Originally Posted by
alnortedelsur
As I said in previous posts, I think it would be more like Argentina in the eastern parts (up to Mississippi river, or even further west, up to the eastern outskirts of the Rocky mountains), and mostly mestizo/Euro-mestizo with a large white/near white minority, like Chile and Paraguay, in the western parts.
It is true that North American Amerindians were mostly hunter gatherer nomads and fierce warriors, but they didn't have a dense population like the great civilizations of Meso-America and the Central Andes. Even though there would has been some mixture with Spaniards, they would have been largely decimated by diseases brought by the later.
It is easy to figure out a scenario where during the colonial period, the North American lands would have been mostly mestizo/Euro-mestizo. Eventually, an independence war against Spain would had break up, but few years/decades after the independence, a huge Spanish (and probably Italian) immigration would had flooded the new North American country(es). If Spaniards immigrated in mass to temperate latitude countries like Argentina and Uruguay, located further away in the southern hemisphere, there is no reason to think that it wouldn't have happened the same in an hypothetical temperate latitude Spanish colonized North America, located much closer to Spain than Argentina and Uruguay.
Like it happened in Argentina, eugenics would have been implemented as a state policy by the creole elites, very likely aiming for bringing many German immigrants, but due to cultural and linguistic reasons, most immigrants would have come from Spain (and probably Italy, and probably even Portugal to some extent) just like it happened in Argentina. Only a small bunch of Germans and Irish would have immigrated, but much less compared to Spaniards (or Spaniards and Italians) and Germans would just have ended up founding some few German towns here and there, in some rural areas, mostly in the eastern coasts.
Very likely, the eastern coast (the area occupied by current New Scotland and New Brunswick, and the current coastal US states from Main to Georgia) would be more heavily European: mostly Spanish/Italian with some few German towns here and there, and some few Irish descent people here and there. Not sure if there would be many Portuguese descent people too. But as you move westwards (towards the Midwest), the Euro contribution would get more exclusively Spanish, and there would be many whites (mostly of Spanish origin) but some more mestizo/Euro mestizo presence as well. There would still be some few German towns here and there, but less so than in the eastern coasts.
As it happened in the southern cone, the elites and the new immigrants would very likely had launched extermination campaigns against Amerindians, but Amerindians from the eastern half of the North American continent (towards the Atlantic coast) would have been more affected by it than Amerindians from the rocky mountains, the southwest and the western coasts. Eventually, however, many of the European immigrants coming from the east would have made their way to the western parts of North America as well. but not as massively as in the eastern parts. That's why I think that the western parts of North America would have ended up being more like Chile and Paraguay, and the eastern parts (probably up to Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas) would be more like Argentina (but more densely European towards the Atlantic, and with some more mestizo/harnizo/castizo presence, and more exclusively Spanish Euro contribution, as you move westwards).
I agree that it wouldn't have been as free and democratic as current United States, and very likely would have experimented periods of civil wars and military dictatorships (but probably alternating with some democratic periods) up to recent times, but it would have been better in other ways.
I have it not very clear that there would have been a great political fragmentation, due to a much more less population density compared to tropical Latin American lands. There very likely would have been two or three (or up to four) large countries. I don't know, something like a big northern version of Argentina in the eastern half of North America extending from Florida and the Gulf coast up to the Arctic, and another Chile-like country in all, or most of the second half of the North American continent. Probably the southwestern quadrant of current US would have remained as part of Mexico, and north of it (from Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and northwards) it would be occupied by an hypothetical "Chile-like" country.
Regarding the South East, I think that only Florida, the Atlantic coasts of current Georgia, South and North Carolina, and the Gulf coasts of current US states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, would have been something like either Cuba or Puerto Rico (significant black/mulatto presence, but also lots of Spanish blood and many full/near whites of mostly Spanish descent people). Northwestern current state of Georgia, and the central and northern parts of Alabama and Mississippi would have had much less blacks compared to now, and it would have been more plain white/Euro-mestizo.
The Arctic (most of current Canada North of the San Lorenzo Valley and the very south of Canada) and Alaska would very likely remained mostly native/Eskimo, with some minor European settlements here and there, but it would be very scarcely populated, and with very little weight over the main racial composition of North America. And the eastern Argentinian-like country and the western Chilean-like country would have disputes over the possession of the northern islands of current's northern Canada.
The San Lorenzo Valley would be probably mostly Spanish, or mostly Iberian/Italian, with some mestizos and Euro mestizos as well.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks