lol of course it would be and it would be full of indians aswell
2006-10-22 16:28:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by neil c 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are not that many 'non-white' countries that were not invaded by 'white' people at some point in time in the past. I can think of Thailand.
Thaliand today, is fully integrated to the world economy and is a rapidly developing economy although it suffered during the recent Asian financial crises. Also it has suffered a few coups in history.
The main way Thailand managed to avoid being invaded was by having strong and able kings and by playing the invaders against each other. So, if the USA would have remained 'un-invaded', I guess it would really have had to be united with able leaders, playing the Spanish in the South off against the British/French in the North.
The USA would then have been able to develop their own trade and agriculture, making better use of resources such as the American Buffalo and agricultural products. I guess stewardship of natural resources would have been better.
The way the country would have developed would have been via the mineral deposits, especially gold. That's the big difference that the USA would have had with Thailand, the presence of huge natural resources, gold, oil... I think this would have given the USA an advantage earlier on over what Thailand has achieved, and that means that the USA would have, by today, been far ahead of Thailand.
Therefore I would disagree with your statement; the USA has enough natural resources (esp gold) which would have led to development via importation of foreign technology early on in its history, and that with the availability of other resources, inclusing oil, would have made the USA more developed than a third world, or even a rapidly developing nation such as Thailand.
It would also be interesting to think of this impact on South and Central America. Without US conglomerates profiting from their resources, the decline of the Spanish Empire would have left strong and developing nations in South America earlier on, and even South and Central America economies are likely to have been better off than they are now.
2006-10-23 03:47:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by ekonomix 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The USA were never invaded, neither by Europeans or other.
The place/land where USA was formed was invaded by Europeans, Spanish, French, English, Irish, Scottish.
We can believe that area would be invaded by some people more developed and more numerous.
There are other similar cases, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
But in Africa the history is different. Most part of Africa was invaded by Europeans and they are not developed countries now.
It is a matter of native people, resources, climate, etc.
My conclusion: the" USA" would never be a third world country.
2006-10-23 13:31:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by alcáçovas 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
its a lot, lot more complicated.
for example, prior to europeans, people did not have this idea of the USA. people in (what is now) ohio fought wars with people is new york, etc. so, i would argue there never would've been a USA.
also, if Europeans didn't come from the west, sooner or later Asians were going to come from the east. Japan had a formidible navy in the early 1900s (remember that war with Russia) and they could have easily turned the west coast into Japan #2.
2006-10-22 23:25:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would think so. But it will be one heck of a place to live though. It will be all filled with natural scenic sites and wild lives.
People who originally lived here respects the nature and animals on this continent. They lived within the nature and not try to change it for the industrial purposes.
I would expect the beauty and the abundancy of wild lives will be way more than anywhere else on Earth if European did not come and colonize it.
2006-10-22 23:24:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a very interesting question which I can't answer but I'd just like to clarify for the others. I think 'colonised' would be a better word.
What if the Europeans had never colonised the Americas?
2006-10-22 23:25:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Gordon S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No it is the European invader who would be third world countries now!
2006-10-23 14:38:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by seesunsuf 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Look at the resources that North America has. Especially the agricultural.
2006-10-22 23:25:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by R S 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Discovering the USA is not the same as invading it!
2006-10-22 23:28:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Gary H 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
well the people would all be darker skinned natives, no blacks or whites. but there's nothing to say whether or not they would've developed without the europeans, personally I'd say they would.
2006-10-23 00:28:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by fae 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not sure. That would be something to ask an anthropologist whose speciality is in ancient America.
2006-10-22 23:21:16
·
answer #11
·
answered by chrstnwrtr 7
·
0⤊
1⤋