Best case scenario for native Americans in the US

[pjmidd]

You also need the natives not to rock the boat and do things that either destroy confederations or upset neighbouring settlers. People keep bringing up the Comanche but forget they were genocidal slavers.

 

[Legofan4]

You also need the natives not to rock the boat and do things that either destroy confederations or upset neighbouring settlers. People keep bringing up the Comanche but forget they were genocidal slavers.

It also not like they lasted all that long as a significant power in the area. As soon as the white population of Texas started to grow the power of the Comanche quickly faded.

The United States also never fought the natives with all of its power. Most of the fighting was done by local militias formed by settlers. The cavalry gets the fame but that was a small part of the fighting.

 

[Sevarics]

That doesn’t actually improve the native position that well. This just means there’s a mixed race caste to help the white settlers oppress the natives. Mexico was an example of this, the indigenous peoples ended up fairly loyal to the Crown of Spain but still were put in reductions and continued to lose territories to settler encroachment.

The crown may mean well but their limited ability to directly manage the colonial space just means that the subjugation and dispossession of the natives happens at a slower place.

By the 18th century the autonomy of the Mesoamerican atlpetl were severely reduced and the plagues culling their numbers meant they were struggling to prevent settlers from simply stealing their lands. That the religious orders conveniently to consolidate the rural population for the sake of “teaching them Christ” and “saving them from the plague” into the reduction towns that made them easier to read and control and steal their land was just icing on the cake.

The only way to have the natives treated better is if they themselves create state-like structures able to resist settler encroaches. They don’t even really have to last forever but simply putting up a stronger fight for longer (which is very much possible) helps force the settlers to actually respect the indigenous peoples as actual civilised people worthy of rights and integration.

Though I think while unlikely it is possible for some Indigenous realms to maybe last a good few centuries longer than they did historically. The Comanche were fairly isolated from the settler plague as long as Louisiana remains French and were able to handle themselves against the settler populations in New Mexico and Texas fairly well. They’re basically the North American equivalent of the Dzungar as an adaptable steppe people able to rely on both agriculture and horse nomadism.

Having 10-100 million(s) mixed race Natives in the US is definitely a much better outcome than the less than 3 million we have now. As it is, the giant increase in the Latino population of the US has increased the population of people of indigenous descent, even if they don't mark themselves as Native on the census. The vast majority of White Americans have 0 traceable Native descent aside from family myths about a Cherokee princess who was actually probably of African descent, not native.

 

[Jord839]

That doesn’t actually improve the native position that well. This just means there’s a mixed race caste to help the white settlers oppress the natives. Mexico was an example of this, the indigenous peoples ended up fairly loyal to the Crown of Spain but still were put in reductions and continued to lose territories to settler encroachment.

The crown may mean well but their limited ability to directly manage the colonial space just means that the subjugation and dispossession of the natives happens at a slower place.

By the 18th century the autonomy of the Mesoamerican atlpetl were severely reduced and the plagues culling their numbers meant they were struggling to prevent settlers from simply stealing their lands. That the religious orders conveniently to consolidate the rural population for the sake of “teaching them Christ” and “saving them from the plague” into the reduction towns that made them easier to read and control and steal their land was just icing on the cake.

The only way to have the natives treated better is if they themselves create state-like structures able to resist settler encroaches. They don’t even really have to last forever but simply putting up a stronger fight for longer (which is very much possible) helps force the settlers to actually respect the indigenous peoples as actual civilised people worthy of rights and integration.

Though I think while unlikely it is possible for some Indigenous realms to maybe last a good few centuries longer than they did historically. The Comanche were fairly isolated from the settler plague as long as Louisiana remains French and were able to handle themselves against the settler populations in New Mexico and Texas fairly well. They’re basically the North American equivalent of the Dzungar as an adaptable steppe people able to rely on both agriculture and horse nomadism.

I'll agree that it doesn't mean that much in a lot of ways.

On the other hand, native languages and cultural traditions have survived on a much larger scale in the former Spanish Empire, albeit not out of any consistently good or moral reasons. Nahuatl, Zapoteca and various other native nations are far and away more populous even to this modern day than even the largest Native languages in the US, despite constant historical pressure and discrimination to join "La Raza" and Hispanicize.

