I've noticed a theme in this game where when Connor has killed most of the main characters, they've told him how he's naive, how the colonists are going to just screw over the natives, and how "their" side was going to protect the natives.

I'm familiar enough with history to know that the native Americans were treated pretty poorly overall by the U.S. government.

What I don't know is how the British govt. tended to handle "natives". Does anyone here feel comfortable enough to speak to how the Brits might have treated the native Americans differently than the colonials if the war had gone the other way?

I'm mostly curious as to how much of that might have been a reasonable assumption by the game makers based on historical treatment by England, vs. how much of it was just complete B.S. to have some "am I doing the right thing" tension.

Well, there's plenty of examples of how the Brits treated natives in their other colonies. So the answer would be ... about the same as the US Government did. I doubt there would have been any difference at all, in the end. There simply wasn't a huge difference between how the nascent US government viewed natives and the way the British did--they were all from the same class, same schools, same cultural outlook. The colonists were British, after all. The chief difference was that the British still had Britain, so their colonies weren't necessarily right in their backyard. So there was a defensiveness in the US that the Brits didn't have. The Brits might have been a bit more accommodating, but in the end were just as committed to expansion as the US Government was.

It's worth noting that the expansion across the West wasn't something anyone really could have predicted in the late 18th century. It looks obvious in hindsight, but it wasn't at the time. The idea that someone would "know" what was going to happen and make predictions ... well, it's BS for narrative purposes. As far as the Native Americans were concerned at the time, I doubt they were happy with the Americans, Brits, or French banging down their doors.

It's all what-if, though. I'm sure you could make good arguments any which way on this. I still think the safe bet is on all the governments at the time being interchangeable when it comes to the Native Americans.

The British usually just fuck over natives with treaties that mean nothing to them like let us settle on and control your land and enjoy these blankets and guns. Still alot better than genocide.

The British in general treated the American Indians better than the Colonists after the French and Indian War and had they won the American Revolutionary War they would have continued to do so for at least some time. You have to remember that the Seven Years War had all but drained the government financially and the last thing the government (or English citizens for that matter) wanted was more conflict as parliament had decided to tax the English heavily for revenue instead of the colonists. So rather than let the colonists expand westward past the Appalachian mountains which would instigate the Indians they drew a line that was supposed to keep colonists out of the Northwest Territory and the west in general (at least in theory) and hopefully smooth things over between the two groups. Also most of the American Indians sided with the British in the Revolutionary War, so that already says something about who was the lesser evil in their eyes.

@haggis: @Gabriel: Thanks guys for the insights. Of course it makes sense that the colonists would probably treat the natives the way the English would. I also really hadn't recalled the Seven Years War, and how that might effect things.

Seems like the consensus is that the Brits were probably making nice with the indians because they didn't want to chance having another fight on their hands, but would have most likely gotten around to steamrolling them sooner or latter.

Also makes sense what one of the early Templar guys said about wanting to buy the land to protect it, I guess. If they were familiar with how the British govt. worked, they might have forseen that it would only be a matter of time before un-owned land was taken either by force or by totally broken treaties/promises.

I mean if you look at native populations in the US vs. Canada, Canada has the higher population compared to their overall pop; 3.8 vs. 0.9. so I think that says all it needs to.

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

@MikkaQ said:

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

india was more built up though so they had more desire to exploit it rather than the vast expanses of north america.

The British did treat Native Americans, at least those allied with them, better than the colonists did. Not a ridiculous amount, but it is noticeable. If you are interested in learning more about the relationship between colonials and Native Americans I would recommend the book Warpaths by Ian K. Steele.

Simple answer: they both screwed over Native Americans as much as they could.

@Animasta said:

@MikkaQ said:

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

india was more built up though so they had more desire to exploit it rather than the vast expanses of north america.

I don't know, the sheer wealth of natural resources that North America possesses would have driven any empire to exploit as much as possible. I imagine the indigenous Americans would have wanted to keep their territory if they had a real say in things and that would be in pretty direct conflict with England or USA getting those resources either way.

