Suppose America never went past the Appalachian mountains. How would the Native Americans develop if America never went Manifest Destiny on their asses?
>>340384
They wouldn't spain already fucked up all the natives that had some semblance of higher society. All that was left of "american" indians of that period was shambles of the former mississipi river civilization and nomads who took spanish horses to the extreme like little american ghengis khans all squabbling for power.
Assuming no diseases were transmitted from contact with Europeans, they would probably spend the next century or more fighting small-scale wars, where groups that had access to European technology (weapons) and knowledge would have a huge advantage over their rivals. There would be no need to remove all the forests like European migrators did, since they could still practice a mixed hunting-gathering economy with limited agriculture.
Spain and France go Manifest Destiny on their asses. Then Russia comes in from the west.
>>340384
theyre would be a war and the power gap is too big. Either be annexed or become puppet states
Eventually, Mexico would have gotten it's bullshit together.
So haciendas aka reservations but without the gibsdat. So pretty much the same.
>>340384
Impossible to say but normalized trade influences would have led to slow adoption of Euro-American tools and ideas that would have been incorporated into their societies as they saw fit, if they did. There would be everything from cities comparable to the American kind to traditional lifeways left pretty much as is.
>>340434
Jesus Christ, this is what they teach in American schools.
Ideally, Tecumseh successfully forms his confederacy and Injuns engage in trade/on-and-off wars (backed by Britain) against the US
But farther west, European powers would try to grab land/resources
Without America reaching the Pacific, the door is open - maybe something like the Scramble for Africa?
As someone who lives on the West Coast, where both Russia and especially Spain had a presence, that's what I find most interesting
>>340384
The problem to determine the answer is that the scenario is impossible. If by some insane decision, Americans really didn't expand west, then someone else would have taken the land instead. The idea of absolutely no one wanting to claim what was virtually a massive amount of free land in America, with the potential for lots of resources and very valuable trade, is so absurd that you can't really figure any sort of possibility of what would have happened to the native people, because such a scenario has never been seen before in history.
>Spain being a player after the Napoleonic Wars
I apologize for my burger countrymen. History is a meme course here in the land of freedomland. I hope you can find in your hearts to forgive them.
>>340384
Didn't 90% of all native American's die within a hundred and fifty years due to disease?
>>340833
He's mostly right. The most advanced Indian civilizations at the time of European introduction were in Mexico and South America, and Spain did indeed, fuck them up. There's some evidence of semi-civilizations in the western U.S. like at that hill in Missouri, but nothing compared to what the Aztecs and Mayans had at that time. The real question is what would have North American Indians become if so many of them didn't get wiped out by disease? There was basically an apocalyptic type event in the Eastern U.S. shortly after Europeans first introduced themselves to Indians. And the Natives in the Eastern U.S. were much more numerous than the spread out tribes of the west.
>>340932
>He's mostly right.
Not really. There was far more non-Mississippian culture than there ever was Mississippian even in its heyday.