The Spanish Empire, in comparison to the English Empire, was a resource extraction one in a large population area. Honestly, much of Spain's American Empire has more equal comparison to English domination of South Africa or even India than it does to the US or Canada, specifically in the equatorial regions from Mexico to the Andes. These areas had far larger and more urbanized populations that weren't as easily purged or moved away (especially since the Spanish wanted their labor), and so greater amounts of mixing of the races happened. In fact, though it's not often mentioned, much of the standardization of the Quechua language is a direct result of the Spanish, as they found it a more convenient language to order new native and mestizo serfs in rather than teach everyone Spanish, and so they taught Quechua (as well as other languages like Nahuatl, Zapotec, various Mayan languages, etc.) to soldiers far more commonly than the English to make them more effective overseers of workers. This wasn't the universal rule, however, as the history of Spanish colonization of the Southern Cone has way more in common with the US and Canada given its far more total oppression and removal of Indigenous groups.

In comparison, the English model of colonization started from the very beginning with a more settler-focused colonial style, and the North American continent was rather more depopulated than Mesoamerica at the time of the Columbian Exchange, and so as a result it was far easier for the English to push Natives outside of "their" new territories wholesale, a trend which was established and maintained through both US and Canadian history on the whole. The only real controversy was whether to focus on an expulsionist policy or an assimilationist policy, and given that the US and Canada were both heavily dependent on new European settlers to maintain their hold, the former usually won with the latter then attempting to sweep up the remnants whatever the cost.

I'd honestly say one of the best scenarios for Natives is one in which the US actually wins a bigger Revolution and has to contend with a divided White population where the Quebecois in particular are firmly holding to their language, which would in turn inspire more places like Louisiana, Natives, and maybe even down the line a different German block. The more ethnolinguistic groups the US has to manage, the more space there is for Natives to push for their own states where their cultures can survive at least a little better near their homelands. For example, the Iroquois might lose most of their homelands in New York to white settlers, but they can play the Quebeckers and New Yorkers off one another and get some guaranteed rights and maybe eventually pursue their own state once influential enough as long as they guarantee other residents equal political rights, even as the culture and society has pressures focused on English at first.

 

[Legofan4]

Having 10-100 million(s) mixed race Natives in the US is definitely a much better outcome than the less than 3 million we have now. As it is, the giant increase in the Latino population of the US has increased the population of people of indigenous descent, even if they don't mark themselves as Native on the census. The vast majority of White Americans have 0 traceable Native descent aside from family myths about a Cherokee princess who was actually probably of African descent, not native.

I don't see how you can get such large numbers of mixed Native and other in the U.S. as the population of natives in the U.S. was drastically smaller than in Central and South America. At the time of independence the white population was two orders of magnitude larger than the native population in what is the modern territory of the U.S.. And much of that native population lived in modern day California which at the time was not part of the U.S. and wouldn't be for 50 years. So the opportunities for mixing is not anywhere near the level that is possible in Central or South America. I don't really know how to change this as the number of mixed native and other is more a matter of numbers than anything else.

 

[Sevarics]

I'll agree that it doesn't mean that much in a lot of ways.

On the other hand, native languages and cultural traditions have survived on a much larger scale in the former Spanish Empire, albeit not out of any consistently good or moral reasons. Nahuatl, Zapoteca and various other native nations are far and away more populous even to this modern day than even the largest Native languages in the US, despite constant historical pressure and discrimination to join "La Raza" and Hispanicize.

The Spanish Empire, in comparison to the English Empire, was a resource extraction one in a large population area. Honestly, much of Spain's American Empire has more equal comparison to English domination of South Africa or even India than it does to the US or Canada, specifically in the equatorial regions from Mexico to the Andes. These areas had far larger and more urbanized populations that weren't as easily purged or moved away (especially since the Spanish wanted their labor), and so greater amounts of mixing of the races happened. In fact, though it's not often mentioned, much of the standardization of the Quechua language is a direct result of the Spanish, as they found it a more convenient language to order new native and mestizo serfs in rather than teach everyone Spanish, and so they taught Quechua (as well as other languages like Nahuatl, Zapotec, various Mayan languages, etc.) to soldiers far more commonly than the English to make them more effective overseers of workers. This wasn't the universal rule, however, as the history of Spanish colonization of the Southern Cone has way more in common with the US and Canada given its far more total oppression and removal of Indigenous groups.

