WI the native americans were white?

There is a theory (which at the moment is falling out fashion) which speaks of ice age Europeans contributing a lot to the makeup of the Native Americans.
That as well as people coming over the land bridge from Asia, people who lived along the edge of the ice sheet also made the trip over.

This is a bit of a borderline ASB one and its differences won't be the grand scale stuff that is usually popular, but still, I ponder:
What if the ancestry of Native Americans was primarily caucasian and not east asian?
Assume their development is still pretty much the same; a few civilizations here and there, lots of hunter-gatherers, some small scale farmers, etc...
And lets keep a nice butterfly net in place.

How could views develop differently?

IOTL of course racism mostly came about because of colonialism, not vice-versa. So the early days would probably look the same. But I wonder when we get towards more modern times and pseudo-scientific outlooks on racism how different things would be.

The English might have referred to them as "West Irish" rather than as "Indians"?


(After all, Liverpudlian slang at one point allegedly referred to Africans as 'smoked Irish'...)

Yeah, I don't think they would've treated the Native Americans all that differently. As Simreeve said, just look at how they interacted with the Irish.

Hardly on treatment would be much different. Euro-Amerindians would have very different culture compared for us and them would have just so bad resistance against European diseases as OTL American natives. And I am not sure if they would look just exactly same as OTL Europeans. And Europeans have even treated other European nations very badly. It not be just skin color.

If they were Indo-European, I'm gonna assume those living around Mexico would be closer to the Arabs, the Carribean and Central American comparable to Indians, and so on. Of course, differences will be huge no matter what.

If they're harder to discern from your typical European, racism might not be so harsh. It's still gonna be bad, and a lot of the atrocities perpetated were done regardless of race, but as time goes on they might become more accepted by settler colonies. In an alternate New Spain in particular, if Creoles and Mestizos aren't really all that different looking, things could develop..... interestingly.

Biden&Ceaser'12 said:

If they're harder to discern from your typical European, racism might not be so harsh. It's still gonna be bad, and a lot of the atrocities perpetated were done regardless of race, but as time goes on they might become more accepted by settler colonies. In an alternate New Spain in particular, if Creoles and Mestizos aren't really all that different looking, things could develop..... interestingly.

Click to expand...

Indeed. That's the thinking.
Integration becomes a lot easier if they look pretty similar. Easier for them to try and slide under the radar and pass for Europeans.

White is a rather broad term. You can throw in anyone from Europe, North Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East and be able to classify them as white. What types? What would the texture and color of their hair by, their eye color, shade of skin... Heck, you can still see them being looked down upon much like peasants were in Western Europe for not being like the nobility, who liked their skin to be so pale from lack of contact with the sun that it turned translucent.

How white are we talking about, exactly?

A lot of Native Americans were 'white', sort of. Mostly in the Eastern Woodlands, though I guess the Pacific Northwest had light-skinned people as well. Given that they were often out in the sun all day in the summer that tends to tan you quite a bit. Pretty much in the more northern areas I mentioned there probably weren't many people darker than a southern Italian. Maybe a Greek.

Some of the earliest depictions of Native Americans were white anyway (save for the ones at Mexican latitudes), so I guess the first explorers weren't exactly looking close for color to begin with.

As for how it could make relations with Europe easier, the answer is it won't. Though it's a big plus, you don't need differences in skin color to create prejudices; you just need a culture that appears inferior/backward/frightening/conquerable/etc. compared to yours. Take the Romans and Gauls for example. Or, well, the Irish.

Look at what happened to the Sami. It won't help them much. Long term beating up Africa will probably still lead to a fair bit of racism.

I think the big difference will be in terms of assimilation.

The native Americans won't initially be seen as white, but they'll find it much easier to 'become white' and be considered that over time.

On the other hand, that probably means the cultural genocide will be even more complete, even if the physical one is less.

This is the Solutrean Hypothesis right?

I'm assuming if North America is populated from Europe 15,000+ years before present, the settlers wouldn't be Indo-Europeans.

