Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not a NA, but I've often wondered about the same things. I hope we get some replies, but honestly, here in StL, I don't know a single pureblooded NA--just a few people who claim some descent.
I assumed from her syntax (as tortured as it is) that she meant how would the U.S. differ if Native Americans led America 'from this point on'.
If Native American politics are any indication, that would not necessarily be a good thing. Some tribes are populous and somewhat influential in their regions (Navajos, Iroquois) some are very small groups with little efficacy, political or economic. Would Lakota Sioux want a Navajo president? Would American conservatives prefer a Cherokee congressman (southern values) or a Pequot (northeastern entrepreneur)?
If she meant 'what if Native Americans maintained political control from the point of Western civilization's contact?', well that would be affected by demographics. Was European settlement and later immigration the same, less, more? In any case, It would mean that English and German settlers would have been drawn into the numerous ongoing Native conflicts in the northeast and Appalachians, and depending on whether they aligned with Algonquin tribes or Iroquois, one or the other would likely have suffered a quicker genocide than had the Europeans not arrived. Then that Eastern super-tribe would have had to contend with the Spanish supported Aztec based super-tribe which would have been able to extend it influence through out Mexico and the Southwest.
I think the question, even if presented more eloquently and definitively, is too broad for anything but the most open ended and unconstructive debate. Like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'.
I assumed from her syntax (as tortured as it is) that she meant how would the U.S. differ if Native Americans led America 'from this point on'.
If Native American politics are any indication, that would not necessarily be a good thing. Some tribes are populous and somewhat influential in their regions (Navajos, Iroquois) some are very small groups with little efficacy, political or economic. Would Lakota Sioux want a Navajo president? Would American conservatives prefer a Cherokee congressman (southern values) or a Pequot (northeastern entrepreneur)?
If she meant 'what if Native Americans maintained political control from the point of Western civilization's contact?', well that would be affected by demographics. Was European settlement and later immigration the same, less, more? In any case, It would mean that English and German settlers would have been drawn into the numerous ongoing Native conflicts in the northeast and Appalachians, and depending on whether they aligned with Algonquin tribes or Iroquois, one or the other would likely have suffered a quicker genocide than had the Europeans not arrived. Then that Eastern super-tribe would have had to contend with the Spanish supported Aztec based super-tribe which would have been able to extend it influence through out Mexico and the Southwest.
I think the question, even if presented more eloquently and definitively, is too broad for anything but the most open ended and unconstructive debate. Like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'.
I don't know if you're native or not, but either way I think this is actually a very good answer.
Being native myself (enrolled Comanche), your point concerning NDN politics is spot on. Though we are all American Indians in the various 500 federally recognized tribes, we are also very much Comanches, Lakotas, Navajos, Hopis, Cherokees, Pomos and so on. This is the point from which a lot of people do not understand about American Indian cultures. We are not an ethnicity with a homogeneous consciousness. While the rest of America thinks "Indian", we think more along tribal lines. Yeah, we are all NDNs, but.....
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is a good benchmark to see how things would possibly be. Large nations do tend to dominate that body. That is not to say that they accomplish nothing, but sometime tribal self-interests do take precedence.
There have also been issues of not seeing eye-to-eye with other native advocacy groups like the American Indian Movement, National Indian Youth Council and others. "Backing the wrong horse", such as happened in 1973 during the Wounded Knee incident, caused splintering as well as a loss of clout for the NCAI.
Even within smaller bodies like the Kiowa, Comanche, Apache Intertribal Land Use Committee in Oklahoma (oversees joint owned property), bickering among the three Nations is not unknown with each looking after what's best for the individual nation. Again, this is not to say that the KCA doesn't get anything accomplished, but it takes a lot of concessions sometimes. This is a council of three Nations, now mulitply that by 167 to get a body that would represent the interests of the 500 federally recognized tribes.
It could be argued, "How is this different that Democrats and Republicans, the North and the South, Texas and Massachusetts, or New York City and Los Angeles?