In comparison, the English model of colonization started from the very beginning with a more settler-focused colonial style, and the North American continent was rather more depopulated than Mesoamerica at the time of the Columbian Exchange, and so as a result it was far easier for the English to push Natives outside of "their" new territories wholesale, a trend which was established and maintained through both US and Canadian history on the whole. The only real controversy was whether to focus on an expulsionist policy or an assimilationist policy, and given that the US and Canada were both heavily dependent on new European settlers to maintain their hold, the former usually won with the latter then attempting to sweep up the remnants whatever the cost.

I'd honestly say one of the best scenarios for Natives is one in which the US actually wins a bigger Revolution and has to contend with a divided White population where the Quebecois in particular are firmly holding to their language, which would in turn inspire more places like Louisiana, Natives, and maybe even down the line a different German block. The more ethnolinguistic groups the US has to manage, the more space there is for Natives to push for their own states where their cultures can survive at least a little better near their homelands. For example, the Iroquois might lose most of their homelands in New York to white settlers, but they can play the Quebeckers and New Yorkers off one another and get some guaranteed rights and maybe eventually pursue their own state once influential enough as long as they guarantee other residents equal political rights, even as the culture and society has pressures focused on English at first.

I don't see how you can get such large numbers of mixed Native and other in the U.S. as the population of natives in the U.S. was drastically smaller than in Central and South America. At the time of independence the white population was two orders of magnitude larger than the native population in what is the modern territory of the U.S.. And much of that native population lived in modern day California which at the time was not part of the U.S. and wouldn't be for 50 years. So the opportunities for mixing is not anywhere near the level that is possible in Central or South America. I don't really know how to change this as the number of mixed native and other is more a matter of numbers than anything else.

Having the current American population of people of Native descent be 2-3 times larger is definitely doable. Mormons grew from relatively nothing to 16-18 million people and most of that was demographic growth after the initial conversions. I guess that could be a possible answer, having Mormons see intermarrying with Natives as a calling and so there is heavy intermarriage in Utah, Arizona and California.

 

[AkhenatenOrRamses]

Having the current American population of people of Native descent be 2-3 times larger is definitely doable. Mormons grew from relatively nothing to 16-18 million people and most of that was demographic growth after the initial conversions. I guess that could be a possible answer, having Mormons see intermarrying with Natives as a calling and so there is heavy intermarriage in Utah, Arizona and California.

The Mormons were and still are big on having lots of kids though, that's what allowed them to grow in numbers more than anything.

 

[Insane Ranter]

Start by preventing the Jamestown Massacre in 1622 by the Powhatan, the Pequot War, and King Philip’s War (1675-1676) from occurring. Big POD to happen there but it will butterfly away some of the support the British and American colonies had for just taking Native Lands via force. I am not saying that the Native Americans deserved anything that happened or the European/American Colonists were innocent saints either but the beginnings of British/American relations at the beginning of North American colonization was anything but friendly this factor plants the seeds that soured any relations regarding Native Americans and Americans. At this infant stage both sides were really not friendly or even nice to each other. But this is a tough shift to make given the attitudes coming from Europeans regarding Native Americans as well.

If you can get everyone to get along from the outset, trade peacefully with each other, and mingle cultures more the road that is walked down in regard to Native Americans in the USA is much much better. You could also change up Fletcher v. Peck and Johnson v. McIntosh to make things go different.

 

[Legofan4]

Start by preventing the Jamestown Massacre in 1622 by the Powhatan, the Pequot War, and King Philip’s War (1675-1676) from occurring. Big POD to happen there but it will butterfly away some of the support the British and American colonies had for just taking Native Lands via force. I am not saying that the Native Americans deserved anything that happened or the European/American Colonists were innocent saints either but the beginnings of British/American relations at the beginning of North American colonization was anything but friendly this factor plants the seeds that soured any relations regarding Native Americans and Americans. At this infant stage both sides were really not friendly or even nice to each other. But this is a tough shift to make given the attitudes coming from Europeans regarding Native Americans as well.

If you can get everyone to get along from the outset, trade peacefully with each other, and mingle cultures more the road that is walked down in regard to Native Americans in the USA is much much better. You could also change up Fletcher v. Peck and Johnson v. McIntosh to make things go different.

