What If The Indians Had Won?

Seems like a kind of basic "what if..." thought, doesn't it? But I started thinking about it, and I realized how different the entire world would be if the Indians had fought back and contained the white European settlers, from the 1500's to the late 1800's.

* Side note: I'm going to use the word "Indians" here instead of "Native Americans" -- partly because it's still an acceptable term to most Indians, but mostly because "Native American" is a pain in the butt to type 150 times. *

While we're at it, imagine if the Indians in what is now Mexico had been able to contain Cortez and Santa Anna? Or if the French hadn't overtaken parts of Canada?

To win such a conflict, the Indians would have had to band together, almost continent-wide, and taken control of the immigration on the east coast. Thousands of Comanche, Apache, and Sioux (probably the fiercest warriors of all Indians) in the mid- and southwest would have had to travel a few months to get to the northeast, combined with the northeastern Indians, and with their sheer numbers (and help regarding the terrain from Cherokee and northeastern tribes like the Mohawk) they could have taken complete control through force alone of the east coast.

Being basically peaceful, spiritual, and pragmatic people, the Indians in the northeast, after controlling the ports and coast through physical might, probably would have allowed the white settlers some parcels of land, provided they paid the local/regional tribe its fair due. Only livestock and other tradeable goods could be used as currency; European paper money and coins would be of little value to Indians in the 1600's. The whites would be required to obey the laws of the land and/or the prevailing regional tribe, not to mention whatever arbitrary rules a local band may set.

But, white people being white people, they would have kept trying to take the land. The British Empire would have invaded North America anyway, and the Indians would have had to fight a war with England, much like our mostly white American forefathers did. The Indians probably would have won that war also, using the same tactics as the Minutemen and first American pioneers did. But, it would have been the Native Americans defeating the Brits, not the former Brits and Europeans that fought and won the war in reality. America would have been ruled and governed by Indians in 1776, not ex-Euro-future-Americans.

I used "Native Americans" in the last paragraph, because the land was named for Amerigo Vaspucci, an Italian who made the first widely used map of North America, the largest land mass in the Western hemisphere. The rest of the world would have known it as America, regardless of who won any war over it.

The mistake the Indians made about 500 years ago was not communicating and organizing. They didn't realize the exact width and breadth of the continent, and how many large tribes it contained. They would have realized this if it weren't for human nature -- Indians fighting among themselves, warring tribes and distrust made continent-wide communication almost impossible. Just like everywhere else in the world in those days.

If they'd had a giant council around 1650, with head chiefs of the dozen major tribes that span the continent, America would be very different now. They could have banded together resources, focusing all attention on the East coast, and thwarted the European muscle from taking over the land and spreading quickly west.

At this point, after 100 years of war trying to control the Eastern coast, the tribes would have inter-mixed and become culturally diluted, much like today's Middle East. The only difference between Israelis and Arabs is religion -- their culture and even basic genetics are very similar. The East coast of America would be very much the same. Anywhere east of the Mississippi River would be a genetic and cultural mix of various Indian tribes and Europeans -- all Eastern Americans would have looked like the Mexicans of today. There would be a lot of racial conflict there from the late-1800's to the mid- 1900's, eventually culminating in such a mix of races and cultures that there would be basic peace by the mid-1960's -- much like the Civil Rights movement in the real '60's.

The black/white issue would be virtually non-existent in America if the Indians had won -- there would have been no mass importation and trade of African slaves. There would have been African slaves to some degree, just because that was the way of the world at the time, anywhere Europeans went at all. But it wouldn't have been as widespread as it became.

The Indians, if they had realized the intentions of the whites early on, would have had to make a basic continent-wide government, made up the leaders of the tribes from coast to coast, in order to keep control of the land. This would have been very difficult, given the centuries-old rivalries between many of the tribes. Because of this, there probably would have been no organized American government in 1776 -- it likely would have been the mid-1800's before we had a constitution or written laws and a widely accepted justice system. There would've had to be some basic laws made that would be followed by every tribe, regarding violence, thievery, and the like -- just like most cultures did worldwide. However, most of the Native American laws would have been about immigration, because they knew that the whites wanted to take over. There would also not be a United States of America today -- we would probably just be "America", or technically the "Republic of America" or something to that effect.

Eventually, by the nature of civilization and the growth of the world, these laws would have evolved to the point of the abolition of slavery, by any race. Whites couldn't have African or Indian slaves, and Indians couldn't enslave Africans, Europeans, or members of other tribes. By the mid/late-1800's, most of America would have been geographically broken down between the tribes, forming a system just like our states are now. Except it would be more like 20 states/tribes, instead of 50. And the capital would be in Kansas.

