What if the colonists had not committed genocide and stole land?

[Stop_the_War]

I have wondered this. I think there would be alot of Native American countries.

[Solon]

1. The Iroquios Confederacy would have been considered the

Beacon of Democracy and Freedom world wide.

[Redstone]

3. That's a pretty theory, but it's a fairy tale.

The Indians in New England were not a happy-go-lucky band of peaceful Earth-protectors. They fought with each other all the time, as a matter of historical fact.

Say what you want to about the white settlers, who did some truly awful things, but don't paint the Indians as saints.

Because they weren't. They were humans with all the attendant human failings.

Redstone

Note: I am an Indian descended from a New England tribe, so flames about racism will be ignored. And furthermore, the tribe of my ancestors was one of the ones wiped out by European disease. But that was a hell of a long time ago, so there's no reason for me to be to be pointlessly bitter about something that happened so long ago.

[Solon]

6. Why do you think I said the Iroquois, didn't say all Indian Tribes...

It was, after all, their suggestion that the colonies form a more cohesive block. They also were made up of several different tribes that were living together as peacefully as possible. This isn't the "Noble Savage" myth I'm talking about, but rather, the development of a democratic nation from a group of people that ALREADY had a democratic tradition. Understood?

[Redstone]

8. The Iriquois Federation wasn't democratic.

Not to say it wasn't a good idea, but it wasn't any kind of democracy. It's just been idealized as such; I even had a friend from Germany who thought that the Founding fathers had "borrowed" their guiding principles from the Confederacy.

Which they didn't. As I said, a pleasant fiction and a tempting one, but not the case. I'd like for it to be true as much as anyone else would, but it's not.

Redstone

[Solon]

26. Democratic Traditions...

Does not equal Democracy in all the government. We weren't a democracy when the Constitution was ratified, however we did have democratic traditions. England the same way, a Monarchy that, at the time, had some democratic traditions. The problem as I see it, is that people assume such societies are static, that's why I said that they would become the beacon of democracy and freedom. There weren't going to be that 200 or more years ago, but assuming they weren't conquered like in our time line, they had the potential to have a democratic government by about the 20th century.

[H2O Man]

55. You are clearly not familiar

with the Iroquois.

[K-W]

31. You are arguing that all New England tribes were identical?

That seems fairly unlikely.

The Indians werent saints, but there was a diversity of very different cultures, governments, etc that we wiped out. That is why the crime of genocide is so great. You dont just lose lives.

And nobody said or implied that Indians were saints, why the tone of your post? Do you think Indians are getting it too good?

[Redstone]

36. I said I wouldn't respond to flames, but I'll

make an exception here. My post was in response to someone who believed that everything would have been a day at the beach with a basket of peaches if it weren't for the white settlers.

And you can save the snotty accusations for someone to whom they actually apply. Read my initial post about my heritage again. Note who I am, and where my ancestors came from.

I'm just being realistic.

What happened to the Indians in this country was a great shame and tragedy of historic proportion, but I for one am not going to condemn white Europeans as a group for what happened. I could, and given who I am, I might garner some undeserved sympathy, but I have more pride than that.

Redstone

[K-W]

39. That wasnt a flame.

If it wasnt a flame you couldnt respond to it as there would be no substance to respond to.

I wasnt arguing that the original poster was right, I dont know why you inferred that.

Snotty acusations? You generalized all New England Indian tribes together, how is this my fault?

You are being realistic by pretending that every tribe in the new england region was identical... right.

I dont care where you came from. I dont care where your ancestors came from. Im here to discuss things and when I see a generalization I call it out. If you want to see that as a flame, that is your problem.

I actually fully agree with the sentiment behind your post, the original poster is wrong to romantisize what were human cultures with the same flaws as every human culture. I just didnt like your generalization.

Nobody asked you to condemn white europeans. The original poster asked you to imagine if we had a continent whos culture and politics were developed from Indian culture and not primarily European culture, he thought it would be pretty good. Its a nice sentiment, but obviously pure speculation.

Your problem is in that in your eagerness to attack the strawman of blaming white people you are whitewashing the historical reality that europeans considered this land unoccupied and sparesly populated or not that simply isnt the case. It wasnt open land, it wasnt a frontier. It contained people. Period.

[H2O Man]

56. For fun

explain how if your ancestors were a tribe that was "wiped out" by disease, that you are here today?

[Redstone]

57. My, aren't we in a snit...

Jeez, I leave out the word "virtually" and all of a sudden...

