When European settlers first arrived in the Americas, they encountered vast, fertile landscapes and thriving Indigenous civilizations that had lived in harmony with nature for thousands of years. What followed, however, was not a story of mutual respect or shared destiny—it was a brutal campaign of conquest, displacement, and genocide. Scholars estimate that up to 100 million Native Americans perished through violence, disease, and systematic eradication of their culture.
But what if history had taken a different path? What if, instead of trying to dominate, the settlers had chosen to coexist?
Coexistence Was Always Possible
Contrary to many historical portrayals, Native Americans were not mindless aggressors. They were diverse, complex societies with deep-rooted traditions, intricate governance systems, and intimate knowledge of the land. Many tribes welcomed early European arrivals with open arms, offering food, alliances, and guidance for surviving in an unfamiliar environment. The continent was massive, with low population density—there was no lack of space or resources. There was no imminent threat to European settlers. Yet despite this potential for peaceful coexistence, settlers brought with them a vision shaped by European imperialism: land was not to be shared; it was to be claimed, and those who stood in the way were to be removed—by conversion, by displacement, or by death.
Why Did They Choose Domination?
The settlers’ decision to dominate rather than coexist was driven by a potent mix of motivations: the thirst for land and wealth, racial and cultural superiority, and a deeply ingrained belief in the righteousness of their mission. The ideology of “Manifest Destiny” framed their conquest as divinely ordained. Settlers viewed themselves as the bearers of civilization and Christianity, while Indigenous people were cast as obstacles—“savages” who needed to be removed or assimilated. Coexistence required acknowledging the humanity, intelligence, and sovereignty of Native peoples. But colonialism was not designed for equality—it was structured for extraction, expansion, and supremacy.
Survival of the Fittest vs. Survival Through Collaboration
The history of colonization is often rationalized using the phrase “survival of the fittest”, a misapplication of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. In this context, it’s used to justify violence, conquest, and the eradication of the weaker by the stronger. The strongest do not always thrive alone; rather, those who collaborate, adapt, and form mutually beneficial relationships often flourish the most. In the natural world, ecosystems flourish through symbiosis. The bee doesn’t conquer the flower—it collaborates with it. Predator and prey evolve together in a delicate balance. Wolves maintain the health of deer populations; fungi communicate with tree roots to help entire forests thrive. Human beings, too, evolved as social creatures. Our greatest achievements—language, agriculture, art, science—were built not by lone conquerors, but by communities working together. Empathy, trust, and shared purpose have always been stronger forces than brute strength.Choosing domination may yield temporary power. But choosing collaboration builds lasting civilizations. The tragedy is that European settlers, with all their power and potential, chose the former.
A Different Legacy Was Possible
Had settlers seen Indigenous people not as threats but as fellow stewards of the land, North America might have become a beacon of multicultural harmony and ecological sustainability. Humanity as a whole could have taken a leap forward. And perhaps most importantly, by choosing collaboration over colonization, the cycle of generational trauma—slavery, racism, forced assimilation, broken treaties—might have been avoided, paving the way for a more just and peaceful world. We cannot change the past. But we can learn from it. And as we face global crises today—climate change, conflict, inequality—the lesson is clearer than ever: greatness lies not in how much we conquer, but in how deeply we connect. It’s not too late to choose coexistence. It never was.