On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Matt Pearson wrote:

>Aidan wrote:
>
>>    With this, I see the NAL as something a bit more like the European
>>Union, with
>>independent countries that work together. The Homelands (of the Native
>>American
>>People) include most of the land west of the Mississippi, with Brithenig
>>and English
>>holding sway east of it. Large chunk of Texas, California, Aizona, and New
>>Mexico
>>*here* are Spanish Territories *there*, with a very equitable relationship
>>with the
>>Native peoples of those areas. Navajo and Hopi have their own "States"
>>within the
>>Homelands, for example.
>[snip]
>>    Well, missionary influence in North Am would have to be fairly limited
>>(one of the
>>only ways that the Aelyans could remain pagan AND the Native populous
>>maintain some
>>cultural integrity).Or extremely rejected! Maybe that's how it could be
>>limited -
>>people got upset about it and started some minor skirmishes whihc
>>eventually led to
>>withdrawal of the missionary influence?
>

>Speaking as an interested outside observer, I think this whole issue
>of how the colonisation of the Americas could have remained limited
>should be given serious thought.  What was it, specifically, which
>gave the indigenous peoples a fighting chance against encroaching
>Europeans in *that* universe, whereas they had almost no chance in
>*this* universe?  I find it extremely implausible that the European
>colonists were simply more well-meaning and respectful of native
>peoples *there* than they were *here*.

There are a number of points to have in mind. There was not the great
number of emmigrants *there*. Spread fewer settlers over roughly the
same colonies (North America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand
(and possibly Argentina)) and you'll naturally end up with less of an
impact. Another point is that the League and the USA are not inter-
changeable. The USA had certain factors that caused it to do what it
did in its history that just aren't there in the League. There was no
"Louisiana Purchase", as far as I know, and certainly not in the
same timeframe as *here*, if there was one; which definitely cuts the
physical size of the League down, and also keeps it facing the FK
rather than facing the West. They don't have Manifest Destiny, so they
don't have the strange impulse to move west at all costs that the US
had. And, lastly, they _were_ more respectful of the Natives. Perhaps
not a whole lot; I don't expect them to be close chums; but not blood
enemies either. Certainly there are/were Indians that would have
gotten more respect (the Civilised tribes, for example) than others;
and some that would require working over. As a known example of how
Kemr treated its colonies, look to Ireland. After eight hundred (or
so) years of Unbearable Domination ;), Mother Cambria left the Irish
language and culture reasonably intact: they seem to have practiced
a kind of laisez faire policy not practised by Britain *here*.

>One major difference between the Europe of *there* and the Europe of
>*here*, from what I've been able to gather by lurking on this thread,
>is that there were more (and smaller) nation-states there.  So
>perhaps colonisation happened on a smaller scale, and in a more
>chaotic fashion, *there* than *here*?

Not so many more. The only obvious increase in actual number of states
is in Britain; where there are three fully independant countries
working either alone or together. France and Spain are single
countries; Germany and Italy seem to have gotten themselves together
as well. The rest is more less Terra Incognita. There are a couple of
smaller states *there* that aren't *here*, but otherwise more or less
recognisable boarders.

As far as British colonisation is concerned, I think you're right:
smaller scale from the start, since it would be a Scotish colony
there, a Kemrese here an English over yonder. FK doesn't come about
til 1805 or so; so anything done before that time is done under the
authority of individual countries.

>But even if that were the case, that doesn't explain everything.
>How, for example, did the Europeans prevent the introduction of new
>diseases from exterminating large numbers of indigenous people?  Or,
>if there was indeed such extermination *there*, how did the
>indigenous peoples recover from it sufficiently to establish
>autonomous states?

By the late 17th century when (I suppose) British colonisation gets
in gear, the natives have already had two centuries of European
bugs. There are fewer Europeans to contend with as well. As for
forming independant states; that nearly happened *here*, if I
understand right. The natives in New York, and I think Georgia,
were fairly organised. Of course, I'm rapidly getting in over my
head here, but it seems that the native of *this* reality just
weren't as lucky those *there*!

And perhaps _the_ most important thing to keep in mind is this:
We're most definitely _not_ trying to figure out how we can take
the history of *here* and twist it into the desired shape. We're
simply observing *there* and trying to explain it.

Padraic.

>Matt.