That still doesn't solve the biggest source of conflict which is the expanding white population demanding more land. The natives don't have enough population and power behind them to stop individuals or small groups from moving beyond the borders and setting themselves up. Once they do the white settlers will form militias to defend themselves and will eventually outnumber the natives in an area. This is exasperated by continued immigration from Europe and the high growth rate of the settlers themselves.

 

[Sevarics]

The Mormons were and still are big on having lots of kids though, that's what allowed them to grow in numbers more than anything.

Yeah that’s my point. If they intermarried with Mormons and had the same high birth rate Mormons do in otl, you’d have a lot more people of Native descent.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

If you believe independent Native American nations are impossible then a more peaceful assimilation process in your only option. If that is the case then your best bet is to get the Native Americans to adopt private property rights before the Europeans show up. Communal ownership of land and vast acres of underutilized hunting ground is always going to lead to violence with an ever-growing United States and that will never end well for the Native Americans.

Developing private property rights will make Native Americans more willing to sell excess land to whites and assimilate into the United States in a peaceful manner as farmers/traders in isolated communities. The Eastern Band of Cherokee understood this, which is why they weren't victims of the Trail of Tears like their Western counterparts and were able to stay in Georgia and live in peace. The Leni Lenape in colonial Pennsylvania understood this as well, which is why they did not suffer similar to the Shawnee in Pennsylvania.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Yeah that’s my point. If they intermarried with Mormons and had the same high birth rate Mormons do in otl, you’d have a lot more people of Native descent.

But then they wouldn't be Native Americans, at least not culturally. Intermarrying Mormons would only lead to more Mormon Americans.

 

[Qastiel]

I'll agree that it doesn't mean that much in a lot of ways.

On the other hand, native languages and cultural traditions have survived on a much larger scale in the former Spanish Empire, albeit not out of any consistently good or moral reasons. Nahuatl, Zapoteca and various other native nations are far and away more populous even to this modern day than even the largest Native languages in the US, despite constant historical pressure and discrimination to join "La Raza" and Hispanicize.

The Spanish Empire, in comparison to the English Empire, was a resource extraction one in a large population area. Honestly, much of Spain's American Empire has more equal comparison to English domination of South Africa or even India than it does to the US or Canada, specifically in the equatorial regions from Mexico to the Andes. These areas had far larger and more urbanized populations that weren't as easily purged or moved away (especially since the Spanish wanted their labor), and so greater amounts of mixing of the races happened. In fact, though it's not often mentioned, much of the standardization of the Quechua language is a direct result of the Spanish, as they found it a more convenient language to order new native and mestizo serfs in rather than teach everyone Spanish, and so they taught Quechua (as well as other languages like Nahuatl, Zapotec, various Mayan languages, etc.) to soldiers far more commonly than the English to make them more effective overseers of workers. This wasn't the universal rule, however, as the history of Spanish colonization of the Southern Cone has way more in common with the US and Canada given its far more total oppression and removal of Indigenous groups.

In comparison, the English model of colonization started from the very beginning with a more settler-focused colonial style, and the North American continent was rather more depopulated than Mesoamerica at the time of the Columbian Exchange, and so as a result it was far easier for the English to push Natives outside of "their" new territories wholesale, a trend which was established and maintained through both US and Canadian history on the whole. The only real controversy was whether to focus on an expulsionist policy or an assimilationist policy, and given that the US and Canada were both heavily dependent on new European settlers to maintain their hold, the former usually won with the latter then attempting to sweep up the remnants whatever the cost.

I'd honestly say one of the best scenarios for Natives is one in which the US actually wins a bigger Revolution and has to contend with a divided White population where the Quebecois in particular are firmly holding to their language, which would in turn inspire more places like Louisiana, Natives, and maybe even down the line a different German block. The more ethnolinguistic groups the US has to manage, the more space there is for Natives to push for their own states where their cultures can survive at least a little better near their homelands. For example, the Iroquois might lose most of their homelands in New York to white settlers, but they can play the Quebeckers and New Yorkers off one another and get some guaranteed rights and maybe eventually pursue their own state once influential enough as long as they guarantee other residents equal political rights, even as the culture and society has pressures focused on English at first.

The indigenous populations of mesoamerica were larger and more dense than the indigenous populations of North America. That more indigenous Mesoamericans are still around and retain more of their culture is a result of the specific nature of the Spanish conquest allowing the sophisticated Mesoamerican social-political units to remain extant for a good few centuries allowing for Indigenous actors to exert their own influence and manipulation of the Spanish colonial system which to degree was able to slow down fight settler desires and even then the Indigenous Mesoamericans kept getting shafted.

