Right, they were essentially stone age people who slaughtered, tortured, and conquered each other for thousands of years before Europeans even arrived.
And the Europeans, who had, on the backs of the Hittites, much better technology for slaughtering, torturing, and conquering, and a few thousand years of practice of their own at doing so for patches of land, dominion, and resources, not to mention mere ideas, came here and continued their practice, egged on eventually by the Darwinian notion of superiority in technology meaning we were a more advanced species.
The notion of counting coup was lost on the Europeans, but a source of renown among the natives. Literally, whacking your enemy with a stick instead of killing them meant closing to arm's length to do so.
Not particularly taking a side, but for all their being 'civilized' we of European stock were just better at doing slaughtering, torturing, and conquering on a larger scale, and continued practice and to develop technology for doing so.
For just a few high points, some before, some after the Indian Wars of the American West:
The Crusades
Borodino
Waterloo
Gettysburg
Shiloh
The Wilderness
The Somme
Stalingrad
Leningrad
Dresden
The Bulge
Okinawa
Tokyo
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Donbas
We have refined the art of killing each other, but does doing so pushing a button make us better than those who would engage in combat face to face?
