Seems to me that the ease of colonization of the America's was really made possible by Old World diseases softening up the indigenous populations by 50-90%.
In an alternate timeline without smallpox, measles, typhus, influenza, yellow fever, et al., How might have things worked out?
How different would the Columbian Exchange go?
English colonialism?
The Westward Expansion?
The same, but slower. They still wouldn't have had to numbers nor the technology nor the unity to drive off the western powers.
Probably this, though I bet there would have been more Indian countries that just became vassal states, and weren't BLEACH'D at all.
Instead of one modern Africa there would be two, and our internet would be rife with cellphone footage of Amerindians ritualistically slaughtering each other.
In short not much would change.
They're were a lot of amerindians compared to say, australian aboriginals, but still too few for it not to end up as this anonsaid
With more time to prepare and fight back, couldn't that have an effect?
The American Indians didn't get steamrolled in every encounter, look at Little Bighorn. In an alternate history without plague, could they have become armed enough, or allied enough with other countries, to hinder or halt the 100% colonization of America?
I guess what I'm asking, is whether the entirety of Native American ways of life, were doomed to be entirely replaced?
Complete ethnographic usurpation could not have occurred however. The colonists are just too small in force if you don't have demographic collapse to fuel conquest.
See: the current state of whites in Africa
I doubt it. I don't think they could've kept even most of America, but there would be a lot of little Indian countries dotted here and these, I think.
Even without disease, there really weren't a lot of them in the first place. Certainly not 100 million. Plus, they were disorganized and technologically inferior.
>little bighorn
They massively outnumbered and to an extent even outgunned the US group, the soldiers also used tactics meant for an entirely different kind of fight.I'd say it'd be more similar to actual history the farther you got from the equator and into more sparsely populated areas.
The Europeans can win every battle but all they'll be able to do is assume overlord, not majority, status.
B-b-but muh 80 gorillion we wuz civilized n sheit
Didn't the effective genocide not take place until around the Civil War time frame?
That's a couple hundred years from first contact in actual history.
Idk, I think the Westward Expansion would be fucked with a lot. The Natives would have a lot of time to prepare, and make allegiances with the French and Spanish. The English were pretty isolated on the East Coast until the late 18th century. I think things would look very different in 2017 2.0.
>genocide
There was no genocide.
I dont, I have seen some pretty good evidence for a 100 million between all of the americas.
>effective
Don't get nit picky, you (presumably) know what I mean. Until around the Civil War, Natives weren't killed and herded into reservations on such a scale. Not to say it didn't happen prior.
So heres the thing this was not Genocide. Now was it a war crime/ crime against humanity/ terrible fucking thing yes. But Genocide is a special term for a special thing. That is where the goal is the extermination or an ethnic group. What the US did the the native americans is not genocide. Because simply Number One we wanted their land. And that makes it not genocide. Just good old fashioned conquering the weak versus the strong. There have really only been two solid genocides. The holocaust and Rwanda.
I am drunk my grammar is garbage but my point should stand.
Well, we're really talking about the land that becomes the US and Canada, which was very sparsely populated.
Also, source?
Got it, now untwist your knickers and pretend I used a more proper word. Yeah I'm a bit of a brainlet, but the heart of the question remains valid.
Well, if you mean to say that the majority of Indians died only in he mid 1800s, you'd be wrong. 90% of them died within the first few dozen years after first contact due to diseases that they had no immunity to.
Yes it is. Honestly North america was considerably less populated then south/central america. I think the only hope the Nothern natives would have had is a highly populated great lakes nation probably lead by the Huron. But even then. I dont see how that nation isnt conquered even before the civil war.
Look at Native Americans now. They're not even native americans, just poor brown americans in trailers. Mexicans with a treaty.
You mean to tell me nothing happened?
Yeah, and my opening question negated the impact of Old World diseases.
This is something I don't know very much about; how things unfolded in South America. Didn't the Aztec largely collapse due to poor leadership, resulting from a previous leader dying of an Old World disease or something along those lines?
Without disease, could the Aztec Empire have weathered the Spanish?
Well, with no diseases, I think that the westward expansion would definitely have looked different. Honestly, we might have even stayed on the eastern side of the Appalachians. Possibly.
With no diseases there would be probably no serious colonization at all. It would be more similar to Portuguese or Dutch trade network.
Do not forget that most(if not all) early colonization attempts in NA was a private initiative.
The diseases swept coast before any serious landing.
Do not forget(or maybe you are not aware) that pilgrims settlement was build on ruin of depopulated native settlement and pilgrims survive only because they pillage abandoned food stores and thanks to collecting domesticated crops that go wild.
I can post some fragments about whole situation if anyone is interested.
I am pretty sure that if not diseases decimating(practically wiping out or throwing into social unrest and civil wars like in south) local populations, colonization of both Americas would maybe start in XIX when Europeans actually have technological advantage thanks to industrial revolution.
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
1 .A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
un.org
The reasoning behind the actions doesn't change the definition.
Its not only leaders were dying but also clerics, warriors and nobles.
Whole succession crisis that happened in Inca empire was because of diseases that travel south. They hit Incas before Pizarro even thought about going into that direction. He land into middle of civil war with various pretenders(and their heirs and high ranking supporters) dying one by one from diseases.
In Aztecs situation was similar - where subdued nations were not really fond of Aztecs dominion, it was wave of diseases that hit before Cortes land that weakened social cohesion and decimated old leaders opening way to younger more ambitious war hawk to try use conquistadors to their own benefit. They failed in long term but seriously nobody expect that it would be so big.
Seriously I wonder if Spaniards could succeed even in conquest of Hispaniola if not diseases.
Yes it does, Your first point taken from the source is literally my point. The united states desire, was dominion over the natives land, and a byproduct of that was mass slaughter, and the forced movement of peoples. What Hitler did in the Holocaust was not war. What the United States did was. Now one isnt really worse than the other. But by using the term Genocide willy nilly it sort of loses its power. Just like we have sexual assault and Rape.
I am not saying that it not being genocide means the US was less effective at their destruction. It is simply not the correct word. What makes genocide different than other crimes against humanity or war crimes is the intent.
>90%.
where does this myth come from?
The Europeans would be more like the Normans or Qing, setting up a ruling dynasty that gradually blends into the local population.
would have been the same, they lost because they broke treaties and lacked the technology to fight the wars they started.
Where does this meme of 100 million genocide come from? There weren't that many people alive in the new world.
>Now was it a war crime/ crime against humanity/ terrible fucking thing yes.
was it? I seem to recall most of the atrocities and broken treaties from the side of the Indians. I also think we are better off these days without them. Could you imagine the political crap we would have to deal with if they were all still around? You think the blacks are a bunch of cry babies you aint' seen nothing yet.
they started a war they lost and honestly their quality of life is better now than before.
Just because one side, commits a war crime, doesnt stop the other side from doing it later.
Headed out for thanksgiving so I cant find the aricles, but here is one that refers to the numbers, and says even now the accepted one is 50 million which is a lot of people still for the time.
50 is better but I still think that over-estimates.
>There have really only been two solid genocides. The holocaust and Rwanda.
Gee I wonder who could be behind this post
Armenia?
Cambodia?