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.
Or you could stop the fighting between the Native tribes with guns and those without.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.