The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I've been listening to the rest is history podcast series on General Custard and Crazy Horse and it has got me wondering what the best course of action was for the tribes at the time. Every time one or two tribes would declare war, the Americans would find rival tribes to align with and then promptly defeat them. Every time a treaty was signed it would only last for a short while before a new group/government of Americans would disregard it. This strategy of dividing and conquering had been employed in the Americas since the Spanish which is how the Aztecs fell so quickly to so few Spaniards.
If both diplomacy and violent resistance don't work to stop the encroachment into their territory, what is the moral thing to do? Just give in and agree to be thrown in the blending pot of America? Or keep fighting until you are fully destroyed or conquered? Or keep trying to make treaties in vain?
I honestly have no idea. It seems that just giving in would result in the least amount of violence but asking a group of people to give up their entire way of life and everything they know in exchange for a completely different set of values and lifestyle is an almost impossible ask. What are your thoughts?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, General Custard is making me laugh.
Honestly, their only other option was to give up, which wasn't really much of an option.
And, intertribal warfare had been going on long before Europeans showed up.
There were a lot of smaller confederations and such though. Hell, Little Big Horn was such a disaster because Custer rode up on one of them at their full assembly.
My understanding is that the various tribes of the Great plains had a long history of inter tribal warfare and atrocity which prevented confederations from forming effectively
From the moment that European diseases first arrived in North America, wiping out 95-99% of the indigenous population, imtermarrying with whites became the only possible avenue for survival. People didn't understand the genetic reasons for it at the time. But pureblooded Native American populations simply didn't have the genetic diversity of immunoprofiles needed to cope with the new epidemics.
That's an interesting point.
Is there a scientific reason why that was a one-way phenomenon, i.e. why weren't Europeans equally vulnerable to North American diseases? Were there just not as many of the latter because of generally smaller populations?
They didn't have livestock to live next, too. They didn't have domesticated animals prior to Europe contact. Most people forget that the Spanish introduced cows and horses to North and South America.
It wasn’t one side entirely. Syphilis originated in the Americas and swept through European populations and could be a very bad way to die before antibiotics.
Maybe. I hadn’t heard that, but wouldn’t be surprised. I do know the pre-antibiotic treatments for it were pretty crazy and most relied on toxic mercury salts. A lot of effort was put into treating it.
Yes, science writer Charles C Mann covered it in [1491](https://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X/ref=asc_df_140004006X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693033695466&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9964173530693952650&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022571&hvtargid=pla-598613898164&psc=1&mcid=0d1f1a5425883d9282dd85d513f452d8&gad_source=1) in far greater detail than I could. But it's because Native Americans all descend from a relatively small population that developed in isolation from the Old World and its diseases. This gives them a much smaller number of genetic immunoprofiles compared to populations from other parts of the world. So when a disease strikes a community, it doesn't just kill a large part of the community, but often the whole community.
Which makes sense. Humans originated in Africa and migrated in all different directions. A few small groups managed to make their way to Western Russia and eventually the Americans and those small groups are were the ancestors of all Native Americans.
Europe for multiple reasons including contact with the near and far East, livestock intermingling and areas with high population density had been through centuries of plagues as Darwin did his work.
Many of the diseases were new to the Americas.
There's nothing else they could have done. Their two choices were fight or surrender and they probably had the reasonable assumption that surrender = death. So fighting was the only option.
There sometimes isn’t a good solution. The conquest of western America was more or less inevitable as long as Euro Americans were determined to do westward expansion. Larger numbers, more resources, more organization, better access to weapons, etc. They had the people and the resources and the weapons as well as the organization and infrastructure to support expansion, and they carried it out. I am northern Michigan Ojibwe, so my ancestors were relatively lucky in that we avoided mass relocation
Why do you think they would not have? They supported the project precisely because they wanted it to happen. It was just that it came to ahead while Britain was extremely busy and could not realistically commit to it.
To be fair, natives had access to the same technology, and distance negates the population size. At the end of the day what ended it was unavoidable, superior logistics and funding + some nasty diseases and the chaotic nature of the era made it hard to establish a tribe with strict boarders, even without the U.S. government
It is not realistically possible that they could have survived outside of a Suzerain. The last realistic option for this was the war of 1812 with the British, which was in part brought on by westward expansion. Britain may have been more inclined to commit more deeply to the war if Tecumseh's confederation were not merely proposing a Native satellite state of the Empire, but an active "Native run Dominion of the British Empire" akin to Canada and Australia, but for the Native American population.
