AHC: The United States is more heavily influenced by Native American culture than OTL

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to have the United States be more heavily influenced by Native American culture than in OTL. Bonus if it's done without the U.S. annexing more territory than in our OTL.
 
It helps to have a much larger (or more heavily concentrated) Native American population that can't just be forced to move out and make way for white settlers. A larger Native American population, perhaps in the millions, would give them much more range to influence the popular culture.
 

Lateknight

Banned
It helps to have a much larger (or more heavily concentrated) Native American population that can't just be forced to move out and make way for white settlers. A larger Native American population, perhaps in the millions, would give them much more range to influence the popular culture.

How could have that with altering the genetics of native Americans as a group their very vulnerable to European diseases.
 
How could have that with altering the genetics of native Americans as a group their very vulnerable to European diseases.

This will only happen upon initial contact. After one hundred years after first contact, that should not be an issue. I believe the issue would be creating a more sophisticated independent native civilization which can support millions in population and greater population than European settlements would have.
 
You're going to need a lot more natives. As of right now, only about 2% of the country is of native descent (that's self-reported data, so we're including all those white people who say "I'm not white, I'm 1/16th Cherokee"), so there aren't really enough of them to have a larger cultural influence than they did in OTL.
 
This will only happen upon initial contact. After one hundred years after first contact, that should not be an issue. I believe the issue would be creating a more sophisticated independent native civilization which can support millions in population and greater population than European settlements would have.

Not really.

128 years after 1492, in 1620, the tribes in Massachusetts bay were decimated by disease even before a single white man set foot in Massachussetts. Into the 19th century, there were entire tribes dying of disease who only have a cursory contact with whites.

The Mississippi expedition of De Soto described a thriving civilization in the Southeast of today's USA. It disappeared later without any trace. Why? The most probable answer is disease.

The die-offs from disease continued on and on until 95% were wiped out, even affecting natives who did not have contact with whites. (They got it from natives who met natives who met natives who met natives who met whites with the disease). Even a single explorer could set off the die off.

The point is, even if the whites were on their best behavior from the POV of the twentieth century, the native americans would still be decimated by diseases.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
Even if you move the disease POD back several hundred years earlier, to more contact with Vinland Vikings, Chinese, Basque fisherman, St Brendan's Irish, etc., (take your pick); it all probably ends very badly for the natives.

If the alien (to North & South America) level of contact remained limited, but steady; the American pandemics still probably plays out as OTL, just at an earlier time.

However, IF limited contact & exploitation were the case, the population has some time to recoup, plus it would have had some level of alien cultural exposure that would have helped - iron weapons & tools, the wheel, the horse, other domesticated animals. All of those capabilities had downsides of their own of course.
 
Perhaps the best bet is the age-old AH standby - the Iroquois side with the Americans instead of the British during the American Revolution, and as a result, play a large role in early American history, and shaping the way the USA sees and deals with Native Americans in the future.
 
One idea would be a sizable Native American nation seeking to outright join the US, applying the old adage of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!".
 
Perhaps the best bet is the age-old AH standby - the Iroquois side with the Americans instead of the British during the American Revolution, and as a result, play a large role in early American history, and shaping the way the USA sees and deals with Native Americans in the future.

The problem is it wasn't really a case of the Iroquois siding against the US but more of the US siding against the Iroquois (and other natives). Part of the impetus for the American Revolution was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which reserved land West of the Appalachians for the natives. By standing against the Royal Proclamation, the Americans were really sending a message to the natives that they intended to take their lands by force.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Not really.

128 years after 1492, in 1620, the tribes in Massachusetts bay were decimated by disease even before a single white man set foot in Massachussetts. Into the 19th century, there were entire tribes dying of disease who only have a cursory contact with whites.

The Mississippi expedition of De Soto described a thriving civilization in the Southeast of today's USA. It disappeared later without any trace. Why? The most probable answer is disease.

The die-offs from disease continued on and on until 95% were wiped out, even affecting natives who did not have contact with whites. (They got it from natives who met natives who met natives who met natives who met whites with the disease). Even a single explorer could set off the die off.

The point is, even if the whites were on their best behavior from the POV of the twentieth century, the native americans would still be decimated by diseases.
Point is, the early contacts were doing it. If you had, say, a fuller early contact (and disease spread) through the entire continent by about 1600, then the population has time to rebuild while now immunized or at least resistant.
 
Not really.

128 years after 1492, in 1620, the tribes in Massachusetts bay were decimated by disease even before a single white man set foot in Massachussetts. Into the 19th century, there were entire tribes dying of disease who only have a cursory contact with whites.

The Mississippi expedition of De Soto described a thriving civilization in the Southeast of today's USA. It disappeared later without any trace. Why? The most probable answer is disease.

The die-offs from disease continued on and on until 95% were wiped out, even affecting natives who did not have contact with whites. (They got it from natives who met natives who met natives who met natives who met whites with the disease). Even a single explorer could set off the die off.

The point is, even if the whites were on their best behavior from the POV of the twentieth century, the native americans would still be decimated by diseases.

But being decimated by disease doesn't mean being doomed to cultural extinction. There are (IMO) lots of PODs which could have reduced the mortality rate to 30%-40%, and, with higher birth rates, recovery from an epidemic with 30%-40% mortality can be achieved within A GENERATION. The problem is that all the PODs I can think of are centuries before the American Revolution, and hence they would probably butterfly the existence of the US in the first place.
 
Preventing the Dawes Act and thus the breakup of the 5 Civilized Tribe's* land in the west could do it. Although this was after the Trail of Tears, the 5 tribes controlled vast tracks of land and maintained tribal universities-they had a base from which to rebuild their wealth, and with their universities a way to at least partially 'break into' elite American culture.

With the Dawe's Act though, the land was broken up and parceled out to families, who were often bilked out of ownership, and the Curtis Act robbed them of much of their self government. Let them keep their self-government and tribal land, and they could approach American culture on much firmer ground and influence it more on their terms than through myths of the noble savage.




*Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole and Creek. So named because they adopted European agriculture, metallurgy, writing, and that great mark of Southern civilization, race-based enslavement of Africans.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
- President Davy Crockett instead of Andrew Jackson ? several President or Senator with Native ancestry might be enough to influence US culture.

- Native American culture doesn't necessarily need better treatment of Native American, "Nativism" movement to differentiate US culture from European culture could "steal" part of native culture. an adoption of beads and native geometric design by flapper girls in 1920s ?
 
What about large scale immigration to the major cities?

We could have Indian towns in New York City, Boston, Philly, and Chicago
 
The best way would be to have the influence come in REALLY early.

Then if you have a small population of white people, you don't need a large population of surviving Native American people to influence them, then if you have that early population of white/metis people breed like crazy then you have that influence survive.
 
You're going to need a lot more natives. As of right now, only about 2% of the country is of native descent (that's self-reported data, so we're including all those white people who say "I'm not white, I'm 1/16th Cherokee"), so there aren't really enough of them to have a larger cultural influence than they did in OTL.

Size shouldn't be an issue... The Jewish population in the United States is about the same size as the Native American population yet Jewish American influence on popular culture is very strong.
 
Top