The British largely failed to hold up their end of the bargain with the Native Americans who did side with them in the Revolutionary War, not setting aside lands they'd promised, etc. And while the British had promised to stem the tide of settlement Westward, they hadn't shown any sign to that point of being interested in doing so, even when they were in power. It's unlikely that would have changed had the British successfully held on to the colonies. The coastal tribes who had lived with American colonists the longest sided with them against the British. There was a significantly different attitude toward natives by eastern colonists compared to later colonists spreading west, and different attitudes toward colonists by western tribes toward Americans with whom they had no long-standing ties.

The more significant problem for the Natives was that while both Americans and British initially urged them to stay out of the conflict, eventually both sides negotiated with the natives for support. This split tribe loyalties, and led not only to conflict between the victorious Colonists and those tribes who supported the British, it also led to inter-tribal conflict and war as well.

@jmood88 said:

Simple answer: they both screwed over Native Americans as much as they could.

I think it's a mistake to think that most of what happened to the Native Americans was intentional. Both the British and American colonists thought they were doing the Natives a kindness by bringing trade, education, and Christianity to them. There was a naivete about this attitude that is difficult for modern Americans to understand. Whatever the intent, the result was disastrous for the Natives, and later into the 19th century much of it was deliberate--but based in racial attitudes that didn't really harden until a generation after the Revolutionary War, when expansion tied in with slavery. The intellectual defense of slavery gave cover for treating natives like shit.

Mostly, though, it wasn't a matter of wanting to screw over anyone. It just became easy for later colonists to take advantage of deals made with earlier colonists who were mostly sincere in their dealings with Natives.

The Americans took the land from the Native Americans with guns and blood. Canadians did it with treaties that we then ignored when they worked against us.

As a Canadian, I honestly don't think we did any better with broken promises than the Americans did with violence. I'd rather have fought a war and lost and suffer what comes with it than came to a political agreement that the other side breaks with no impunity. Without conquest, most of the nations of Europe wouldn't exist as they are today.

@MikkaQ said:

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

Shame on the British for bringing in government, English language, modern medicine and Western education. Also when Britain occupy land, we shit on it, make it inhabitable and make it worthless when we give it back. I mean look at Hong Kong, Austrialia, Canada and Singapore.

I mean let's look at Zimbabwe for the truly inspirational benefits of what freedom from British oppression can achieve.

Basically the Americans killed them all, and the British made them sign away everything they owned for empty promises and baubles. Neither was good for them, but at least they lived in one. So yeah, Conner was killing the good guys. But that's no different then the PC actions in the other Assassins Creed games anyway. You've always played the decent man who does what he thinks is right in the short term, but what ultimately are the wrong actions looking at the bigger picture.

The British initially, when they first arrived, tried (but not very hard) to treat them with some respect. However, this didn't last. Colonies tended to grow outwards and the Indians did not share the Colonist's ideas of "land-ownership". To many Native Americans (and to many people today), the idea that individuals could "own" large tracts of land was entirely bizarre to them, and they didn't understand why the Europeans would need to expand and take more and more land. It also didn't help that for the early years of Colonial America, Tobacco was the prime export and the prime money-maker, and Tobacco has a habit of exhausting the soil if it's planted too much. As a result, the tobacco farmers had to get more land because they rendered their own land barren.

Some Brits tried to reach deals with the Native Americans... only for other brits to promptly break those deals. As one Native American chief once said "White men have too many chiefs". Often, the elders of a tribe would reach a genuine deal with a colonel or a general... only for the higher ups to overturn that deal without informing the natives. This sort of thing would happen later with the US Americans.