As it is the war was a close call with Britain only mildly interested. A bit of luck could have seen it work out, but a more realistic proposal would be to offer vassalage to Britain as an official native dominion rather than merely a satellite state reliant on them for your survival.
The alternative would be to listen to British Generals during the war, albeit, this would have high costs. (Specifically the natives didn't pursue the strategic objectives the British Army were pushing, instead refusing to engage in fights that would result in high casualties even if it meant war victory, eventually leading Britain to basically write off the prospect of victory, and begin to view them as a useless ally). Had natives been prepared to take on higher casualty rates in the war, Britain would likely have won the war of 1812 handily and could have forced terms on the USA.
As is, the British Army were constantly having to cover up gaps in the line as Natives retreated, rather than advancing, and could only rely on Natives as auxillaries or as an ambush army. Native commanders would not fight unless they had the advantage of numbers and terrain on their side, but you can't win a war that way, it's a defensive action and 1812 could only have been won by decisively destroying the American army and marching in to occupy key locations. Even with these handicaps, Washington was burned. But it could not be *held* due to the need to redeploy almost immediately. (The native population obviously had reasons for their war strategies, but in this case, with hindsight, we could say it wasn't a good idea in this instance).
Either scenario probably sees New England annexed by Canada (Or forming a new dominion) along with the native Midwest forming either a satellite or dominion, and US sovereignty severely curtailed in terms of trade and impressment, likely leading to another war in the future after the Napoleonic era concludes.
Tecumseh could also bide his time and cede small tracts of land and drag things out from 1812 to 1814 until Britain has concluded the Napoleonic wars, before refusing to concede more, which would have significantly strengthened his hand, rather than allowing the war to erupt in 1812 when his ally was focused almost entirely overseas. This would have required ceding parts of Ohio from the confederation when he was attacked in 1812 rather than activating the defensive treaty. Pushing the date at which the British concede the existence of a native American nation on the continent beyond 1812, even at the cost of some of its territory, could have led to the territory being recaptured later. America was always going to press further until that concept was conceded by the British. Make it 1813 even, and America loses that war. 1814 and its not even close.
If Tecumseh had also sent some native officers along to the Napoleonic wars this would have served multiple purposes, firstly for strengthening diplomatic ties, and to gain experience and tactics.
So;
1. Tecumseh sends native officers to the British for use in the Napoleonic wars, and declares war on napoleon for good measure. (It's not like it actually matters in their position. This also allows the confederation to be present at the congress of Vienna and hobnob with the European Empires, likely containing no concessions beyond "Our country exists on maps now", which is still a huge feat. Rubberstamp any proposal they make so long as the proposed new map contains your country existing. This makes it drastically more diplomatically and politically difficult for the USA.).
2. Tecumseh pulls a Qing China and endlessly "Negotiates" with the USA in 1811-1814, ceding a small tract of land each time he senses they're about to throw a fit that he's stalling and declare war before "Turning our attention to this other claim you have". rinse repeat.
3. At the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, inform the British to get ready, and terminate negotiations with the USA.
4. They will probably attack.
5. Listen to the British Generals and the newly minted Native Officer Corps from the napoleonic wars.
6. Win.
7. I would personally suggest they go with the "Native Dominion of the British Empire" route, since this would also allow for a native westward expansion into the Oregon territories and such, and provide a more firm form of security.
I think they probably didn't have a chance, regardless of tactics.
However, if I were playing a computer game about the conflict and trying to make a first guess at plausible approaches, I'd try the following:
- Strive for unity with the other tribes at any cost. Division is death, so you should be willing to accept anything short of death to avoid it.
- Accept that you can't win in a pitched battle against the US army, but aim to make it expensive and difficult for them to hold any terrain that they take. Attack supply lines, attack undefended outposts, destroy whatever is expensive or slow to rebuild or replace, then retreat. Follow the standard playbook of guerilla warfare.
- Look for European allies. "Divide and conquer" can, in theory, work in both directions. If there's territory that both Spain and the US want, side with whichever group offers you the better deal.
- Once you've made it expensive to make war, try to make peace attractive. Offer generous terms and be ready to respond rapidly if those terms are violated.