Point taken, but there is an order of magnitude when dealing with 500 Nations versus 50 states. I fear that smaller nations would be swallowed up by the larger nations such as happend to tribes like the Delawares who were absorbed by the Cherokee Nation of Okalhoma. The fought for years to regain their tribal soverignty and did not get it back until 2009!
Granted most of of this tribal absorbtion was done under the auspices of the United States government, but you sure a hell didn't hear the Cherokees saying, "Hey now wait a minute, this isn't right."
Now, since all this is really a moot point since the chances of us taken back this land is slim to none, what I would like to see is more native representation in the US Congress. I think this would do more to help in getting things done for the tribes than anything.
I was interested in the interpretation of the OPs post that saw it as "what would have happened if the Europeans had somehow been prevented from taking over the continent?" As you said ABQ, this is way too broad and would be pure speculation.
I have often thought on this though and wondered how things would have turned out had native nations been allowed to continue on a path of cultural evolution without any influences from the Old World. Would more advanced societies like the Aztec come to have dominate all of North America like so many Romans as their technology advanced? Would we have seen the establishment of nation-states like was seen in Greece? Would more warlike nations such as mine have become the "barbarians" who eventually overthrew the Aztec Empire? In other words, would cultural evolution have followed a similar path in the New World as it did in the Old?
Yes...that could make for a very interesting discussion if we can persuade some muscleheads into the thread.
Their only chance of maintaining control would have been through near technological equality or overwhelming numbers or such brutal tactics* that soldiers refused to fight.
*There was a tribe in Mexico that never got conquered. They advertised their brutality and cannibalism, the Mexican military elected to leave them alone. They still exist in fact, I bought some nice wood carvings from them.
I always feel a bit guilty when I think of the genocide of the American Indian.
I always feel a bit guilty too, and my ancestors weren't even on this side of the Atlantic. Judging by your User Name, you may have a lot to feel guilty about.
Joking, of course.
Very interesting about that tribe that still exists.
I always feel a bit guilty too, and my ancestors weren't even on this side of the Atlantic. Judging by your User Name, you may have a lot to feel guilty about.
Joking, of course.
Very interesting about that tribe that still exists.
More than anyone will ever know.
My take on the OP is: What would it have taken to maintain domination of N. America? Hence my speculation about technology, numbers, brutality and such.
I don't think there would be much difference from what it is today. The Native Americans readily adopted much of the European ways of life (horses, written language, rifles, treaties, etc.) As long as they had contact with Europe, they would have progressed as a culture. If they didn't have that contact, they'd still be in the stone age.
I don't think there would be much difference from what it is today. The Native Americans readily adopted much of the European ways of life (horses, written language, rifles, treaties, etc.) As long as they had contact with Europe, they would have progressed as a culture. If they didn't have that contact, they'd still be in the stone age.
So, you honestly think that there would have been no cultural evolution among native cultures without white contact? Wow, just a little self-aggrandizement there. Yeah, the world just could have never gone about its business without you white-eyes. We're so lucky you came. Sheez.
So, you honestly think that there would have been no cultural evolution among native cultures without white contact? Wow, just a little self-aggrandizement there. Yeah, the world just could have never gone about its business without you white-eyes. We're so lucky you came. Sheez.
Look how long it took Europe (or elsewhere) to evolve. I didn't mean it to be disrespectful. After all, most liberals think that the Native Americans were superior to Europeans anyway, so "cultural evolution" would have been detrimental to them.
I'm part Native American. I haven't fully researched my heritage, I have a lot of NA in my family but it's like someone else said. They pure NA's have all but passed on. The smattering of NA that's left in my family are all mixed. I know that there are still pure native americans out there but I don't know if there would be enough now to actually take a stand and run a country. I think because there are so many different tribes, it would be a difficult task to have them all become united and have the same beliefs. Some of them are still very bitter towards whites, while others were never that way to begin with. Its too vague a scenario for it to ever come to fruition.
Just for the record, Europeans did not invent metallurgy, either. It was an imported technology from the Near East.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
