Best case scenario for native Americans in the US

[Qastiel]

I'm going to be perfectly honest, this mostly just reads like you fixated on a couple words (race-mixing, in this case, which I admit might have been poorly chosen or articulated) and are having a bout of poor literacy in terms of understanding the post I was making, in which case I don't know what to tell you. That particular post you're replying to wasn't intended as an answer to OP's question as a suggestion of a solution, it was just a response to your particular post, which was mostly in agreement. I did put a little hypothetical paragraph at the end that was a theoretical answer, but you haven't really been engaging with that one.

But, yes, I think an approach where despite material incentives to ethnically cleanse and expel the natives, the English/Americans still focused more on assimilation and integration would be "better" in that less people would die deaths by war, starvation, and disease compared to OTL, whether that's through intermarriage or just political integration. More survivors, whether mixed or otherwise, provides more chances for cultural continuation than the OTL groups who were decimated population-wise and pushed into the Great American Desert that was the Great Plains where they were frequently also left with little chance to build up their population again or even build generational wealth for future prosperity. Even a slightly more integrationist approach could have limited that and allowed at least larger Native nations to have more cultural inertia and staying power in both aspects. It's by no means a "good" solution, but in comparison to the out and out genocide of OTL, can you really say it's worse?

Would I say such an approach is likely? No. I very clearly articulated that in both posts, there were material reasons that the English didn't follow that approach. On the other hand, the French did follow a more integrationist policy before being expelled from North America. That's not to cast them as heroes or anything, they surely were hoping to Frenchify natives more than anything and might very well have followed the English model if they had less marginal land or more population to back them, but it is an illustration that those material incentives don't necessarily have to define all interactions. Humans are capable creatures who can defy trends as well as follow them.

I'm going to be honest, you are kind of rude and should maybe reflect on how you talk to people.

I’m very good at matching a person’s energy when having a discussion. I’m more than happy to be more polite to you if you’ll oblige me the same courtesy. Instead you’ve issued personal attacks. I’m sorry I didn’t talk about Iroquois not being expelled upon being annexed by the Americans and somehow being able to play politics between Anglo-Americans and Québécois. I quite literally have nothing to add to that since I don’t believe it’s particularly plausible but I also don’t know enough about the intricacies of the local politics in the region to make any argument about it. As a result I chose to stick with what I know.

To be frank if you have a problem, use the report function. And please do not engage in personal insults, I find that very unhelpful. And honestly rather offensive. You may get frustrated that’s understandable but please keep in mind other people’s feelings.

Just as with Mesoamerica, I don’t think French policy in Louisiana is really that applicable of a context for Anglo settlement in North America. As you yourself have acknowledged, the French did not send as many settlers as the Anglos sent so had less of an ability to significantly cleanse Indigenous populations to the same extent as the Anglo, in fact the French utilised alliances with Indigenous groups to make up for that lack of manpower. I understand and appreciate the point you’re trying to make but I do think you’re being rather flippant at how material realities and local politics and institutions affect settler-indigenous relations. I’m aware you acknowledge it but it feels like in your conclusions you end up dismissing it?

 

[PGSBHurricane]

I think that if the Thirteen Colonies lost the American Revolution early on and the Emancipation Proclamation became more strictly enforced then the natives between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River have their fate delayed by possibly several decades due to a lower stream of settlers than IOTL. Of course, this wouldn't be permanent based on what happened in other British settler colonies IOTL, but several decades could make something of a difference. Once the Thirteen Colonies gain the right of self-governance in the same way the dominions were, there could be a Prime Minister who's fairly sympathetic to the Native Americans and serve as a possible protector. And then you have the Spanish controlling everything west of the Mississippi River so if that persists to the present (and later eventual independence from Spain) then the Natives of the West would probably be better off too.