Question: Are Better Relations Between Natives and European Powers Possible?

I'm mainly thinking the Americas (or what we now call the Americas), but I guess this could also apply to Asia, Australia and Africa. Do you think it's possible that European Powers during the Age of Exploration and after could have had better relations with the Native people's of those lands? By better relations, I'm talking about the kinds that don't lead to such nasty things as genocide, enslavement, and war. Are those sorts of thing inevitable? Or could they have been avoided, at least on the scale of OTL?
 
I'd go with virtually inevitable. My opinions:

If you want significantly better relations, you'll first need to eliminate the idea of "expansion through conquest", an idea that had firm hold in the Old World (and not just in Europe), but was also practiced by at least some of the indigenous peoples (Comanches driving Apaches off the Plains, etc).

Second, you'd need a lack of racism. We think of this as primarily an Old World problem (arguably justifiably), but at least some of the indigenous peoples also had very firm notions about how "The Other" ought to be treated. Hint: it sometimes wasn't nearly as nice as how "Our Folk" should be. There was a lot of raiding of the neighbors going on (not strictly "racism", as it wasn't really race-based). It is interesting to note that several indigenous nations' name for themselves meant "The People", or "Human beings". Pretty much no really large groups were committed to the ideal that all groups ought to be treated equally and fairly, no matter how "foreign".

Third, you've got to eliminate the demographic reasons driving expansion. One of these was population growth rates: as long as European populations were growing at a faster rate than indigenous ones, as they seem to have done, then the pressure to encroach on "underutilized" indigenous land will be very strong.

Or, of course, you need European governments able and willing to restrict their colonials from moving into indigenous areas despite all the existence of all these factors. Early modern nation states might not have this ability; they weren't as well organized and thoroughly governed.

Or you could do it by having the indigenous peoples strong enough to fight Europeans to a draw, which might lead to detente and peaceful coexistence. This requires larger indigenous populations, far more advanced material culture in most cases, and far more unity and higher organization.


I absolutely hate what happened OTL. But given the disparities between the contending cultures, the demographic growth differential, and the attitudes of both sides (but especially the early modern Europeans), I honestly don't think it at all plausible to have worked out any other way. And yes, I find that depressing.
 
I agree that confrontation was inevitable unless you had massive changes in the setup. But 'better' relations covers a wide range, and I would argue that improvements in many aspects would have been possible. It would still be a nasty story, but not as bad as it was OTL.

One possible option to get there would be for European powers to consider native states genuine partners in diplomatic exchanges. They did in some places, and you can tell the difference. Of course that would not stop the invaders from taking their land and subjugating them, but it would provide a structure for relationships governed by at least a semblance of law. IOTL the United States managed native relations through a separate Bureau of Indian Affairs, not through either the State Department or the Interior. The Australian colonial authorities considered Aborigines a form of wildlife. I'm sure relations would have improved if the governments in question had had to consider them at a diplomatic level. (Look at the Maori - it wasn't peachy, but it was a lot better than the Tasmanians or Lakota got).

Another would be for European societies to remain more religious. This will not remove the problem of racism - you could argue that Spanish colonial society in Latin America was obsessed with race - but it will limit the impact of racial difference. Some would doubtlessly argue that a baptised, literate, Bible-reading and properly dressed Indian will never really be the equal of a white man, but they would have a harder time making that argument if membership in European societies continued to be defined in terms of Christendom and civilisation, not in terms of race. This is, once again, not a panacea, but it will allow for native communities to exist in a closer integration with European settlers than was possible IOTL.

Third, I think it would help if the Spanish would first meet the Maya rather than the Taino and Aztecs. Not all native societies just collapsed on first contact, but I suspect the experience of easy victory and lavish rewards the Spanish had between the 1490s and 1530s conditioned expectations for a long time.
 
I'm mainly thinking the Americas (or what we now call the Americas), but I guess this could also apply to Asia, Australia and Africa. Do you think it's possible that European Powers during the Age of Exploration and after could have had better relations with the Native people's of those lands? By better relations, I'm talking about the kinds that don't lead to such nasty things as genocide, enslavement, and war. Are those sorts of thing inevitable? Or could they have been avoided, at least on the scale of OTL?

During the early stage of colonial expansion in the Americas, racism as we think of it today was not really present. Scientific racism is really a product of the late 18th century that took hold in the 19th century. If we look at the early accounts of French explorers in North America for instance, they speak highly of the physical attributes of the natives living there.

As for the genocide, in the Americas and Australia at least it was almost inevitable that the population would decrease once there was contact with Europeans and Africans. The reason being both continents were populated thousands of years ago by small numbers of people. It is estimated that the ancestry of all of the people in the Americas is less than a few hundred people, meaning there is little genetic diversity, and less immunity to diseases (contrast this with the African populations).

