How would America be if European settlers adapted to the native American lifestyle rather than colonize?
>>1059445
Colonized by a Germany that won WWI
>>1059454
That won WWI. The Holy Roman Empire would rise again. All the European peoples would be united under one Reich.
Yes, I know American soldiers didn't do shit in WWI. American materiel did though, and we're talking about killing American industrial output.
>>1059445
Some might have done that, but the resources were too much and too much was expected of them for ALL of the settlers to get along with the natives.
It's kind of like asking what if a river wound around native villages instead of running straight through and spoiling them. It may have helped but the discovery of the new world was like a dam breaking. In the end the huge influx of people, whether more were respectful or not, is bound to displace, inconvenience, and outright kill millions over the years.
the outbreak of european diseases decimated native communities, and no matter how nice and respectful euros were, The existing tribes and communities would still go to war over land claims, and the Europeans would not just allow themselves to be captured, exiled, or conquered.
The only thing I would see preventing the same thing as we see today (albeit slower and less cruel) would be if there were practically no settlers to displace anyone, in which case >>1059454 someone else would do it. The Russians, the Germans, etc.
This question is rather hard to answer too as it exists no events in history that I know of that a a population have converted to a lower technological level whenever that would mean a better lifestyle or not. Even the fall of Rome, which while it screwed up the city technology quite a bit, couldn't stop the advancement of farming technology.
>>1059491
>dark ages werent real meme
>>1059494
I am not claiming that.
I am just saying the fall of Rome couldn't stop the people from continuing to advance with the farming technologies they had used their entire lives and eventually continue developing them.
Which may of course be bullshit.
>>1059494
>the dark ages were real meme
>>1059445
how could that ever have possibly happened, how?
also why?
the mayflover bunch might have done out of necesity, but those vere like 30 people
maybe the quakers could have but even then, why would they do that, what the hell for? why did they cross the atlantic to live like homeles forest people they could of done that back home just fine
>>1059581
Why is lifestyle associated with 'level of technology'?
>>1059445
It happened a hell of a lot in the early years Whole settlements would end up being abandoned when the inhabitants merged with the locals. This is what happened to the lost colony on Roanoke Island by the way
>>1059554
Most Native American tribes were non-religous. They were astromers, engineers, farmers, and doctors. Yes they didnt have great machine politics or a war defense but it wasn't necessary. Natural selection does work the way it should yes, but when you take 'natural' out of the equation and replace it with 'sociapathic human' dominance would be the effect.
But then again fuck it i guess
>>1059612
What in the holy fuck are you on about?
>>1059445
Well that depends on what kind of native american lifestyle. Remember there was a huge variety in the societies that existed in north america. The pueblo people for instance lived completely different from the haudenosaunee confederacy.
>>1059612
>Yes they didnt have great machine politics or a war defense
becauase they didn't have the concept of land ownership and thus had no need for the concepts of high level politics or high level warfare:^)
>>1059584
Because hunter gatherer lifestyles can't generate enough resources to maintain a high level of technology.
>>1059584
because what and how are inseparable
>>1059628
Are you saying every aspect of a lifestyle is inseparable from one of the many factors influencing it?
>>1059624
Accurate my friend. They didnt believe land can be bought, and "have" wasnt really a thing. Butt the guns win. Good or bad. so fuck em they dead
>>1059612
they were tribal people living in stone age cultures, thus '''sociapathic human' dominance'' was the order of the day
remember that these were human beings, which means they fought, murdered, raped, tortured, generaly beat into submission and genocided each other way before even the vikings came over, the stoneage equivalent of ''great machine politics or a war defense'' was what half their entire respective culture was about, in almost every people or confederation or whatever, just as in almost every single tribal population ever, exceptions firmly confirming the rule
do you think all those braves and warchiefs and elders just sort of smoked all day and then occasionaly decide to hunt some deer?
why is it that this is never assumed right from the start?
these were human cultures, human populations, why dont people get what that means
>>1059619
Yea true. Theres was the central American natives with the pyramids and chopping off heads, but that's always gonna happen cant do much there. But i mean most of the north American tribes were quite sophisticated. The settlers wouldn't even had survived had they not showed the how to fish, hunt, maintain food, and use natural remedies. They werent runnin around like tarzan or whatever they brain wash kids with in school. But yea they lost i know.
>>1059554
You know, despite disagreeing with it, the quote there isn't so terrible, even somewhat seductive. Of course, positioning it next to an individual who gives off the aura of numerous flaws and supposed ineptitude to actually practice that statement when it comes down to it doesn't do it any favors, but still.
Despite lesser men latching on to the philosophy shown there (Which in itself is possible with any ideas, right or wrong), it's not hard to see why the idea of complete self-determination is attractive to some people. It's just at the same time, these people don't so much want to bring that self-determination to everyone, but rather rule over the people like some sort of deity.