The comparison for North America isn’t Mexico. It’s Argentina.

The reason for the difference between Spanish colonisation efforts in Mexico vs English colonisation of North America is simply that the Anglo-Settlers didnt conqueror a sophisticated and urbanised indigenous civilisation they were both forced to respect and able to utilise as Human Resources and effectively use as slave labour in meaningful amounts.

You’re right the better comparison for the Spanish treatment of Mesoamerica is South Africa or India. India especially has a lot of good parallels such as the role of Indians in the British conquest of India resembling the Mesoamericans in the Spanish conquest of Mesoameroca. So I very much don’t think Mesoamerica can serve as a good model for a “better treated natives in North America”. You’re vastly underestimating how much colonisation strategies and ideologies were impacted by what the settlers were actually dealing with on the ground.

“Race-Mixing” doesn’t inherently mean the indigenous people get treated better anyway. There’s a lot of inherent coercion and violence involved, culture inheritance is inherently skewed towards the coloniser and even then basically every Spanish colony explicitly attempted to “whiten” themselves via immigration of as many Europeans/Mediterraneans as possible to dilute the indigenous blood. Again Argentina is a more appropriate comparison than Mexico is if you want to talk about the Spanish model being applied to the thirteen colonies.

Edit: I missed this reply

Having 10-100 million(s) mixed race Natives in the US is definitely a much better outcome than the less than 3 million we have now. As it is, the giant increase in the Latino population of the US has increased the population of people of indigenous descent, even if they don't mark themselves as Native on the census. The vast majority of White Americans have 0 traceable Native descent aside from family myths about a Cherokee princess who was actually probably of African descent, not native.

I don't think that’s how that scenario is gonna play out. The actual outcome is going to be white American populations with distant Amerindian great great grandmothers and basically no real cultural continuity of the native peoples with these white populations.

Having an indigenous great great grandmother who got raped by your white great great grandfather and the rest of your family being white doesn’t really equivocate to better treatment of the indigenous people. Having more indigenous genetics in the white identifying population isn’t really a “win” if it just means indigenous communities had their men killed and their women taken and raped and made to become the concubines and wives of white settlers. Especially since nearly every state that has had a mestizo population emphasised massive European immigration to dilute said indigenous blood as much as possible.

Not to mention that most of the indigenous communities that the United States conquered didn’t have the kinds of population densities that Mexico did.

 

[Silver01]

thomas jhefferson said this, you will unite yourselves with us, join in our great Councils & form one people with us and we shall all be Americans, you will mix with us by marriage, your blood will run in our veins, & will spread with us over this great Island.

but he also said to remove them, even if you have the indian removal act fail which is not that hard, in reality the usa did a lot of treaties with the nations that would give them time but its just that usa violated these treaties, if they actually respected some i would suspected some tribes become allies to the amercians and not fully assimilate

 

[bguy]

What would happen if smallpox, influenza, and measles are all introduced to North America much earlier than IOTL? (Maybe with the outbreak happening when Norse colonies are established in North America in the 11th century.) While such an outbreak would be catastrophic at any time, if it happens in the 11th century, then the Native Americans will have 400+ years to recover before Europeans start showing up in North America in really large numbers, and the Native American population will also be at least somewhat resistant to the worst Old World diseases when the Europeans do start arriving in force.

 

[Analytical Engine]

What would happen if smallpox, influenza, and measles are all introduced to North America much earlier than IOTL? (Maybe with the outbreak happening when Norse colonies are established in North America in the 11th century.) While such an outbreak would be catastrophic at any time, if it happens in the 11th century, then the Native Americans will have 400+ years to recover before Europeans start showing up in North America in really large numbers, and the Native American population will also be at least somewhat resistant to the worst Old World diseases when the Europeans do start arriving in force.

The diseases also needs to stay there. Europe's had multiple waves of diseases over the centuries

 

[Jord839]

The indigenous populations of mesoamerica were larger and more dense than the indigenous populations of North America. That more indigenous Mesoamericans are still around and retain more of their culture is a result of the specific nature of the Spanish conquest allowing the sophisticated Mesoamerican social-political units to remain extant for a good few centuries allowing for Indigenous actors to exert their own influence and manipulation of the Spanish colonial system which to degree was able to slow down fight settler desires and even then the Indigenous Mesoamericans kept getting shafted.

