certainly lead to far more different European nations and corporations securing their own footholds in a belated 'Scramble for America'; resulting in a more divided America, partitioned along geographical lines without any regard for the pre-existing divisions between different native cultures and populations. Think about it- if native Americans formed the majority of the population in OTL's America, with OTL's national and state boundaries still established along the same lines by prior colonial regimes and retained by post-colonial regimes, how much conflict and tension would these nonsensical boundaries cause? Answer- a lot.

 

[Salvador79]

OK, sounds plausible to me. Sigh.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Tyr- you are wrong about the historical development of cultures. You're looking at Native American societies in the view of how they looked after having already been decimated by disease and contact (even indirect) with Europeans. The Amazon is a perfect example- today it is "primitive" tribes but before Columbus it was full of a dense population of large villages and cities that rivaled the Maya in population and sophistication.

Agriculture leads to monuments and war and society. It is not the exception and I don't see how you find any agricultural societies without some sophistication let alone consider it to be the norm. The only agricultural societies without sophistication are, as a I mentioned before- 1) just learned agriculture or 2) have agriculture in a very limited ecological place where it isn't able to support large scale

 

[Tyr]

Tyr- you are wrong about the historical development of cultures. You're looking at Native American societies in the view of how they looked after having already been decimated by disease and contact (even indirect) with Europeans. The Amazon is a perfect example- today it is "primitive" tribes but before Columbus it was full of a dense population of large villages and cities that rivaled the Maya in population and sophistication.

Agriculture leads to monuments and war and society. It is not the exception and I don't see how you find any agricultural societies without some sophistication let alone consider it to be the norm. The only agricultural societies without sophistication are, as a I mentioned before- 1) just learned agriculture or 2) have agriculture in a very limited ecological place where it isn't able to support large scale

I'm not even talking about Native Americans. I'm talking about the old world where we've a lot more examples of civilizations popping up.
Even if you take an individual country- look at how many villages there are opposed to cities. Why was it that so many villages, in equally good places to others, remained so small and stuck to the old ways whilst others grew into cities?
Those that grew were the exceptions, not the inevitable.

Just look to the ainu and the celts for example, even despite not being in isolation and having clear links to 'civilized' peoples they by and large remained heavily village based people (one or two celtic exceptions).
This is the natural way. It takes some thing special to prompt people into city building.

 

[Napoleonrules]

You are in error by associating cities with monument building and complex civilizations. The Celts you mention had sophisticated culture and tribal politics and monuments were the standard versus the exception from Malta to Spain to Gaul to of course Stonehenge and more in Britain. You're simply erroneous about agriculture leading to little villages that don't band together. Yes villages can stay small, but so did the "cities" of Sumer which weren't much more than villages, but they still banded together and created empires. There is no place where just independent idealistic utopian agricultural villages spring up and don't incorporate into larger political and cultural areas. Agriculture hasn't even independently sprung up in more than 3 or 4 places around the world anyways! It isn't that these little villages are discovering agriculture on their own and then later being incorporated by a larger nearby civilization. The large civilization is exporting agriculture! It is not even known for sure that even the East Asians of all places did not simply learn agriculture through dissemination and use that knowledge to domestic their own locally found wild grains and animals instead of the common belief that they discovered it independently.

 

[It's]

The sad face was for all the genocide, which was even worse in those two areas than in places like Mexico or even the U.S. west of the Rockies.

I thought the whole premise of this thread was that there are no Native American civilisations in the first place?

 

[twovultures]

I thought the whole premise of this thread was that there are no Native American civilisations in the first place?

No Native civilizations =/= no Native peoples.

When I (and from what I read, OP) use the term "civilization", it refers to a certain kind of society which has the following characteristics:

Large-tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people.

Hierarchical-There is a king/president/noble class which can order around people not in that class.

Specialized-The remainder of the people are divided into farming, artisan, merchant classes etc.

Organized-Information is stored physically instead of just purely orally, using techniques like writing or quipu. Taxes are gathered from the population and given to the elites or redistributed, and workers can be gathered (sometimes against their will) for large projects like monument-building or waging war.