Now, when the Revolution happened, the Brits made a lot of deals with the Natives, promising them all sorts of things if the Revolution was suppressed. They gave them lots of guns, ammo and supplies. Not all Native tribes allied themselves with the british, but many did. When the British were defeated, a lot of Native Americans were genuinely upset. If you see old-timey photos of Native Americans who were involved in those wars, some of them still proudly bore Union Jack flags in their homes and settlements, even though they were very old. They really thought the British would have given them a better deal.

WOULD the british have given them a better deal? History suggests they would not have been any better off under the British. Given what the Brits did in Australia and India, it's highly, highly,highly unlikely they would have fared any better under a British regime. My gut says that the British alliance with the Natives was just a ploy to get them to fight for them. The Brits were absolute masters at getting other people to fight in their wars. They almost certainly would have broken their promises to the Natives later.

I don't have anything against the British - I'm half-British myself and I like the UK and I am genuinely amazed at how much the UK invented and discovered. So much of our technology and science came from the UK. But I can't deny the conduct or history of the UK either, and History shows that if the British had won... things would not have turned out any differently for the Native Americans.

It is important to note that a lot of that history (and by extension the game) were a direct result of the French-Indian/Seven Years War where winning the war was worth it to Britain (France ceded nearly everything they had in North America to Britain) but the cost was quite high compared to the material gains. For the colonists it was money well spent so of course since it was the French harassing their backyard and they expected to pay taxes to help offset the cost but the problem was Britain didn't bother to ask which taxes. Pushing came to shoving but British couldn't spend so much money again and favored negotiating with Native Americans to either keep them out or come to their side which many colonists saw as a betrayal and justification for some of the abuse that came afterwards.

In other words, many tribes where screwed by France losing and then were screwed a different way when Britain lost.

@Korolev said:

WOULD the british have given them a better deal? History suggests they would not have been any better off under the British. Given what the Brits did in Australia and India, it's highly, highly,highly unlikely they would have fared any better under a British regime. My gut says that the British alliance with the Natives was just a ploy to get them to fight for them. The Brits were absolute masters at getting other people to fight in their wars. They almost certainly would have broken their promises to the Natives later.

I know this looks like a British person getting pissed off with my country not getting enough respect and I'm being overly patriotic. But I think the main reason I'm getting pissed off is because of how fucking badly people can summarize important historical events and completely twist them with a combination of ignorance and just plain laziness.

Look at British colonies over it's history and there is very few examples of corruption. This may sound crazy to some people, but the British wanted to actually benefit from their colonies, not just rape them.

Peoples big example of India being an example of British rule being a negative impact on a country is silly. Sorry, but even though it wasn't perfect, if you actually bothered to find information out, instead of just overhearing shite and spouting it out you would relaise Britain actually did a lot of good for India.

Yes we armed the Seeks in India because it was closer to our religion than the Hindus. But we installed government, modern medicine and education. Established railways and attempted to bring higher hygiene standards across the country. There is arguments that we destroyed the culture of the country, but that just happens. In multi cultural nations, losing ones own cultural identity in favour of a new one, is just a natural evolutionary course in modern society.

There is fucking countless examples of Britain releasing control over colonies peacefully. Singapore, Hong Kong, Zimbabwe, Jamaica the list is fucking huge (obviously we tried to benefit as long as we could from them). The majority of colonies that have been given up is because we couldn't afford to keep control or because an agreement has come to an end. We hold absolutely no power in the common wealth anymore, even though they were all once ruled by British common wealth. Notice, it's the common wealth now and not the British common wealth.

If we want real examples of something raping culture and leaving behind only neglect and suffering. It's actually modern day culture that is doing that. Funnily enough the former British empire was a reasonable and gentle giant compared to the disgusting nature which giant corporations are being run today.

@haffy said:

@MikkaQ said:

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

Shame on the British for bringing in government, English language, modern medicine and Western education. Also when Britain occupy land, we shit on it, make it inhabitable and make it worthless when we give it back. I mean look at Hong Kong, Austrialia, Canada and Singapore.

I mean let's look at Zimbabwe for the truly inspirational benefits of what freedom from British oppression can achieve.