The comparison for North America isn’t Mexico. It’s Argentina.

The reason for the difference between Spanish colonisation efforts in Mexico vs English colonisation of North America is simply that the Anglo-Settlers didnt conqueror a sophisticated and urbanised indigenous civilisation they were both forced to respect and able to utilise as Human Resources and effectively use as slave labour in meaningful amounts.

You’re right the better comparison for the Spanish treatment of Mesoamerica is South Africa or India. India especially has a lot of good parallels such as the role of Indians in the British conquest of India resembling the Mesoamericans in the Spanish conquest of Mesoameroca. So I very much don’t think Mesoamerica can serve as a good model for a “better treated natives in North America”. You’re vastly underestimating how much colonisation strategies and ideologies were impacted by what the settlers were actually dealing with on the ground.

“Race-Mixing” doesn’t inherently mean the indigenous people get treated better anyway. There’s a lot of inherent coercion and violence involved, culture inheritance is inherently skewed towards the coloniser and even then basically every Spanish colony explicitly attempted to “whiten” themselves via immigration of as many Europeans/Mediterraneans as possible to dilute the indigenous blood. Again Argentina is a more appropriate comparison than Mexico is if you want to talk about the Spanish model being applied to the thirteen colonies.

Edit: I missed this reply

You're... literally repeating what I said like I didn't just say it? It's literally in the quote you posted?

The point of bringing up Mesoamerica and the different natures of its colonization compared to the English North American was to showcase that there were material incentives that the English settlers had that would predispose them against a "conquer and subjugate first, assimilate later and/or never", which makes Native Americans in the US territories start from a worse position, especially when there's already fewer of them with less urban strongholds.

As for the last part, I don't mean to imply that mixing and intermarriage is a salvation in and of itself or anything. As I pointed out in the beginning, lots of natives in the Spanish empire were basically erased of their identity to just become Spanish-speaking mestizos rather than hold to their own cultural or religious heritages. A more Mexican-type strategy would mean a possibly larger population of Natives, but I don't want to imply that's "better" except that maybe it involves less direct warfare deaths and maybe gives a better chance for some larger Native nations and tribes.

 

[Qastiel]

You're... literally repeating what I said like I didn't just say it? It's literally in the quote you posted?

The point of bringing up Mesoamerica and the different natures of its colonization compared to the English North American was to showcase that there were material incentives that the English settlers had that would predispose them against a "conquer and subjugate first, assimilate later and/or never", which makes Native Americans in the US territories start from a worse position, especially when there's already fewer of them with less urban strongholds.

As for the last part, I don't mean to imply that mixing and intermarriage is a salvation in and of itself or anything. As I pointed out in the beginning, lots of natives in the Spanish empire were basically erased of their identity to just become Spanish-speaking mestizos rather than hold to their own cultural or religious heritages. A more Mexican-type strategy would mean a possibly larger population of Natives, but I don't want to imply that's "better" except that maybe it involves less direct warfare deaths and maybe gives a better chance for some larger Native nations and tribes.

Yes I did because I don’t think you actually understood that Mesoamerica is not a good comparison for Anglo North American “race mixing”.

You’ve seem to somehow done it again. Acknowledged that yes there are material differences on the ground causing a difference in how the settlers will treat the natives then talk about how if the Anglos took a “Mexico” approach the natives would be treated better. In a way that ignored the effect of those material differences

Again. The Anglo’s taking the “Mexico Approach” in CONUS just gives you Argentina. Not Mexico. Because as you’ve acknowledged there are none of the socio-political factors or population densities required for the “Mexico Approach” to create a result similar to Mexico. The “Mexico Approach” as you keep talking about with race-mixing in a land with low population densities gets you Argentina. A lot of genocide and land displacement and mass immigration to dilute what little indigenous blood makes it into the white genepool. Neither a win from a blood perspective (which I think is extremely reductive to call “better treatment of natives”) not a win from there being more actual natives.

