Stephen, meet reader Kalisetsi. Kalisetsi believes I oppose Native efforts to resist Euro-Americans. She thinks I dismiss Indian acts of fighting and killing as worthless--literally not worth counting.
Kalisetsi, meet reader Stephen. Stephen believes I support the wanton Native killing of Euro-Americans. He calls this "genocide" by Indians against non-Indians.
You two have polar opposite views of me--views that are so completely contradictory there's no point of commonality. So at least one of you is badly, horribly wrong. I suggest you debate the issue among yourselves and decide which of you it is. Come up with a single, unified take on my position and get back to us with it.
When you've reconciled your mutually exclusive views of me, then I'll let you know which of you has misread and mischaracterized my position. We'll have a big laugh together over your folly. Hint: It could be both of you, so watch out.
While we're waiting for Stephen and Kalisetsi to figure out what I believe, the rest of us can debate the issue. Resolved: That Indian resistance to Euro-American conquest sometimes justified killing civilians as a last resort. Any takers for the "pro" or "con" side?
For more on the subject, see Diplomacy Works, Violence Doesn't.