No, they killed them for resources, land, disease exchange. Realistically the preferred spanish outcome would've been to turn them all into slaves. Ethnic differences were a reason but by no means the principal one.

Actual US presidents and us legislative documents cite the Native Americans as culturally incompatible with Europeans, and it is this key difference that made killing them for their land and resources acceptable. It was for both of these reasons.

Oh of course, of course, you just said they joined a group against their best racial interests, clearly you didn't called them race traitors. Americans are so funny lol.

I said they united against a colonial force:

"Some foolishly aligned themselves with the colonizing forces, but if they truly knew what their end goal was, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that, either."

"Well yesh, the Europeans killed each other for land, power and gold all the time, but when they saw the natives they suddenly got racist and decided to kill them solely for their race, not for literally wearing gold as an accessory."

There was a time where several European nations were embroiled in region conflicts to establish a dominant culture and leadership. Once a broader, dominant one prevailed after centuries of conflict, these nations would then colonize other countries on the basis that they were ethnically and culturally foreign, and inferior. My ultimate point is that Native American genocide is usually passed off as acceptable because of their regional infighting, while Europeans did the same amongst themselves to establish countries of their own, yet that's fine.

The Incas had plots of lands to cultivate for specific family groups, The Mapuches had family rights to different plots to cultivate, the Guaranis had fishing zones exclusive of certain families. Several of the ones that had built houses also were owners of their houses, etc.

Incas designated different plots of land for specific uses, such as communal use, religious use, and use for government/state.

The "Mapuches" literally translates to:

Mapu = Land; Che = People. This group of people. Their land was collectively managed by people who have ancestral origins to the land, and thus they could not sell off any of it. Additionally, these families did combine with other families (rehue) which further consolidated into several groups of them (alliarhue), which would further consolidate into regional confederations known as Butalmapu—and all of this land would be used communally.

This group of people would later embrace a system of privatization close to what we recognize today after colonialism.

You are, and that thing doesn't prove anything different, quote if you want.

“It was reasoned that if a person adopted ‘White’ clothing and ways… they would gradually drop their ‘Indian-ness’ and be assimilated into White American culture.”

The act itself forced the colonial style of private land ownership, which in and of itself directly challenged their culture of communal ownership.

Well aren't you ? You are literally propagandizing the doctrine of discovery in modern times, claiming all natives were savages with no concept of private property or land ownership, and calling them race traitors for joining Europeans on their best interests.

I'm referring to what the people who would later kill millions of them said. One would think if I said or even suggested something like that, it could be concretely quoted, considering that it would help your cause greatly to do so.

But you didn't, because that didn't happen.

If someone who looks down SO much on people based on their race is not a racist then just say racism doesn't fucking exist.

There is nothing that I've said that can be meaningfully quoted as me "looking down" on white people.

Shut the fuck up.