The reason the Indigenous Mesoamericans did relatively better off was simply due to the strength of their own pre-Columbian institutions and the fact they were a numerous and sophisticated agrarian civilisation that meant a lot of the ideological justifications the Anglos used in CONUS and the Spaniards used elsewhere were inapplicable. You seem to acknowledge this in one breath then immediately go on to talk about how “race mixing” would be better for the indigenous if the Anglos did it using Mexico as an example.

I really hope this explains it because from my perspective you either have a cognitive dissonance or you seem to not actually understand the importance of those factors you listed off in the reasons for the differences between the Mesoamericans and the Indigenous groups the white settlers encountered further north.

A Mexican-type strategy will only occur and produce a Mexican-type outcome in a Mexican-type context. What the Anglos encountered in North America was not a Mexican-type context.

 

[Zireael]

(ie. actually upholding the treaties signed with them), under a more effective Bureau of Indian Affairs.

You need some really good incentives for the US to uphold their end of a treaty, otherwise they will just act like IOTL

 

[Jord839]

Yes I did because I don’t think you actually understood that Mesoamerica is not a good comparison for Anglo North American “race mixing”.

You’ve seem to somehow done it again. Acknowledged that yes there are material differences on the ground causing a difference in how the settlers will treat the natives then talk about how if the Anglos took a “Mexico” approach the natives would be treated better. In a way that ignored the effect of those material differences

Again. The Anglo’s taking the “Mexico Approach” in CONUS just gives you Argentina. Not Mexico. Because as you’ve acknowledged there are none of the socio-political factors or population densities required for the “Mexico Approach” to create a result similar to Mexico. The “Mexico Approach” as you keep talking about with race-mixing in a land with low population densities gets you Argentina. A lot of genocide and land displacement and mass immigration to dilute what little indigenous blood makes it into the white genepool. Neither a win from a blood perspective (which I think is extremely reductive to call “better treatment of natives”) not a win from there being more actual natives.

The reason the Indigenous Mesoamericans did relatively better off was simply due to the strength of their own pre-Columbian institutions and the fact they were a numerous and sophisticated agrarian civilisation that meant a lot of the ideological justifications the Anglos used in CONUS and the Spaniards used elsewhere were inapplicable. You seem to acknowledge this in one breath then immediately go on to talk about how “race mixing” would be better for the indigenous if the Anglos did it using Mexico as an example.

I really hope this explains it because from my perspective you either have a cognitive dissonance or you seem to not actually understand the importance of those factors you listed off in the reasons for the differences between the Mesoamericans and the Indigenous groups the white settlers encountered further north.

A Mexican-type strategy will only occur and produce a Mexican-type outcome in a Mexican-type context. What the Anglos encountered in North America was not a Mexican-type context.

I'm going to be perfectly honest, this mostly just reads like you fixated on a couple words (race-mixing, in this case, which I admit might have been poorly chosen or articulated) and are having a bout of poor literacy in terms of understanding the post I was making, in which case I don't know what to tell you. That particular post you're replying to wasn't intended as an answer to OP's question as a suggestion of a solution, it was just a response to your particular post, which was mostly in agreement. I did put a little hypothetical paragraph at the end that was a theoretical answer, but you haven't really been engaging with that one.

But, yes, I think an approach where despite material incentives to ethnically cleanse and expel the natives, the English/Americans still focused more on assimilation and integration would be "better" in that less people would die deaths by war, starvation, and disease compared to OTL, whether that's through intermarriage or just political integration. More survivors, whether mixed or otherwise, provides more chances for cultural continuation than the OTL groups who were decimated population-wise and pushed into the Great American Desert that was the Great Plains where they were frequently also left with little chance to build up their population again or even build generational wealth for future prosperity. Even a slightly more integrationist approach could have limited that and allowed at least larger Native nations to have more cultural inertia and staying power in both aspects. It's by no means a "good" solution, but in comparison to the out and out genocide of OTL, can you really say it's worse?

Would I say such an approach is likely? No. I very clearly articulated that in both posts, there were material reasons that the English didn't follow that approach. On the other hand, the French did follow a more integrationist policy before being expelled from North America. That's not to cast them as heroes or anything, they surely were hoping to Frenchify natives more than anything and might very well have followed the English model if they had less marginal land or more population to back them, but it is an illustration that those material incentives don't necessarily have to define all interactions. Humans are capable creatures who can defy trends as well as follow them.

I'm going to be honest, you are kind of rude and should maybe reflect on how you talk to people.