Short of modern medicine, yeah that's fucked up of them to force foreign government structures, western culture and English onto people. It's weird to see that even people today still think of the civilizing mission as noble...

@rebgav said:

@Korolev said:

WOULD the british have given them a better deal? History suggests they would not have been any better off under the British. Given what the Brits did in Australia and India, it's highly, highly,highly unlikely they would have fared any better under a British regime. My gut says that the British alliance with the Natives was just a ploy to get them to fight for them. The Brits were absolute masters at getting other people to fight in their wars. They almost certainly would have broken their promises to the Natives later.

The British Empire would have exploited the people and their land for as much profit as possible for as long as possible. The indigenous people are a resource like any other, often providing very cheap labor, local knowledge and bolstering military forces. Given that the Empire wouldn't view the natives as a threat to its survival and would have recognized the value of pacifying them it's quite likely that the British would not have instituted policies of starvation and genocide. Given a choice of exploitation or eradication, I think the "better" deal is quite obvious.

and there was probably less of a desire (though still one, of course) for manifest destiny.

@MikkaQ said:

@haffy said:

@MikkaQ said:

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

Shame on the British for bringing in government, English language, modern medicine and Western education. Also when Britain occupy land, we shit on it, make it inhabitable and make it worthless when we give it back. I mean look at Hong Kong, Austrialia, Canada and Singapore.

I mean let's look at Zimbabwe for the truly inspirational benefits of what freedom from British oppression can achieve.

Short of modern medicine, yeah that's fucked up of them to force foreign government structures, western culture and English onto people. It's weird to see that even people today still think of the civilizing mission as noble...

So what if it was forced? Your original point was Britain ruins colonies, now your talking hippy shit about it's morally wrong to force culture on to people. That has absolutely nothing to do with your original argument, and your changing the subject because your shity knowledge on the subject is obviously lacking.

@Animasta said:

I mean if you look at native populations in the US vs. Canada, Canada has the higher population compared to their overall pop; 3.8 vs. 0.9. so I think that says all it needs to.

This is a good point in general, but I think this specific instance isn't that helpful. In general, you can look at the treatment of native peoples in Canadian history and compare that to the US for an idea of how things might have been different. However, differences in population makes this specific statistic irrelevant. The population of Canada is about 34 million while the population of the US is around 311 million. Immigration to the US is greater than to Canada (for example, according to the 1990 census, there were 20 million immigrants in the US), so even if the population growth of native populations in the US and Canada was equal, the greater number of immigrants to the US would ensure that native populations are proportionally less int he US.

I give ACIII credit for presenting US history in a more nuanced way than it usually is, but it's important to remember that it's still a video game, and a lot of their information is simplified, anachronistic, or simply incorrect - I could go for days nitpicking about the mistakes they made regarding naval combat. It's not a question of there being a single "American" and a single "British" policy regarding Native Americans. British attitudes and policies changed over time with new situations and new governments, just as they did in America. And the realities of distance and communications delays meant policy set in London or Washington was often distorted or ignored. The game actually makes this point in the Animus database, referencing how William Johnson ignored orders from higher up regarding his land dealings and speculation. Or see in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, how state governments initiated campaigns against Native Americans in order to justify keeping militias at home during the Civil War, rather than sending them east.

Some people have brought up India, although I don't think this is the most analogous situation to the American colonies; Canada and Australia are better examples, as there you have large immigrant European populations displacing much smaller and technologically weaker native populations.

@haffy said:

@MikkaQ said:

@haffy said:

@MikkaQ said:

Well if you want an example of what happens to a country and it's inhabitants when the British keep colonial control for a long time, look at India.

Shame on the British for bringing in government, English language, modern medicine and Western education. Also when Britain occupy land, we shit on it, make it inhabitable and make it worthless when we give it back. I mean look at Hong Kong, Austrialia, Canada and Singapore.