One little problem -- many of the tribes hated each other. They were constantly at war with each other, stealing everything from horses to women and children, and enslaving their prisoners. It was mostly territorial rivalries, actually a lot like today's street gang warfare. The Apaches hated the Comanches. The Comanches hated the Apaches and the Kickapoo. The Kickapoo hated the Creeks, and the Creeks hated the Sioux. The Sioux hated the Cheyenne. And on and on, until they were unable to come to any peace between them at all, even if it was for the common good.

There was even an attempt made in 1851, at Fort Laramie, to have a grand council between the American government and the chiefs from all the major tribes, to figure out what to do about the whole situation. But there were two problems: 1) the tribes couldn't/wouldn't decide on one person to represent each tribe -- they didn't understand the idea of democracy on a large scale, so there were no elections. There were just arguments about who was each tribe's greatest leader, and therefore no decisions on de facto leaders/representatives of each tribe could be made, and 2) The rivalries between tribes were so intense and long-standing that they wouldn't come together to meet. The Comanche and Kiowa leaders were afraid the Crow leaders would steal their horses, and the Pawnee guys were afraid the Sioux (properly called the Lacotas; only outsiders called them Sioux) guys would kill them on the spot. And so on, and so on.

So, the Americans decided to pick the leaders themselves, and work out a treaty with them. The treaty that was signed offered $50,000 worth of supplies to the Indians every year for 50 years, in exchange for their allowing the white settlers safe passage westward and the right to build forts. But, after a jackass American military guy decided to fire a Howitzer shot into a Sioux camp (all over one wandering calf that was shot with an arrow in Sioux territory) and killed Conquering Bear, the Sioux leader, the Sioux got crazy-pissed and killed the entire American troop. This whole incident pretty much negated the treaty, and taught the Indians that the whites could not be trusted.

There was one other major, underlying problem that made effective treaties impossible. The Indians didn't understand the idea of specific land boundaries or land ownership. In their culture (in all tribes), nobody owned the land. The land was their God; you didn't own it, it just allowed you to live there. The idea of a human being actually owning land was completely foreign and irrational to them. All tribes had basic territories, but that was it. So when the whites came in and insisted on making distinct Indian territories, or deciding on the definite parcel of land where all Indians would "relocate", the Indians had no idea what they were talking about, or had little interest in participating in it. So, the U.S. government, being the self-righteous asses they were, got tired of trying to figure out a logical solution and just decided rip every American Indian from their homeland and move them to what is now Oklahoma, no questions asked. Enter the "Trail Of Tears" -- if you don't know what that is, look it up on Wikipedia or something. It'll pretty much make you sick.

If the Indians had realized the gravity of the situation (namely that they would be completely taken over, ripped from their homes, tortured, and killed), they probably would have put aside their rivalries and had a grand council among themselves to decided what to do about the white expansion. Out of that could have come a war council, which would unify the greatest warriors of all the tribes to form a sort of army to defend itself against European immigration and white westward takeover. Can you imagine if the American settlers or the British redcoats had tried to go up against an army of about 50,000 of the greatest Indian warriors of North America? They wouldn't have stood a chance in hell. Even our ragamuffin bands of white revolutionaries, cunning and determined as they were, defeated Great Britain. Twice. The Indians, if they could have banded together, would have made short work of anybody that tried to overtake them. About 10,000 Indians showed up for the American government/Indian treaty talks of 1851, and those were only the ones who were considered tribal leaders. I'm sure that there would have been about five times that number who were considered as great (or young and able) warriors, which is where I made the assumption that an American Indian army would be about 50,000 strong.

Even with this Indian army, the whites still would have kept coming. They would have come in far lesser numbers, however, if it was learned that settlement and expansion was not welcome or even possible. But, European culture would have taken some root, and the land East of the Mississippi would have still been heavily influenced by European immigrants -- along with their diseases. White diseases like smallpox and cholera would have decimated the mixed Euro-Christian/Indian eastern population by about 1/3, so the fighting forces in the East would have been weakened.

There still would have been a Civil War, although it would likely have been East vs. West (Euro Christians vs. Indians) instead of North vs. South (white Yankees vs. white Rebs). The whites would probably have lost -- since they would have been low in number and poor in capital generation, they wouldn't have had the military backing of their native European countries. The Indians would defeat them and probably overtake (at least politically and militarily) any of the major cities like New York, Philadelphia, what is now Washington, D.C.

However, because of the war and famine in Italy, Ireland, and Germany at the turn of the century, the influx of Europeans would have been almost unstoppable. But again, since the Indians would control politics and military (as it were) in the East, the Europeans would have to settle for what the Indians allowed them to have. Being Indians and not Anglo Europeans, they would have been more accepting and tolerant of us than we were of them when we overtook them in reality. European settlers, if they were respectful and followed the Indian laws, would probably have been allowed to own land and participate in politics, even if they settled west of the Mississippi. They wouldn't be necessarily welcome, but if they proved themselves worthy they would be allowed to stay and be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

Actually, the whites, being the jackasses they tend to be, would have used deception and violence to revolt, battling relentlessly for white control over some area of land. It's possible (if not likely) that the white American population today would be in much the same situation as the Palestinians in today's Middle East -- no real laws or constitution, no globally recognized borders or government. They would continually try to fight the Indians, maybe all the way to the 21st century, having to resort to terrorist methods because of their poverty and disorganization.