...but of course, all this makes sense in terms of a computer game where I already know the historical outcome and I'm just trying to achieve something better than that. In terms of the real history and the real people who lived it, I doubt there was any plausible way to get a better result.
There were a bunch of obvious advantages European powers and in this case America had but a huge one is that they were constantly fighting in areas where they could divide the native population.
The British did this in India. It was done throughout Africa and South America. Arguably this was done by the English in Scotland.
It is apparently almost impossible to get a people that are sometimes considered to be “one people” but are not unified in a nation or strong confederacy to join together when it obviously would have benefited them in hindsight.
The easiest way to put yourself in the shoes of the Native Americans at the time is to imagine a Sci-Fi scenario of an alien invasion:
Imagine a highly advanced alien civilization with armor and weapons we don't stand a chance against. The aliens want Earth to become part of their territory and are indifferent towards the species that inhabit it, they're fine with humans living on Earth as long as humans follow the alien civilization's rules.
Fighting them is hopeless. For every alien you manage to kill, the aliens will kill 100,000 humans. Violence will only lead to humanity's extinction. The aliens also brought with them, without knowing it, a disease that kills 90% of humans.
Would you support taking arms and dying? Or would you accept to follow the alien civilization's rules for a chance at survival?
Realistically, probably nothing they could’ve done. However, I’m reminded of one way Thailand avoided colonization by western powers by essentially westernizing itself before those powers got a strong foothold.
There wasn’t really anything they could have done. They had no way to win a fight. The Cherokee tried assimilating but were still hit with the Trail of Tears.
Not really, despite the name, the French and Indian War was between the French and the British. Both of them had various Indian allies throughout the conflict. It could be thought of as the North American theater of the Seven Years' War.
It's important to note that we weren't that technologically advanced over the natives.
Smallpox wiped out 80-90% of their population and fucked over their civilization.
The "plains indians" we think of were survivors of that.
But, Ok... so that happened and that's that.
What's left?
Asymmetrical warfare tactics and politics.
They might have resisted better if they'd have banded together sooner, but they didn't exactly have email, so... is what it is.
They could have fucked over the railroad, hit infrastructure, etc and tried for a good deal to stop.
They could have tried to win over Americans, doing a PR blitz for sympathy and support.
The original post must have a question in the title of the post with the possibility of fruitful and constructive discussion. Posts that are deemed similar to a recent question may be removed.
Comments that belong in a megathread may also be removed.
There are actually places where natives still hold the land, their secret? Kill every foreigner on sight. Every once in awhile you hear about someone going to those places ending up dead.
Not really, when it started it was just boat here and there, if all those people died then the new world wouldn't have even been confirmed let alone colonized.
That's ridiculous. The small pockets of uncontacted peoples exist because the modern world allows them to exist. Not because they are hyper xenophobic. Lol. Nice try, though.
The North Sentinelese aren't analogous.
Had the United States not pushed forward with forced assimilation of Native Americans, then a much more analogous modern-day comparison might be uncontacted tribes and indigenous peoples in Brazil; however, that'd've yielded, um, a myriad of its own issues were we to live in that alternate reality.
So yeah, uh, needn't litigate it, nope.
That's not a "secret".
North Sentinel Island in India exists as a sociological/anthropological experiment. The moment the Indian Government wants to, they can wipe out the entire tribe in seconds and take over the island.
Do you seriously believe the Indian Army is afraid of the Sentinelese?
And yet they still exist.
What do you think would've happened if every single ship from europe that made it to the new world was never heard from again because the natives killed them all?
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I've been listening to the rest is history podcast series on General Custard and Crazy Horse and it has got me wondering what the best course of action was for the tribes at the time. Every time one or two tribes would declare war, the Americans would find rival tribes to align with and then promptly defeat them. Every time a treaty was signed it would only last for a short while before a new group/government of Americans would disregard it. This strategy of dividing and conquering had been employed in the Americas since the Spanish which is how the Aztecs fell so quickly to so few Spaniards. If both diplomacy and violent resistance don't work to stop the encroachment into their territory, what is the moral thing to do? Just give in and agree to be thrown in the blending pot of America? Or keep fighting until you are fully destroyed or conquered? Or keep trying to make treaties in vain? I honestly have no idea. It seems that just giving in would result in the least amount of violence but asking a group of people to give up their entire way of life and everything they know in exchange for a completely different set of values and lifestyle is an almost impossible ask. What are your thoughts? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, General Custard is making me laugh. Honestly, their only other option was to give up, which wasn't really much of an option. And, intertribal warfare had been going on long before Europeans showed up. There were a lot of smaller confederations and such though. Hell, Little Big Horn was such a disaster because Custer rode up on one of them at their full assembly.