I mean let's look at Zimbabwe for the truly inspirational benefits of what freedom from British oppression can achieve.

Short of modern medicine, yeah that's fucked up of them to force foreign government structures, western culture and English onto people. It's weird to see that even people today still think of the civilizing mission as noble...

So what if it was forced? Your original point was Britain ruins colonies, now your talking hippy shit about it's morally wrong to force culture on to people. That has absolutely nothing to do with your original argument, and your changing the subject because your shity knowledge on the subject is obviously lacking.

My point wasn't that they ruin colonies, they ruin other people's countries. My original point was in reference to the treatment of the indigenous people of America vs. the ones of India. Both were treated like shit by two different empires.

No need to be aggressive and call my knowledge shitty, or hippy-like because you feel some obligation to defend your long-dead countrymen.

@Gooddoggy: true. America still has the larger population of native Americans (2.09 mill compared to like 1.75 mill if I recall correctly). Of course most of those are in the west (and oklahoma), afaik.

Much ignored fact. Before other people even started to settle in the now USA, there was a massive plague that wiped out a large portion of the native people. Just wanted to point that out to everyone that is saying people just came over here and wiped out a entire civilization.

They where not bloody stupid. And at the prime of the tribes (some at war but most really working as a group) they could have kicked boats of the people off of there land with out any prob. They where in a very bad place when British started to send people over here.

They needed help, and thought they would be given that help with trades and what not. That is when they where screwed over.

As to the question at hand.. it does not matter. They where fucked before people ever started coming over.

@Gonmog: people getting sick from diseases was not the only reason the native population is so low, don't be naive.

spanish colonies, instead of doing what the british colonists did, largely mixed with the native american population. I mean Mexico is fairly close in population to the USA, and their native population is estimated to be between 10-14%.

@Animasta: Calling me naive...and you seem to not even have read my post. Good going reading! It's as low today cause of them getting fucked over. If you read my post...you would know...that everything i said happened before the British even got here. They got fucked over, because they had lost so many people to some plague before hand. (Or to be honest...could have been a huge bloody war...i like the plague theory just case it seems to fit a bit more then Vikings or something trying to take over the place)

Bottom line is there numbers where hugely reduced.

Next time....bloody read before you call others naive.

@Gonmog: yes they were in a bad shape

but guess what

so were the tribes in Mexico

They both didn't have protection against the diseases of Europe, but former spanish colonies (and Portuguese colonies I guess) have a higher population of Amerindians than the US or Canada does; Peru has a majority of people of pure Amerindian descent actually. and the ones that aren't pure are usually mixed race between the Spaniards and the Amerindians. All I was pointing out was that you were trying to make the argument that disease was the only reason the population was so low.

@Animasta: Dude....once again i never talked about today and the numbers today. I was talking about before they started getting fucked over by the people that came over here to settle. Stop it. Just stop it.

@Gonmog said:

@Animasta: Dude....once again i never talked about today and the numbers today. I was talking about before they started getting fucked over by the people that came over here to settle. Stop it. Just stop it.

More tribes were wiped out in the British colonies than the Spanish ones by the colonials themselves, rather than the diseases they had. They both had the same diseases, yet one former colony has very small numbers of natives compared to the overall pop, than the other. So there was a marked difference between the colonies (that is all I was getting at you seem to have taken it personally)

@Brodehouse said:

The Americans took the land from the Native Americans with guns and blood. Canadians did it with treaties that we then ignored when they worked against us. As a Canadian, I honestly don't think we did any better with broken promises than the Americans did with violence. I'd rather have fought a war and lost and suffer what comes with it than came to a political agreement that the other side breaks with no impunity. Without conquest, most of the nations of Europe wouldn't exist as they are today.

What? We totally got rid of our Native Americans with broken treaties. The Treaty of Hopewell guaranteed land and protection to several tribes only for it to be pulped so that the Treaty of New Echota could be created which eventually led to us using guns and blood in the Trail of Tears.