American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

[Eltab]

Is it possible, among humans, for group A to encounter group B, where group A have the technology to travel to location B but not vice versa, and for group A to *not* conquer and enslave group B?

I'm going to reinforce the 'yes' given above.

The Pilgrims came to America, found an empty corner of land (Plymouth), and moved in. They tried (by their lights) to treat the nearby Indian tribes with respect.
When the larger Massachusettes Bay colony moved in nearby, the troubled relationships began.

Alternate History: What if the Pilgrim model for interacting with the Indians had become the norm for British America?

 

[tomBitonti]

I'm going to reinforce the 'yes' given above.

The Pilgrims came to America, found an empty corner of land (Plymouth), and moved in. They tried (by their lights) to treat the nearby Indian tribes with respect.
When the larger Massachusettes Bay colony moved in nearby, the troubled relationships began.

Alternate History: What if the Pilgrim model for interacting with the Indians had become the norm for British America?

Have to be careful: Does “group” mean any arbitrary group of people, or does it mean a group which is broadly representative of society as a whole? Or, how representative are the Plymouth settlers of their original society?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Yeah, only four centuries between the treasure voyages and the Opium Wars. Clearly those two events have a direct causal connection. "What happened after the Dutch ceded New Amsterdam? 9/11!"

China's decision to disengage put it on a downward spiral that cumulated with the Opium Wars and its adoption of European Communism.

 

[Guest 85555]

Not at all interested in getting historical analysis from random posters on a gaming website (this is directed at all sides of the history debate). My impression in these discussions in general is there is usually a lot of misinformation, out of date information, and analysis that is more about point scoring and winning than getting at the truth.

 

[Riley37]

Not at all interested in getting historical analysis from random posters on a gaming website (this is directed at all sides of the history debate). My impression in these discussions in general is there is usually a lot of misinformation, out of date information, and analysis that is more about point scoring and winning than getting at the truth.

If you catch someone showing off and scoring points, do you then score a meta-point, for revealing that person's ego-driven agenda? (If so, do I then score a meta-meta-point, for naming your knock-it-off agenda?)

You have the option to stop following this thread, if you don't find it useful for your own table. Threads sometimes sputter out with "no, I'm right!" "no, you're wrong!", whether that's over history, or over RAW vs RAI, or photon torpedoes versus proton torpedoes, or some other impasse. For what it's worth: every time I've researched something TheCosmicKid mentioned, the details checked out. (As factual, though large-scale conclusions of causality or morality generally remain arguable indefinitely, into the realm of ideology.)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Not at all interested in getting historical analysis from random posters on a gaming website (this is directed at all sides of the history debate). My impression in these discussions in general is there is usually a lot of misinformation, out of date information, and analysis that is more about point scoring and winning than getting at the truth.

My experience is that I score the most points by getting at the truth. So there is a happy convergence of motives.

 

[Guest 85555]

If you catch someone showing off and scoring points, do you then score a meta-point, for revealing that person's ego-driven agenda? (If so, do I then score a meta-meta-point, for naming your knock-it-off agenda?)

You have the option to stop following this thread, if you don't find it useful for your own table. Threads sometimes sputter out with "no, I'm right!" "no, you're wrong!", whether that's over history, or over RAW vs RAI, or photon torpedoes versus proton torpedoes, or some other impasse. For what it's worth: every time I've researched something TheCosmicKid mentioned, the details checked out. (As factual, though large-scale conclusions of causality or morality generally remain arguable indefinitely, into the realm of ideology.)

My point is people are better off looking this stuff up themselves, examining the arguments themselves, rather than taking posters on EnWorld as their source on historical knowledge and analysis. I am not saying you can't have the discussion, or that you all should stop. But I think I am probably saying what a lot of folks are thinking.

I just find with history it tends to happen an awful lot on gaming forums. And I think most posters would be better served following the arguments of historians than following the arguments made on message boards like this one. I think there is a valuable place for history in gaming forums. It can be handy to have ready made material and information for gaming purposes. But when it goes beyond that, and gets into more difficult historical questions and debates...I just think this is a bad venue for it.

 

[Guest 85555]

My experience is that I score the most points by getting at the truth. So there is a happy convergence of motives.

My experience is those two goals don't usually line up that neatly.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The Pilgrims came to America, found an empty corner of land (Plymouth), and moved in. They tried (by their lights) to treat the nearby Indian tribes with respect.
When the larger Massachusettes Bay colony moved in nearby, the troubled relationships began.

It's a complicated and compelling story. I expect an HBO miniseries about it one of these days - Squanto is a fascinating figure for protagonist. But very briefly: the land was empty because the native Patuxet had already been wiped out by disease, Squanto survived this epidemic because he had been kidnapped and was living in captivity in Europe at the time, Squanto eventually made his way back to America, the Pilgrims showed up, the surviving locals fled because they didn't want any more trouble, the Pilgrims stole a lot of stuff both because they were ill prepared for the coming winter and because they were not overly concerned about the property rights of "savages", Squanto and Samoset led peace missions and patched things up for a while.

Alternate History: What if the Pilgrim model for interacting with the Indians had become the norm for British America?

That would likely be concurrent with the American Revolution not happening. Official British policy towards the Indians was moving towards recognition and respect (of a sort), and settlement in the interior was not allowed. With independence, all that went out the window.

But, cynically, I have to think that if British America had been more restrained, the French and/or the Spanish would simply have moved in instead. Especially since no independence means no Louisiana Purchase, so the French officially owned that massive swathe of land and probably would have wanted to do something with it.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

It's a complicated and compelling story. I expect an HBO miniseries about it one of these days - Squanto is a fascinating figure for protagonist. But very briefly: the land was empty because the native Patuxet had already been wiped out by disease, Squanto survived this epidemic because he had been kidnapped and was living in captivity in Europe at the time, Squanto eventually made his way back to America, the Pilgrims showed up, the surviving locals fled because they didn't want any more trouble, the Pilgrims stole a lot of stuff both because they were ill prepared for the coming winter and because they were not overly concerned about the property rights of "savages", Squanto and Samoset led peace missions and patched things up for a while.

That would likely be concurrent with the American Revolution not happening. Official British policy towards the Indians was moving towards recognition and respect (of a sort), and settlement in the interior was not allowed. With independence, all that went out the window.

But, cynically, I have to think that if British America had been more restrained, the French and/or the Spanish would simply have moved in instead. Especially since no independence means no Louisiana Purchase, so the French officially owned that massive swathe of land and probably would have wanted to do something with it.

There were no Polish colonies in the New World for instance, but that did not help the Indians. Lots of European nations did not colonize North America, there were no Greek colonies, no Italian colonies, no German colonies. the only way to give the Indians a chance is to advance their tech, that means they no longer are the Indians that hunt and fish as you know them.