As far as I can tell, S.A.M.'s ideas about Native Americans (and many other aspects of America besides) are mostly extrapolations/projections of her ideas about other issues (European colonialism, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Holocaust, Apartheid, etc.). Note that she rarely addresses the subject on its own terms, rather than as a rhetorical bludgeon when discussing one of her pet issues (like in this thread).
Predictably, this makes for something of a muddle.
How would you address the subject on its own terms? By dissociating it from all other forms of segregation, ethnic cleansing and colonialism?
You may be interested in a book called "The Geography of thought"
review of The Geography of Thought said:Westerners tend to inculcate individualism and choice (40 breakfast cereals at the supermarket), while East Asians are oriented toward group relations and obligations ("the tall poppy is cut down" remains a popular Chinese aphorism)
Next, Nisbett presents his actual experiments and data, many of which measure reaction times in recalling previously shown objects. They seem to show East Asians (a term Nisbett uses as a catch-all for Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and others) measurably more holistic in their perceptions (taking in whole scenes rather than a few stand-out objects). Westerners, or those brought up in Northern European and Anglo-Saxon-descended cultures, have a "tunnel-vision perceptual style" that focuses much more on identifying what's prominent in certain scenes and remembering it
Does western thinking suffer from tunnel vision?
Are they unable to make holistic connections in thought? Can they simply not see the big picture?