I almost think it is more racist to say the Native Americans we weak, unintelligent, taken advantage of, and were "conquered" so easily, and then imply that it required the benevolence and assistance of "rogue" conquerors to allow them to survive.
History of Conflict = Economics: Rationing of finite resources. The way we tend to ration these resources is war.
Killing and conquering has been part of civilization since, well, it started. Two warring groups of people would fight each other over something; whoever won got it. None of them were "fair" fights between equal forces, but not always did the strongest and largest win. It is how all the "great" ancient empires were built, and most "modern" nations in Europe and Asia formed. The Native Americans were doing the same thing across the pond; costal natives had a very well defined concept of property ownership/territory. Europeans arrive and the saga continues on an intercontinental scale; and the Europeans won.
History of Conflict = Economics: Rationing of finite resources. The way we tend to ration these resources is war.
Killing and conquering has been part of civilization since, well, it started. Two warring groups of people would fight each other over something; whoever won got it. None of them were "fair" fights between equal forces, but not always did the strongest and largest win. It is how all the "great" ancient empires were built, and most "modern" nations in Europe and Asia formed. The Native Americans were doing the same thing across the pond; costal natives had a very well defined concept of property ownership/territory. Europeans arrive and the saga continues on an intercontinental scale; and the Europeans won.