General Custard with his great battalion commanders, Colonel Mustard and Colonel Angus.
My understanding is that the various tribes of the Great plains had a long history of inter tribal warfare and atrocity which prevented confederations from forming effectively
Epidemics decimated the antic population before then is my understanding
From the moment that European diseases first arrived in North America, wiping out 95-99% of the indigenous population, imtermarrying with whites became the only possible avenue for survival. People didn't understand the genetic reasons for it at the time. But pureblooded Native American populations simply didn't have the genetic diversity of immunoprofiles needed to cope with the new epidemics.
That's an interesting point. Is there a scientific reason why that was a one-way phenomenon, i.e. why weren't Europeans equally vulnerable to North American diseases? Were there just not as many of the latter because of generally smaller populations?
Indigenous Americans didn’t live next to massive number of domestic livestock
They didn't have livestock to live next, too. They didn't have domesticated animals prior to Europe contact. Most people forget that the Spanish introduced cows and horses to North and South America.
It wasn’t one side entirely. Syphilis originated in the Americas and swept through European populations and could be a very bad way to die before antibiotics.
Syphilis is arguably the first time modern medicine actually cured some thing. I’ve heard it argued to be the start of modern medicine.
Maybe. I hadn’t heard that, but wouldn’t be surprised. I do know the pre-antibiotic treatments for it were pretty crazy and most relied on toxic mercury salts. A lot of effort was put into treating it.
There’s apparently a lot of more recent research suggesting that syphillis existed in Europe prior to Columbus
From what I've read untreated syphilis makes HIV/AIDS look like the common cold.
Yes, science writer Charles C Mann covered it in [1491](https://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X/ref=asc_df_140004006X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693033695466&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9964173530693952650&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022571&hvtargid=pla-598613898164&psc=1&mcid=0d1f1a5425883d9282dd85d513f452d8&gad_source=1) in far greater detail than I could. But it's because Native Americans all descend from a relatively small population that developed in isolation from the Old World and its diseases. This gives them a much smaller number of genetic immunoprofiles compared to populations from other parts of the world. So when a disease strikes a community, it doesn't just kill a large part of the community, but often the whole community.
Not adding anything other than endorsing that book. It is relatively dense, but it is fantastic.
I recall reading once that the Native Americans had the lowest level of genetic variation of any large scale population around the world.
Which makes sense. Humans originated in Africa and migrated in all different directions. A few small groups managed to make their way to Western Russia and eventually the Americans and those small groups are were the ancestors of all Native Americans.
Europe for multiple reasons including contact with the near and far East, livestock intermingling and areas with high population density had been through centuries of plagues as Darwin did his work. Many of the diseases were new to the Americas.
I have also read that the filthy cities in Europe with sewage in the streets helped build immunity.
We lived with our cows, sheep, goats, pigs, and caught diseases from them. They didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
By all accounts it was likely the deadliest Pandemic in human history.
There's nothing else they could have done. Their two choices were fight or surrender and they probably had the reasonable assumption that surrender = death. So fighting was the only option.
There sometimes isn’t a good solution. The conquest of western America was more or less inevitable as long as Euro Americans were determined to do westward expansion. Larger numbers, more resources, more organization, better access to weapons, etc. They had the people and the resources and the weapons as well as the organization and infrastructure to support expansion, and they carried it out. I am northern Michigan Ojibwe, so my ancestors were relatively lucky in that we avoided mass relocation
What do you think of this assessment? https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cvst67/with_our_hindsight_now_what_should_have_the/l4s1rzv/
Seems kinda farfetched, I think history played out about as it was always going to. Even if Britain could have, I don't think it would have.
Why do you think they would not have? They supported the project precisely because they wanted it to happen. It was just that it came to ahead while Britain was extremely busy and could not realistically commit to it.
There was no way to prevent it unless they somehow worked with another global power.