Civilization is not the only kind of society. The Yahi of California lacked the numbers, organization, and specialization of the Aztecs. All members of the tribe gathered food AND made art AND traded as necessary, and all the men fought as needed. But just because their society was not an example of civilization does not mean it was less valuable (in fact, quite a few people would argue that their society was better), and it is a tragedy that they were wiped out by white settlers in California. The Aztecs, on the other hand, were conquered but due to their larger numbers and the fact that they had a government and social structures their conquerors could exploit were not wiped out. Members of the Nahuatl ethnic groups that constituted this empire are still around, and their culture also survives in a recognizable form in Mexico's Mestizo culture. While they suffered conquest, they survived genocide but the Yahi did not.

The settlers of Uruguay and California didn't wipe out any civilizations, but they did wipe out many societies and the thought of this happening on a larger scale is sad for anyone who values human life.

 

[Emperor RyRy]

No Native civilizations =/= no Native peoples.

When I (and from what I read, OP) use the term "civilization", it refers to a certain kind of society which has the following characteristics:

Large-tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people.

Hierarchical-There is a king/president/noble class which can order around people not in that class.

Specialized-The remainder of the people are divided into farming, artisan, merchant classes etc.

Organized-Information is stored physically instead of just purely orally, using techniques like writing or quipu. Taxes are gathered from the population and given to the elites or redistributed, and workers can be gathered (sometimes against their will) for large projects like monument-building or waging war.

Civilization is not the only kind of society. The Yahi of California lacked the numbers, organization, and specialization of the Aztecs. All members of the tribe gathered food AND made art AND traded as necessary, and all the men fought as needed. But just because their society was not an example of civilization does not mean it was less valuable (in fact, quite a few people would argue that their society was better), and it is a tragedy that they were wiped out by white settlers in California. The Aztecs, on the other hand, were conquered but due to their larger numbers and the fact that they had a government and social structures their conquerors could exploit were not wiped out. Members of the Nahuatl ethnic groups that constituted this empire are still around, and their culture also survives in a recognizable form in Mexico's Mestizo culture. While they suffered conquest, they survived genocide but the Yahi did not.

The settlers of Uruguay and California didn't wipe out any civilizations, but they did wipe out many societies and the thought of this happening on a larger scale is sad for anyone who values human life.

Well the Chumash of California only lack one of those characteristics. That'd make a good TL, where a migration of southern tribes forces the already capitalist/free market Chumash to unify.

 

[twovultures]

Well the Chumash of California only lack one of those characteristics. That'd make a good TL, where a migration of southern tribes forces the already capitalist/free market Chumash to unify.

The Chumash are interesting, I recall writing an alt-creation story for them in collaboration with another timeline author. They've actually appeared in the timeline I'm currently working on, though at this point they've been partially assimilated to the *Ute culture and speak a dialect of the *Paiute language.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Whole idea is ASB and not worthy

No American civilizations = hardly any Native Americans anywhere. At all. Period. The physical geography of Americas completely different. As I've been trying to beat into Tyr's head, even the Amazon rainforest and the Great American plains WON'T EXIST, they are human made constructions due to our thousands of years of intervention. Your PoD would have to be to make the proto-potato and teosinte/proto-maize not exist (teosinte actually isn't the undomesticated maize, it is simply a common undomesticated descendant of the now extinct undomesticated maize ancestor; saying teosinte is the ancestor is like saying Chimpanzees are Human ancestors, just as you can't domesticate a chimp and make a human, you can't now domesticate teosinte and get corn).

Without those crops you STILL would have those large civilizations and large cities in the Amazon. You're simply getting into ASB with this whole idea of a lightly populated Americas. It isn't possible! Read some of the newest work out there on pre-Columbian history if you're going to attempt an ATL based on the New World instead of arguing with me saying you're talking about the Old World when your entire premise is about the New World. This is ASB clearly.

 

[Workable Goblin]

As I've been trying to beat into Tyr's head, even the Amazon rainforest and the Great American plains WON'T EXIST, they are human made constructions due to our thousands of years of intervention.

The Amazon rainforest is tens of millions of years old, as is the Great Plains. Human activities over the past several thousand years have certainly shaped their specific appearance, but the ecoregions themselves are much older than humanity. Why do you think they will not exist without human intervention?