What if France won colonial wars in North America

[Peterski]

I've created a new thread as continuation of this discussion (which was off-topic there):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7415999

As far as there will be used arable land that will have to be done where the land is, i. e. in French Lousiana then.

Yes but the French would likely not displace the Natives from their lands and force into reservations:

https://ancestralfindings.com/the-fr...can-relations/ - "French and Native relations"

^^^ Quote:

"The French enjoyed much better relations with Native Americans than other European groups when they first came to American shores. Here are the reasons why. There are all kinds of stories of hostilities between early American colonists and the Native people who were already there. However, these hostilities did not occur with every European group who came. The French are a notable exception to this, and in fact, enjoyed excellent relations with the Natives almost from the very beginning. The French did not displace any Natives in the establishment of their settlement and continued to work closely with them in the fur trade. They respected Native territories, their ways, and treated them as the human beings they were. The Natives, in turn, treated the French as trusted friends. (...) The English treated the Natives as inferior, believed they stood in the way of their God-given right to the land in America and tried to subject the Natives to their laws as they established their colonies. The Spanish didn’t have any better relations with the Natives, as they tried to enslave them when they first came to America, and later established missions where they tried to force them to convert from their traditional religions to Catholicism. The Natives did not appreciate any of this. The key to the friendly relations the French enjoyed with the Natives was all in the way they treated them when they first encountered them, and how they continued to treat them afterward. As long as the French maintained settlements in America, they enjoyed excellent relations with each other. For those who have early American French ancestry, or French settler ancestors who married Native Americans, the vast majority of those records can be found in the provincial archives of Quebec (some records there might lead back to France if the settler returned there with his Native American bride). These records provide a fascinating look at relations between Natives and Europeans and show just how different things could have been if all the European people who came to America had been as progressive in their treatment of the Natives as the French were."

=====

So most probably much less land would have been available to white settlers than in our timeline.

This would maybe also even discourage European immigration at least in case of rural immigrants. Even if there was high European immigration, the situation would still be different because Native population would not decline as much as it did when facing English and later American expansion/rule.

As for the fertility rate I do agree. I even think that in the long run over centuries a particular area will have a particular population unregarded what later immigration happend (like when animals do populate a certain space of living). Btw. I think that this is aspect of "Lebensraum" that eventually is applicable. A sparce populated area will likely cause a higher fertility rate than an crowded one. This is why I consciously promote a rural living also for my descendants.

I agree with this fully.

And also the fact that Indians were pushed into very small reservations, contributed to their decline. Not only diseases and war.

When a tribe of for example 15,000 people inhabited a huge territory, it obviously had higher fertility rate, than on reservation.

BTW, but how do you explain Bangladesh (or the Netherlands)?

[Ranger0075]

Ironically checking french colonies in Americas, it is much more likely they would replace the natives for sub saharan africans like they did in guadaloupe, martinique, guiana, haiti and so on

It's actually easier to find Tamil Indians, Syrian refugees and Chinese people on these countries than native population.

[Peterski]

Ironically checking french colonies in Americas, it is much more likely they would replace the natives for sub saharan africans like they did in guadaloupe, martinique, guiana, haiti and so on. It's actually easier to find Tamil Indians, Syrian refugees and Chinese people on these countries than native population.

Haiti was Spanish before it was French, and Native population there got extinct already under Spanish rule.

Guyana and French Guiana still have quite a large number of natives today.

Guadeloupe and Martinique are just very small islands they probably never had many natives to begin with.

In any case, we are talking about the French treatment of Indians in North America, not Central/Caribbean.

[JamesBond007]

Yes but the French would likely not displace the Natives from their lands and force into reservations:

https://ancestralfindings.com/the-fr...can-relations/ - "French and Native relations"

^^^ Quote:

"The French enjoyed much better relations with Native Americans than other European groups when they first came to American shores. Here are the reasons why. There are all kinds of stories of hostilities between early American colonists and the Native people who were already there. However, these hostilities did not occur with every European group who came. The French are a notable exception to this, and in fact, enjoyed excellent relations with the Natives almost from the very beginning. The French did not displace any Natives in the establishment of their settlement and continued to work closely with them in the fur trade. They respected Native territories, their ways, and treated them as the human beings they were. The Natives, in turn, treated the French as trusted friends. (...) The English treated the Natives as inferior, believed they stood in the way of their God-given right to the land in America and tried to subject the Natives to their laws as they established their colonies. The Spanish didn’t have any better relations with the Natives, as they tried to enslave them when they first came to America, and later established missions where they tried to force them to convert from their traditional religions to Catholicism. The Natives did not appreciate any of this. The key to the friendly relations the French enjoyed with the Natives was all in the way they treated them when they first encountered them, and how they continued to treat them afterward. As long as the French maintained settlements in America, they enjoyed excellent relations with each other. For those who have early American French ancestry, or French settler ancestors who married Native Americans, the vast majority of those records can be found in the provincial archives of Quebec (some records there might lead back to France if the settler returned there with his Native American bride). These records provide a fascinating look at relations between Natives and Europeans and show just how different things could have been if all the European people who came to America had been as progressive in their treatment of the Natives as the French were."

So what does that mean ? The sensual French would have gotten in a loving fuckfest with the natives and with their Catholic religion have created a very corrupt nation similar to South American countries ? As it stands now France and America have similar levels of corruption in that neither are NorthWest European or Northern European countries.

[Dick]

So what does that mean ? The sensual French would have gotten in a loving fuckfest with the natives and with their Catholic religion have created a very corrupt nation similar to South American countries ? As it stands now France and America have similar levels of corruption in that neither are NorthWest European or Northern European countries.

Perhaps. Even in Canada it's a well known fact the French mixed with the indigeous population much more than the Anglos but then again the majority of Anglo-Canadians descend from the loyalist cowards that fled your War of Revolution hence why we sound like Muricans.

There's even a distinct group in Canada called the Metis, or mixed race in French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis

[Peterski]

No, I think the French would not mix that much with the Natives, but would just co-exist with them.

[JamesBond007]

No, I think the French would not mix that much with the Natives, but would just co-exist with them.

so, that is important because America would then have more alcoholics or something ?

[TheForeigner]

Only cucks refer to American Indians as "natives" or as "Native Americans" and to American blacks as "African-Americans" or "Aframs" and lets not forget about non-whites referred to as "people of color".

[TheForeigner]

If the French conquered the 13 colonies of Britain, they would have tried to convert to Catholicism the white colonial population there or expel them from the colonies. It would have been a nasty situation. The Anglo-American settlers would have rebelled against French rule and Britain probably would have intervened in this war.

[Peterski]

If the French conquered the 13 colonies of Britain

Scenario we discussed was French "defensive victory" - they do not conquer British colonies, but keep their own, and make British/American expansion impossible.

(...)

I use Natives / Indians / Amerindians interchangeably.