Would it be likely to have a stronger native population in the US ?

And? The point of alternate history is to discuss maybes, not "no that can't be." Defeat the plagues that wiped out the vast majority of Native peoples and you can find a way to maintain population parity.

Because the OP said a stronger native presence in US society so it has to involve the US in some way which to get that requires OTL until at least Independence.
 
You would have needed to give the United States a radically different perspective on native policy, or even the style of colonization, starting from the earliest colonies where the two were on more or less equal footing (sometimes the coastal confederacies actually having some degree of hegemony over the colonies). Whereas many Latin American countries saw the natives as potential subjects to be conquered (or enslaved), colonial Americans saw Indians as obstacles to ultimately be pushed out to make way for their own people to settle. Almost from the get go we have both 'official' operations and private ventures in genocide in order to extirpate or even just to punish the Indians for whatever slight they saw.

Native Americans were seen as a sometimes admirable, but ultimately backward placeholder society whose time had come to be replaced by a more industrious people, in the eyes of the early United States. Even when they had 'civilized' and built European-style towns complete with newspapers in their own written language (a la the Cherokee) the mindset had set in too far and the identification of Natives as a competitor too strong. A little earlier, Thomas Jefferson had 'offered' the Shawnee the chance to become a republic that would join the United States. By this time the woeful history of Anglo-Indian relations had developed a good few chapters and American society was nothing the Shawnee would find impressive, much less able to convince them to reorganize their entire culture to suit them. Having little patience in the Indians' willing to 'civilize', hostile relations continued not long after.
 
Even better would be to have some strong tribal entity take the colonists' side in this postponed ARW and contribute significantly.

True, although that might be hard to achieve, given that one of the colonists' grievances was that the British government was insufficiently keen on stealing native land.

Because the OP said a stronger native presence in US society so it has to involve the US in some way which to get that requires OTL until at least Independence.

I don't know, as long as the resulting country is reasonably similar to OTL's United States, I for one would consider the OP fulfilled, even if the POD was before the Revolution.
 
I initially assumed this was about Pop Music, and I was really confused, as US pop music is dominant OTL. Only after reading a few of the replies did I realize "pop" was short for "population". Before I read this thread I even thought things like "how would native Americans even have the opportunity to develop their own brand of pop songs?"
 
Last edited:
That or have first contact result in disease when heading back to Europe. A Red Plague if you will

It would have triggered a Catholic hate like "They're demons, we should kill them all"


I initially assumed this was about Pop Music, and I was really confused, as US pop music is dominant OTL. Only after reading a few of the replies did I realize "pop" was short for "population". Before I read this thread I even thought things like "how would native Americans even have the opportunity to develop their own brand of pop songs?"

Well .... I guess if they got their own US States they would be stronger, I guess x3
 
It would have triggered a Catholic hate like "They're demons, we should kill them all"
That would imply they would know where the disease came from. I figured that most really wouldn’t. Especially since the societal collapse would cause further problems.

I do reckon some journeys could be made still, but less of Conquest and more just dump unwanted people over there. It would gradually introduce genetic diversity there (especially if African nations could start doing the same) as well as various animals and tools that would let the natives catch up.
 
You could find a way to defeat disease itself long before the establishment of British America which would allow populations to recover from the only biological genocide in human history and then by simple fact you'd have a higher number of Native peoples because places emptied by illness wouldn't be so empty anymore.
And? The point of alternate history is to discuss maybes, not "no that can't be." Defeat the plagues that wiped out the vast majority of Native peoples and you can find a way to maintain population parity.

This is a historical narrative that has been going around for a while, starting with Henry F. Dobyns in the 80's and popularized by Jared Diamond to the public in 1997 (and thrown in for another wave by CGP Grey on YouTube who has only parroted Diamond), but has been contested since the beginning by archaeologists and historians. The voices of skepticism were initially a little quiet as they were spread out by people specializing in different disciplines and regions, not having much contact with each other, but have since been able to come together and show the archaeo-historical data hasn't matched up with the biological, disease-only narrative.

What's been found instead is a complicated web of very human interactions that led to the direct deaths of Native Americans by Europeans and each other through war or slavery, the collapse of native lifestyles and networks leading to social turmoil and famine, and indeed weakened immunity through these stressors -- while disease definitely played its part, it is misleading to assume it was the most important or only factor and outright incorrect to assume the immune systems of Native Americans were categorically inferior. This new narrative has been gaining a wider acceptance in academia, but changing the public's perceptions sometimes takes even longer.

I think you'll find the genocide of Native Americans surprisingly 'vanilla'. As I already mentioned a few posts up, there is a well-documented history of destructive and violent policies, attitudes, and actions towards Indians from nearly the moment of colonization onward. It was already decided that the Indians would ultimately have to make way for the white man, and there was nothing they could do. Migrating (or being relocated) didn't help for long. 'Civilizing' didn't help either, neither did integrating into European-American society; it could keep you from wholesale destruction, but not from being marginalized and more easily controlled. Fighting back was a mixed bag that either assured a massacre or sometimes granted you some amount of autonomy in a smaller area. From coast to coast you'll find instances of violent expansionism from burning crops, killing bison and right up to the slaughter of entire tribes, and government policies that made sure the remaining defeated natives they penned up had little chance to thrive.

For some sources/further reading on criticism of the disease-only narrative and the more complicated factors leading to America's depopulation, check out Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America and Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast, 1492-1715.
So postpone the ARW a bit, make the Crown act more determinedly about limiting settlement, and give the various tribes more time to work out alliances and strengthen themselves. You have to be careful that they aren't too powerful, though, or they just become independent states, and the OP asked for integration.
When the colonists were sufficiently peeved at the slights made against them, they were perfectly willing to ignore the Crown and take matters into their own hands by destroying villages and massacring people -- see Bacon's Rebellion.
Even better would be to have some strong tribal entity take the colonists' side in this postponed ARW and contribute significantly.
I get what you're saying, and I think on paper that might work, but I think the nations that actually allied with the Americans, like the Iroquois (well, half of them) and Wabanaki confederacies, did as much as they could have given the circumstances and still didn't get quite the same recognition.

One of the reasons for revolution was because of the way the British would try to treat the natives (marginally, and nowhere as close as the French) better than how the colonists would like -- attempting to prevent vengeful massacres or denying them access to the Appalachians westward. Indians weren't deaf to the politics between the two; they knew what both wanted and decided King George's government the lesser of two evils, which you'd decide too if one faction was very evidently trying to get rid of you, or trying to enslave you in mass numbers (which had been going on in the Eastern Seaboard since the early 1500s, often serving as the first impression of Europeans, and continued by the colonists until the 18th century).

Honestly, aside from dealing with slave raiders, I think a great place to start here is to do something about Puritanism and hyper-Calvinism in the early colonies. These ideologies, I think, are some of the biggest contributors to the negative Anglo-Indian relations owing to the idea of the irredeemability of the backward natives, avoidance of frequent relations and incipient concepts of Manifest Destiny in the sense of pushing out the different people. More people like Roger Williams or William Penn may help, though that may be asking too much of human nature. The fur trade leading to depletion of beaver and competition of resource also contributed to the increasing violence of the Eastern Seaboard.

The attitudes and policy towards natives in the colonies are fundamentally a byproduct of the style and especially the context of colonization itself. Though possible, I find it difficult to see a scenario that involves further dependence, alliances and integration with native polities. Not without totally changing the face of American colonization.
 
Only had it been the French or Spanish who colonized the current US instead of the British inasmuch as the first two nations DID have very distinct legal recognition for Native Americans as well as biracial and mixed ethnicities and were eager to have them convert to Christianity whereas the latter nation did all they could to drive them out if not wipe them out of their colonies.

What about the proclamation of 1763? In fact, even before then there was a tension between crown officials who tried to keep the British end of the bargain with Indians and colonist who wanted land.
 
That’s pretty interesting, @Thesaurus Rex

One guess would be maybe the Calvinists or such die out (or at least the menfolk as the women and children could probably assimilate to the Tribe) and the new colonies be made of Quakers or something
 
I've mulled the idea of a feudatories-type deal for Euroamericans, but that would require weaker/slower settlement.
 
Top