Maybe later European 'discoverers' of the continent would find languages spoken there that were distantly related to Basque or Etruscan.

Aside from Solutrean Hyposthesis, how about those who crossed from Siberia have more pronounced Western European or even some Turkic/Mongolic traits.

Alfonso the Lemon said:

This is the Solutrean Hypothesis right?

I'm assuming if North America is populated from Europe 15,000+ years before present, the settlers wouldn't be Indo-Europeans.

Maybe later European 'discoverers' of the continent would find languages spoken there that were distantly related to Basque or Etruscan.

Click to expand...

Probably no more related than OTL languages are to Asian language families. 15000 years is a very long time for languages to diverge.

But beyond that, the idea that skin-color=superiority/inferiority is relatively recent, and comes about well after the discovery of the New World. In any scenario, the natives would be sufficiently distinct from European colonists to be distinguished and discriminated against, even if their skin tone was indistinguishable from you average European (and as noted, "white" covers quite a few different skin tones). Human beings are very good at coming up with reasons to discriminate against each other.

I'm pretty sure that this is a Geologic POD and thus goes in ASB.

woweed said:

I'm pretty sure that this is a Geologic POD and thus goes in ASB.

Click to expand...

How this is geologic issue?

Well, just look at how the northern crusades went.

Lalli said:

How this is geologic issue?

Click to expand...

Because the land bridge would have had to have formed in Europe nsted of Asia.

The skin tone would make some difference in initial perceptions and in the accepted "range" of conflict. However, even if white, the Native Americans would still have a very different language, culture, mindset, etc, so they'd still be very alien. Recall that, of course, the Vikings were white, but they certainly weren't well received just because of that.

Tyr said:

There is a theory (which at the moment is falling out fashion) which speaks of ice age Europeans contributing a lot to the makeup of the Native Americans.
That as well as people coming over the land bridge from Asia, people who lived along the edge of the ice sheet also made the trip over.

This is a bit of a borderline ASB one and its differences won't be the grand scale stuff that is usually popular, but still, I ponder:
What if the ancestry of Native Americans was primarily caucasian and not east asian?
Assume their development is still pretty much the same; a few civilizations here and there, lots of hunter-gatherers, some small scale farmers, etc...
And lets keep a nice butterfly net in place.

How could views develop differently?

IOTL of course racism mostly came about because of colonialism, not vice-versa. So the early days would probably look the same. But I wonder when we get towards more modern times and pseudo-scientific outlooks on racism how different things would be.

Click to expand...

I'd go with the Solutrean hypothesis. The indians of the north east have been found with western european ancestry, so you have to prevent the proto-amerindians from expanding to the Atlantic and leave some space to the "white americans" to develop some kind of civilization. Idk for a POD, but if they can make it through ancient age, things are pretty much settled.

Anyway, you would come up with something like the bronze-age celtic tribes, which would be even less complex than the european ones, because of isolation and poor choices of domesticated pets and plants.

I have some idea that they would bould cities at some point. Maybe the Solutreans bring some techs from Europe, like seafaring? (Feel free to correct me here, idk much)

In the end, they would be treated as some kind of pagan celts by the europeans. Less racism and more integration, and you could even have a whither Mexico, who knows. Maybe due to integration with european settlers you could avoid the harsh treatment reserved to the indians, and have them not die out, staying a "slave race" (along with irish, which were treated the same in the XVI century), and never develop the slave trade from Africa.

I'm studying the switch from the forced labour of the poors to the birth of slavery, and i can assure you that if the english élites find a replacement for the forced labour (which were causing troubles at home), you could avoid black slavery.

Maybe an earlier liberalization and salaries to workers? We're 200 years earlier, so maybe i'm just ranting around.

the main problem is that, even if they look just like western Europeans, they are still going to suffer horribly from European diseases, and be so reduced in numbers that they stand little chance. The biggest difference will probably be in intermarriage; there was a fair amount of it in OTL, and probably be even more here. I'd think that the native cultures are going to be even more ground under and mainstreamed into the American landscape...