In 1616-1619 an epidemic spread throughout southern New England, killing approximately 90% of the population there. Keep in mind this was before any permanent European settlement had occurred in the region. Some theorize this was smallpox, the plague, or leptospirosis. Recent theories point to the latter. In 1615 a French ship was wrecked along the coast and the Wampanog killed all of the survivors except four whom they took as slaves. At least one of these men was carrying a disease. Often all it took was one person to kill thousands.

Smallpox was the most devastating killer however. It had occurred in Europe and did kill European populations (usually only children and the elderly), however it never had the same effect it did on the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia. In the Americas, epidemics of smallpox would kill off large numbers of natives in North America until the 19th century, often killing 50-70% of a tribe during each epidemic. Also, with inland trading, the epidemics often spread inland before the first contact with Europeans. in Australia a smallpox epidemic spread throughout the country in 1789, only fifteen months after the first settlement. Entire communities disappeared before Europeans could even come in contact with them.
 
What if European traders paused on the coast long enough to fall victim to native diseases?
Fear of native diseases might have confined them to coastal trading posts, forcing them to trade honestly with tribes farther inland.
 
What if European traders paused on the coast long enough to fall victim to native diseases?
Fear of native diseases might have confined them to coastal trading posts, forcing them to trade honestly with tribes farther inland.

The issue is, native diseases weren't really much of a problem; unless you count the hypothesis that syphilis is from the New World, but even syphillis is just an STI and not a big killer like smallpox. The worst thing I can think of that could come from the Americas is Chagas disease, which isn't as fatal or immediately apparent as the Eurasian killers, not to mention that it is a parasitic condition carried by a tropical vector.
 
It all depends on why European powers are there for in first place.
Spanish presence was basically for gold, but as well (and probably more) for lands (in a late feudal perspective), especially in Mexico and religion (in the continuity of Reconquista).
This was difficultly compatible with "natives' right" even if you did have tenatives for that, sometimes successful (as in Paraguay).

French presence, on the other hand, was a bit different. While still dependent on land (as in Canada's seigneuries and Carribean holdings), it was made in a different historical context : religious expansion didn't looked that urging (you had some half-assed tentatives, but nothing that convinced) and colonist pressure far less important.
Giving the differences there, not only more peaceful relations with natives was made possible, but was necessary, as to counter English/British influence and to make the colonies viables economically.
At this point the automatic naturalisation of converted Indians as French was as well reflecting a whishful thinking ("Well, we live with them, they christianized, so they are more or less French isn't, and Canada looks stronger on paper anyway.") than a political objective ("No seriously, we need to be stronger, and not only on paper").

On Carribean, the sugar production was simply what made colonial policy of France in Americas worthwhile, so colonist and slaveholding producers grew more and more autonomous in spite of tentatives on political regulations.

English presence wasn't that distinct from French one at first, the exchanges between populations are importants (as well Europeans deciding that, fuck this shit, they were going native), while charter companies implied these had to be productive; and the growing autonomy of colonies (not only in Carribeans there, but as well on North America, that may be an important difference) with more disagreements between colonists.
All of that eventually exercizing a growing demographical and social pressure that Britain itself wasn't too keen authorizing (but couldn't much about it).

In order to modify colonial beahvior, you'd need to change more or less radically what colonists and therefore the "motherlands" vision of their world. For Spain, it could be arguably to remove the Reconquista part of their identity (meaning at least a VIIIth POD).

Basically it's possible, but you'd need to reshape Europe with a quite early PoD, to find alternatives elsewhere for the more "pressing" needs (basically : someone else is gonna pay).
 
At least in the Americas, particularly in North America, you have the problem that the English settlers want land, and most of the native societies even if they have slash and burn agriculture are going to be in conflict with any society which is based on fixed towns/agricultural plots. In South/Central America unless tyou change Spanish culture...not going to happen. Indians are pagan, so no rights..and even if mass baptized, since they will go to paradise later who cares if they go to the mines here.

Disease is going to happen, no matter what, and decimate the natives in the Americas.

Even with the best of intentions, unless you make an area with a 100' high wall for the natives, contact with a larger, much more technically advanced culture (and in many cases bringing diseases the locals can't handle), will result in the natives not doing well at best being subsumed in the larger culture with a few local remnants.
 
What if European traders paused on the coast long enough to fall victim to native diseases?
Fear of native diseases might have confined them to coastal trading posts, forcing them to trade honestly with tribes farther inland.

The coastal peoples (tribes) had contact with inland peoples, that is the reason that analysis of skeletons in burial grounds has shown that the first epidemics swept areas far inland before Europeans even set foot in those areas. Also, because of trade and warfare, some European goods made it inland before the Europeans did.
 
Top