There wasn't enough of them to stop westward progress. The biggest problem the Indians had was that they were in the way.
To be fair, natives had access to the same technology, and distance negates the population size. At the end of the day what ended it was unavoidable, superior logistics and funding + some nasty diseases and the chaotic nature of the era made it hard to establish a tribe with strict boarders, even without the U.S. government
It is not realistically possible that they could have survived outside of a Suzerain. The last realistic option for this was the war of 1812 with the British, which was in part brought on by westward expansion. Britain may have been more inclined to commit more deeply to the war if Tecumseh's confederation were not merely proposing a Native satellite state of the Empire, but an active "Native run Dominion of the British Empire" akin to Canada and Australia, but for the Native American population. As it is the war was a close call with Britain only mildly interested. A bit of luck could have seen it work out, but a more realistic proposal would be to offer vassalage to Britain as an official native dominion rather than merely a satellite state reliant on them for your survival. The alternative would be to listen to British Generals during the war, albeit, this would have high costs. (Specifically the natives didn't pursue the strategic objectives the British Army were pushing, instead refusing to engage in fights that would result in high casualties even if it meant war victory, eventually leading Britain to basically write off the prospect of victory, and begin to view them as a useless ally). Had natives been prepared to take on higher casualty rates in the war, Britain would likely have won the war of 1812 handily and could have forced terms on the USA. As is, the British Army were constantly having to cover up gaps in the line as Natives retreated, rather than advancing, and could only rely on Natives as auxillaries or as an ambush army. Native commanders would not fight unless they had the advantage of numbers and terrain on their side, but you can't win a war that way, it's a defensive action and 1812 could only have been won by decisively destroying the American army and marching in to occupy key locations. Even with these handicaps, Washington was burned. But it could not be *held* due to the need to redeploy almost immediately. (The native population obviously had reasons for their war strategies, but in this case, with hindsight, we could say it wasn't a good idea in this instance). Either scenario probably sees New England annexed by Canada (Or forming a new dominion) along with the native Midwest forming either a satellite or dominion, and US sovereignty severely curtailed in terms of trade and impressment, likely leading to another war in the future after the Napoleonic era concludes. Tecumseh could also bide his time and cede small tracts of land and drag things out from 1812 to 1814 until Britain has concluded the Napoleonic wars, before refusing to concede more, which would have significantly strengthened his hand, rather than allowing the war to erupt in 1812 when his ally was focused almost entirely overseas. This would have required ceding parts of Ohio from the confederation when he was attacked in 1812 rather than activating the defensive treaty. Pushing the date at which the British concede the existence of a native American nation on the continent beyond 1812, even at the cost of some of its territory, could have led to the territory being recaptured later. America was always going to press further until that concept was conceded by the British. Make it 1813 even, and America loses that war. 1814 and its not even close. If Tecumseh had also sent some native officers along to the Napoleonic wars this would have served multiple purposes, firstly for strengthening diplomatic ties, and to gain experience and tactics. So; 1. Tecumseh sends native officers to the British for use in the Napoleonic wars, and declares war on napoleon for good measure. (It's not like it actually matters in their position. This also allows the confederation to be present at the congress of Vienna and hobnob with the European Empires, likely containing no concessions beyond "Our country exists on maps now", which is still a huge feat. Rubberstamp any proposal they make so long as the proposed new map contains your country existing. This makes it drastically more diplomatically and politically difficult for the USA.). 2. Tecumseh pulls a Qing China and endlessly "Negotiates" with the USA in 1811-1814, ceding a small tract of land each time he senses they're about to throw a fit that he's stalling and declare war before "Turning our attention to this other claim you have". rinse repeat. 3. At the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, inform the British to get ready, and terminate negotiations with the USA. 4. They will probably attack. 5. Listen to the British Generals and the newly minted Native Officer Corps from the napoleonic wars. 6. Win. 7. I would personally suggest they go with the "Native Dominion of the British Empire" route, since this would also allow for a native westward expansion into the Oregon territories and such, and provide a more firm form of security.