The survivors went to live with the Abenaki. Their language died out, but they kept a sense of their identity (though they pretty much became Abenaki blood by intermarriage throughout the succeeding generations).

That's how. Any other snotty questions?

Redstone

[H2O Man]

63. Of course the Abenaki

were not wiped out, "virtually" or otherwise. But, be that as it may, even if for sake of discussion you are Abenaki, how would that qualify you to speak on Iroquois history? Considering that you seem to have difficulty even spelling the word, I wonder what background you have that qualifies you to make any statements on the Iroquois? And, to keep this in its proper context, I'm being neither "snotty" or "in a snit." I'm finding this amusing, as I never have had the opportunity to speak to someone who is from an extinct (virtual or otherwise) peoples before.

[kcwayne]

60. If your tribe was wiped out, how do you have ancestory linked back to the

tribe? My great grandfather was a "Cherokee" according to family lore, but I think he was actually from another tribe and just ended up on a Cherokee reservation in Oklahoma, herded there like so many other tribes. The reason I think that is my grandmother told me that she had relatives that lived in the mountains of Arkansas that still lived in the old ways when she was a girl. But we have lost all definitive knowledge about the lineage. I know that my great grandfather spoke a native dialect until he was put into a Christian school, where he was not allowed to speak anything other than English, and was separated from his family for a couple of years.

[LoganW]

62. They were not saints

but there is no doubt some serious genocide went on.

[Blue_Tires]

2. I'd still be in Africa?

which would be nice, but who is to say europe would not just 'expand' there on that continent and wipe most of the africans out??

now that i think about it, it's actually funny to think about an all-white africa, and an all-indigenous north/south america!

[TheModernTerrorist]

15. Europe tried that...

in the 1800-1900's. Had the Americas not been discovered, it probably would've occured sooner than that.

[Blue_Tires]

21. yes, europe had a colonial interest

for a long time...i was musing what if history had changed and there was literally, a "United States of Africa", and the americas were the 'untamed wilderness'

[TheModernTerrorist]

24. well...

I'm sure Bush would still get (s)elected ;-)

[murray hill farm]

4. It is rather a pleasant thought though..

maybe it would have stayed much the same as it was then...maybe we would all be close to nature and the land would be filled with green forests and clean water and air.

[lonestarnot]

5. Not much different as we would still be living under king's rule. n/t

[Stop_the_War]

7. kick

[Cleita]

9. We'd probably still be following the buffalo.

Anyone from distant places across oceans would probably be assimilated into the tribe they first encountered. It's my understanding that Native Americans didn't have much of a concept of land ownership. I think nation basically meant the people of their tribe and perhaps the land they occupied at any given time. I'm sure some Native Americans can weigh in and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Stop_the_War]

10. I mean in the modern world of today...

Of course the tribes would develop into countries.

[Cleita]

20. Not necessarily.

The Amazon tribes of Brazil kept their way of life until the latter part last century when they were forced off the land and settled into towns.

[Redstone]

13. You're pretty much right, though

things were different in different areas. The Southeastern tribes, for example, were pretty good farmers and fairly well-settled (there weren't many buffalo for them to chase). They had decent-size towns as well, until the Living Devil Andrew Jackson moved them west.

To this day, many Indians resent seeing the picture of that monster Jackson on the $20 bill.

Redstone

[Stop_the_War]

17. Jackson was the guy who started "The trail of tears", wasn't he?

If so, yes he's a monster. And guess what, I live in a city named after him. :(

[Redstone]

19. It's not Jackson, MIss's fault

that it's named after The Beast. Or do you live in Jackson, Tennesse? Ive been in both and found them to be not bad places.

Yes, he's the one. May he continue to rot in Hell.

Redstone

[Stop_the_War]

22. Jacksonville, Florida

[Redstone]

25. Jeez, I didn't know that one

was named after him, too.

Start a petition to get it changed to Clintonville, would you?

Redstone

[Stop_the_War]

27. Clintonville! That's cool

:P

[Redstone]

29. Hey, we have a town with that name here in Connecticut

and it's a pretty nice little place.

Redstone

[Swede]

11. The Vandals,and .Gauls invade Rome

History is a litany of winners and losers.

[Tactical Progressive]

12. "Little-Shrub-who-Lies-and-Cheats" would still have been elected

by a nation of shallow, greedy descendants of less white and more indigenous ancestors.

'Smokesignal News Live' would still be lying their asses off to prop him up by deflecting and ignoring all of his corruption and deceit.

People are people.