Wow, if the Indians had won, today's world may be concerned with the threat of American Christian terrorism. Nobody would be allowed to carry anything on a plane that resembled golf clubs or tuna casserole.

How would American politics and America's economic and military standing in the world be different? Truthfully, there's no way to tell. I'd like to say that an Indian-American government would be less inclined toward conquest and forcing their will on the world. I'd like to say that an Indian American government would have been more inclined toward peace, more reasonable, and less greedy. But, nobody can say those things for sure. While some Indian tribes were basically peaceful, others were just as (if not more) brutal as their white counterparts, and more dedicated to the idea of war. In many tribes, a man's power and worth was evaluated by how many of his enemies he had killed, or how many enemy tribes' horses he had stolen. And if he had killed many enemies and had many horses, he could get get good wives, have many children, and gain even more power. Lots of tribes (just like the rest of the world at the time) lived by a "might makes right" mentality. And, because they were human, they were also greedy and without conscience at times. This would have resulted in an American government much like what we have today, with many of its ills. I do think, though, that they wouldn't have taken it to the extremes that we have today, and they may not have acted with the religious fervor our mostly-Christian leaders do now.

The likelihood is that, because the Indians were very pragmatic, and they had control of white immigration, they would have adopted the ideas of democracy and capitalism from the Europeans. They already had religious tolerance, since different tribes worshipped different parts of nature, and they would have allowed the whites to worship their Christian God. Eventually, because of Christian missionaries, many Indians would have (and did) convert to Christianity by their own volition. Again, they were pragmatic -- they knew from the Spanish conquistadors in the South and from English armies in the East that the whites were very powerful, and they said they owed all their power to God and the Bible. The Indians would have (and did) want that power, so they began to learn and accept Christianity. The problem was, they wanted to assimilate the Christian God as part of their own religion, equal to their gods of Land, Water, Animals, etc. The Christians wanted them to disown their old religion completely, and accept Christ as their one and only God. So, because the Indians mistakenly trusted the whites, and they weren't organized, the whites were able to make them "convert" to Christianity by force.

So, if the Indians had organized and fought off white takeover, by the late 1800's much of the Eastern U.S. would have been Christian, or a combination of Indian-Christian. Again, because Indians were already tolerant of differing religious beliefs, there would have been no Christian takeover. When the white Christians still tried to make everyone convert by force (which they most assuredly would have done), this would have been stopped fairly quickly by the Indian-American military warriors.

How would our government be different now? My best guess is that we would have been much more Monroe Doctrine-ish in global issues -- it would have been a "you leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone" mentality. We wouldn't have felt compelled to "spread democracy" all over the world. However, with the great natural resources in America, we would have still become an economic world superpower, and had a powerful military by the 20th century. Also, having a sense of justice and goodwill, we still would have joined in the fight to stop Hitler and Nazi-ism in WWII.

Being military minded, we probably would have tried to stop the threat of Communism in Cuba and other places in our region. But, since it was more a war of ideology, we may not have joined in the fight to stop Communism in Vietnam. We probably wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan to stop the Russians. And, therefore, we wouldn't have armed the guys who later became the Taliban and Al Queda. We also wouldn't have been in such direct alliance with Israel, or gotten so involved when the Ayatollah overtook the Shah of Iran in the 1970's. But, in trying to stop Iran (also a war of ideology -- they were no real threat to us), we ended up arming Iraq. This allowed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990, which made us (being the do-gooders and greedy oil-lovers that we are) put troops in Saudi Arabia, the true Holy Land of Islam. Putting troops in Saudi Arabia is what made Osama Bin Laden form Al Queda, who were by then well-armed with weapons provided to them by the U.S. government 20 years before, when we were trying to stop Russia from taking Afghanistan. Oh, the irony....

Anyway, because of Euro-America's power and holier-than-thou attitude for the last 60 years, here we are. It is a European Christian ideal to stick our noses in where it doesn't belong -- from the crusades ("the Inquisition, here we go... the Inquisition, what a show..."), to the brutalization of the Indians, to the "spread of democracy" -- which is born from the Christian ideal of "witnessing" and "conversion". Basically, "I'm right, you're wrong. Now change. If you don't change, we'll either kill you or write you off as 'Godless savages'." I strongly believe that, even if they had assimilated or accepted Christianity, America (and therefore the entire world) would be a different place today if the Indians had won. Maybe not tons better -- they may have found some other way to make things terrible for us all -- but at least we wouldn't have the impossible religious and idealistic wars and conflicts we have today. As far as I'm concerned, though, it would have to be better than what we have now.

It certainly couldn't be much worse.

Roger