What if British Weren’t the Dominant Colonizers in the New World?

At some risk, I’m going to launch a thought-experiment implying “Yes, Anglo-Americans may have been rotten, but perhaps less rotten than any other potential Colonizers” which some might consider mildly offensive. As my reference source, I will be relying on various wars in History, plus the interesting books “Sapiens” by Yuval Noah Harari (an anthropological look at human expedience), “The World Until Yesterday” by Jared Diamond, and “The 11 Nations of the United States” by Colin Woodard (a look at premises and developments of different American regions).

What the US might’ve looked like in an “equal opportunity” colonization where everyone was mostly fair and nice?

There are software games that launch a society based on various premises (ie Golden Rule vs Iron Rule, Communism vs Capitalism, etc). What is interesting is that the “initial conditions” seem to determine the fate of a culture hundreds of years after. The British may have succeeded in spite of themselves. Though they were better organized than the rest, they often fought internally (witness the Roundheads vs Cavaliers, American Revolution and Civil Wars, mostly British against British). This may actually have been an advantage, a kind of correcting mechanism that the other cultures lacked. It all led to a new concept called “Nationhood”, which perhaps increased overall capabilities of diverse people to coexist (through Democracy and Capitalism). Jared Diamond argues that Nationhood…