[Stop_the_War]

14. i don't think so....

you seem to think that there would only be one nation. This is unrealistic, there would be many nations inside the area of land called "the continental United States"

[Tactical Progressive]

32. I was being a bit tongue in cheek.

Couldn't resist :-) (Oh wow, I put in a manual smiley '; - )' and DU software converted it to a yellow smiley automatically! Very smart.)

Seriously though, while it's an interesting exercise, you really can't guess a different history. Just making the effort presupposes not only a difference in the evolution of a different set of leaders, but also that the original settlers were of a different sensibility. Which, if they were, would have created a different country even if they still maintained force superiority, without even a change in who ran things.

I'd imagine we'd be alot more environmentally responsible, of course, if Native Americans hadn't been cheated out of their country.

But maybe there would never have been a Declaration of Independence or a Constitution or even a United States.

Maybe Europe would dominate the world with as much ideological greed as we now project, while America might be nothing more than a poor, colonially-exploited third world country even to this day, on a par with the least developed places on earth.

I think it's unfair to say that we'd have all we have, but have come by it fairly and honestly. Part of why the United States is as strong as it is, is because of all of the injustice we've inflicted on ourselves and the rest of the world over the decades.

I think we'd probably be better, and weaker. Europe would probably run the world. If I had to guess.

[Redstone]

16. But the makeup on the reporters would be more interesting,

red and black stripes, feathers...

Redstone

[Tactical Progressive]

35. That's funny

Peter Jennings in a grey suit and feather head-dress. Probably the feathers would have to be artificial, like fur being a relatively outlaw apparel now.

I really don't think people are all that different underneath the culture. I tend not to romanticize that, but who knows. I do believe Euro-Western culture is caustic, so I don't doubt things would have been different. I just don't know how that would have played out.

[Redstone]

37. Hey, thanks a bunch for a rational,

well-thought-out post. You nailed it with your second paragraph.

Let's you and me smoke a nice peace pipe.

Redstone

[Tactical Progressive]

51. The peace pipe is a good example of a better cultural bent

I do think our culture would be more decent had it not been borne out of unfettered white Euro-expansionism and its attendant religious sanctimony. But then, we probably wouldn't be a nation of new Lexii, cheap oil and mega-malls. It's nice to think we'd have all we have, without the degree of banality it took to get it, but that's not realistic.

I do believe now that we've got so much, we really should be concentrating on making this a better and fairer world, from this point forth. That's all you can do anyway, and in our case, it's long overdue. Rather than rue the past, we should be working towards a better world today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, we're going in the wrong direction. That's what I care about.

You seem remarkably open-minded on the subject. I don't think if my heritage had been subject to a large degree of historical oppression I could be so rational and even-handed about it. My hat's off.

I'll smoke that pipe with you. Out of curiosity, what went into the mix? Was it tobacco or something better?

[Redstone]

52. Why, thank you.

What happened to my ancestors didn't happen to ME, nor did it materially affect my life in any way. So no reason to be bitter or hold grudges. What would be the point, except to try to get undeserved sympathy?

disclaimer: there are Indians alive today who still suffer from the Curse of the White Man. They DO have a right to complain, and I'd never say they shouldn't. Ditto many black people in this country.

The peace pipe has, of course, tobacco, which must be offered to the Four Winds before we partake of it. After that, we can turbocharge the mixture with whatever you want. You don't even need to bring any; we can use mine.

Mrs R is waiting for me to go hang out with her in the other room; I'm going to sign off and wish you a pleasant evening. Good talkin' with you.

Redstone

[Just Me]

18. Perhaps, we would have become an even more evolved democracy.

Just a thought.

[Redstone]

28. I had actually thought we were on that way to doing that

in the 1990s. What a disappointment to find out in 2000, and againin 2004, that we hadn't grown up and matured as a country after all.

Redstone

[Redstone]

23. Oh, and by the way,

the original colonists mostly bought land rather than stealing it.

Their big expansion occurred after the New England Indians had been virtually wiped out (90 plus percent death rate) by European diseases during and after King Philip's War.

They didn't have to steal the land. It was empty, because most of the Indians were dead.

Not making excuses for the white folks in New England, but most of the land stealing came after "colonist" days and further west.

Just to set the record straight.

Redstone

[K-W]

33. Actually you are making excuses.

If you die from a disease, I can just move into your house and it is mine?

