I’ve found a case of recorded genocidal conflict (“with intent to exerminate opposing tribe”), but it was obviously postcolonial (because there are basically no records of precolonial history). I’ll note that both sides were supplied by respective colonial powers, so it could very well be considered a proxy war; however the conflict was waged by the tribes themselves, at their own will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

We can’t forget that since the population density of America was much lower than in Europe, it’s hard to compare conflicts apples-to-apples. Killing 10 individuals in a small tribe/village could exterminate nearly 10% their population; a number that would be considered devastating, quasi-genocidal if it happened between european powers.

As for your second point, it brings up a problem I have with your general argument. You argue that Indigenous conflics can be forgiven since the individuals had “no interest in waging a multi-generational genocide”. I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in “waging a multi-generational genocide”; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.

(That being said, I acknowldege that systemic racism is still a very big problem today where I live, and I give my vote to whoever can reduce it the most)

At what scale does a genocide become bad enough to deport everyone? Without written history, it’s hard to say exactly how pre-colonial conflics in North America played out, but I’ve found a few sources that suggest that inter-tribe warfare can be just as bloody as any other war (as far as the technology allowed, of course). “Skirmishes between tribes” is quite an understatement.

As if indigenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother. Send all of humanity to Africa and let the squirrels and birds take back their land while we’re at it.