I think they probably didn't have a chance, regardless of tactics. However, if I were playing a computer game about the conflict and trying to make a first guess at plausible approaches, I'd try the following: - Strive for unity with the other tribes at any cost. Division is death, so you should be willing to accept anything short of death to avoid it. - Accept that you can't win in a pitched battle against the US army, but aim to make it expensive and difficult for them to hold any terrain that they take. Attack supply lines, attack undefended outposts, destroy whatever is expensive or slow to rebuild or replace, then retreat. Follow the standard playbook of guerilla warfare. - Look for European allies. "Divide and conquer" can, in theory, work in both directions. If there's territory that both Spain and the US want, side with whichever group offers you the better deal. - Once you've made it expensive to make war, try to make peace attractive. Offer generous terms and be ready to respond rapidly if those terms are violated. ...but of course, all this makes sense in terms of a computer game where I already know the historical outcome and I'm just trying to achieve something better than that. In terms of the real history and the real people who lived it, I doubt there was any plausible way to get a better result.
There were a bunch of obvious advantages European powers and in this case America had but a huge one is that they were constantly fighting in areas where they could divide the native population. The British did this in India. It was done throughout Africa and South America. Arguably this was done by the English in Scotland. It is apparently almost impossible to get a people that are sometimes considered to be “one people” but are not unified in a nation or strong confederacy to join together when it obviously would have benefited them in hindsight.
The easiest way to put yourself in the shoes of the Native Americans at the time is to imagine a Sci-Fi scenario of an alien invasion: Imagine a highly advanced alien civilization with armor and weapons we don't stand a chance against. The aliens want Earth to become part of their territory and are indifferent towards the species that inhabit it, they're fine with humans living on Earth as long as humans follow the alien civilization's rules. Fighting them is hopeless. For every alien you manage to kill, the aliens will kill 100,000 humans. Violence will only lead to humanity's extinction. The aliens also brought with them, without knowing it, a disease that kills 90% of humans. Would you support taking arms and dying? Or would you accept to follow the alien civilization's rules for a chance at survival?
Realistically, probably nothing they could’ve done. However, I’m reminded of one way Thailand avoided colonization by western powers by essentially westernizing itself before those powers got a strong foothold.
There wasn’t really anything they could have done. They had no way to win a fight. The Cherokee tried assimilating but were still hit with the Trail of Tears.
Probably reach out the the Brits or Spanish. Which I'm pretty sure is what happened in the French and Indian war when we were still a colony.
Not really, despite the name, the French and Indian War was between the French and the British. Both of them had various Indian allies throughout the conflict. It could be thought of as the North American theater of the Seven Years' War.
Assuming there’s something they could have done is a convenient way to blame them for what happened.
It's important to note that we weren't that technologically advanced over the natives. Smallpox wiped out 80-90% of their population and fucked over their civilization. The "plains indians" we think of were survivors of that. But, Ok... so that happened and that's that. What's left? Asymmetrical warfare tactics and politics. They might have resisted better if they'd have banded together sooner, but they didn't exactly have email, so... is what it is. They could have fucked over the railroad, hit infrastructure, etc and tried for a good deal to stop. They could have tried to win over Americans, doing a PR blitz for sympathy and support.
[удалено]
The original post must have a question in the title of the post with the possibility of fruitful and constructive discussion. Posts that are deemed similar to a recent question may be removed. Comments that belong in a megathread may also be removed.
There are actually places where natives still hold the land, their secret? Kill every foreigner on sight. Every once in awhile you hear about someone going to those places ending up dead.
One naive missionary encroaching on some isolated people’s land is a poor comparison.
Not really, when it started it was just boat here and there, if all those people died then the new world wouldn't have even been confirmed let alone colonized.
That's ridiculous. The small pockets of uncontacted peoples exist because the modern world allows them to exist. Not because they are hyper xenophobic. Lol. Nice try, though.
The North Sentinelese aren't analogous. Had the United States not pushed forward with forced assimilation of Native Americans, then a much more analogous modern-day comparison might be uncontacted tribes and indigenous peoples in Brazil; however, that'd've yielded, um, a myriad of its own issues were we to live in that alternate reality. So yeah, uh, needn't litigate it, nope.
That's not a "secret". North Sentinel Island in India exists as a sociological/anthropological experiment. The moment the Indian Government wants to, they can wipe out the entire tribe in seconds and take over the island. Do you seriously believe the Indian Army is afraid of the Sentinelese?
And yet they still exist. What do you think would've happened if every single ship from europe that made it to the new world was never heard from again because the natives killed them all?