You can paint as fancy a picture as you like, the europeans saw the natives as savages unfit even as slaves. It was a matter of fact for them at that time that they were god's chosen race and that fact and the europeans superior power were manifested from Day one. Yes nothing the europeans did even remotely compares with the institutional genocide of the United States, certainly, but it wasnt on the up and up.

[Redstone]

38. Nope. Responded to one flame, and that's it.

Redstone

[K-W]

41. That also wasnt a flame.

What is your problem?

You claimed to not be making excuses in the same post as you made an excuse. Since when is pointing out inconsitancy flaming?

Sorry but that many of the Indians died did not make it ok for eupopean settlers to take thier land, if I missed your argument, please correct me, but it seemed fairly straightforward.

But I guess you can just call the post a flame and ignore the second part of it which you really should address.

Did or did not the european settlers consider it open land and consider the natives subhuman? Did or did they not act that way from the moment the ships saw land?

[Just Me]

46. Here is the problem: do we carry the baggage of the past or resolve,...

,...to LEARN from it and proceed?

We CAN'T UNDO mistakes. We can't change the past. Period.

Today, IF WE CHOOSE, we can take hand-in-hand and proceed, together OR we can cast the past into the present and future.

If we choose to correct the past,....we may be engaged in correction,...forever. As a woman who has historically been enslaved, I could call on a perpetual retributive present and future.

But, being a WOMAN, I am not inclined to do that!!! But, hell, maybe I should be!!!! :bounce: You guys OWE ME and my sisters thousands of years of payback!!!!

[K-W]

48. Indeed, you cant improve the past, only the future.

We can however get an accurate picture of it so we have a reality based context to view human society and cultural development in.

Personally I dont think guilt is inherited anyway.

[Just Me]

53. Guilt may not be "inherited",...but it is handed down.

I agree that everyone should be exposed to the facts (rather than myths).

It is time for us all to confront history rather than either being in denial or being manipulated by those who prefer to avoid it,...in order to maintain a "power" outdated.

Of course, the power-mongers will never let go,...without damaging all those who seek, in purity, a more real democracy.

You know that.

[Silverhair]

30. The the Spanish, French and English would have. NT

[Redstone]

34. You're right, but all three were different...

the Spanish were brutal, religiously-fanatic tyrants in the areas they controlled.

The French were more interested in trade (through the voyageur network along the rivers) than in territory, which put them in a weak position and made it easier for the English to kick them out of most of North America.

It's interesting to conjecture about how things might have been if there was a larger indigenous population, so the British ended up with a colonial system more akin to what they had in India...

But what happened, happened. And here we are.

Redstone

[Silverhair]

49. True. My intention was to puncture the balloons of the dreamers.

To think that the Indians would have been left alone is severe naivete.

[K-W]

50. That is why it is a hypothetical situation.

The question is, WHAT IF they were.

I think you are getting caught up on a mistake. I dont think the OP intended to imply that he thought the US was the only threat to Native American self-determination.

[troubleinwinter]

40. I think I don't understand the question.

What would be "Native American countries"?

I suppose there already were, though not called "countries". There were territories and wars and treaties between peoples.

What makes a "country"?

[Redstone]

43. Now THAT's an excellent question.

Borders were very fluid and poorly-defined in Europe of years back as well (that's why part of France is called Brittany, for example). Would a system of "countries" have evolved from a similar situation in North America as it eventually did in Europe?

Hard to tell. How much industrial technology would have been imported from Europe? Would that industrial technology have progressed in Europe as fast as it did without the natural resources of North America to feed it?

What a great "alternative history" novel this subject would make. Thanks to the original poster for raising the subject.

Redstone

[Stop_the_War]

44. You're welcome

:)

[K-W]

45. A defined border and a shared government.

At least thats the concept of country I most encounter.

[HEyHEY]

47. And a trumped up patriotic sense

[troubleinwinter]

54. "shared government"?

I don't know what that means.

The Native Americans had 'defined' lands, but not neccessarily "borders".

Interestingly, Europeans tend to draw border lines along rivers, whereas western Native Americans tended to claim watersheds (from mountain ridges).

[K-W]

59. It means that there is one government shared by the people in a given area

And that the area is defined. Native American's had nations. They had defined territory controlled by some type of government.

Actually I suppose you dont need defined borders to be a nation, just a shared government, when the borders are defined it becomes a nation state.

[HEyHEY]

42. It'd be like Africa

Tribal warfare, poverty, corrupt leaders...all that.

[RBHam]

58. Karma...

Members of the Bush crime syndicate will come back, in their next lives, as dogs...in Thailand...

[LoganW]

61. Hmmm

Probably.