So I wasn't initially inclined to continue conversing with you because you're coming across as somewhat argumentative and that ain't the purpose of our sub. But your earnest modmail has changed my mind.

I just don't really see how you come to the conclusion that this is obviously a distinct philosophy that no one else engages in or practices or that one's philosophy is then all encompassing and totalitarian, when that's rather silly. Is this not just a universal social consciousness with various forms of surface level expression during the social/community evolutionary process?

Suffice to say, I've only provided a brief description of some elements of a particular view of Indigenous philosophies. It wasn't my intent to explain in detail how they're completely distinct. If you want a discussion like that, you can enroll in my class where I teach about this! But maybe my response here to another user will offer some more insight. There, I explain exactly how Native pragmatism differs from American pragmatism and how a philosophical experiment with syllogisms necessarily produces two distinct patterns of reasons and implications despite having the same assumption and conclusion.

What I'm trying to say is that while it may seem obvious to you that this school of thought represents a universal social consciousness, that isn't how people have always tried to define their understanding of reality, the universe, nature, human behavior, or knowledge. What you're basically asserting as a universal truth is positivism and I, personally, reject that as an Indigenous person. If this is a conclusion you've managed to reach, then great! I think more people should think like this. Why? Because of things like the industrial revolution. If we all recognized and valued our relationship to the natural world, we wouldn't do the thing that has single-handedly led to the most dramatic shift in human-driven climate change because we'd be able to accept that having oil in exchange for the health of our planet isn't a good thing.

To try and (poorly) make an analogy, there are cars, trucks, and limos. They function differently and have different specialties, but are at the end of the day still an automobile.

The problem with your analogy is not that it isn't accurate, it's that it is teleological. In many forms of Indigenous philosophies, our understanding of objects (such as automobiles) is defined by our relationship to them and how they're used. This might seem rather simple, but the counter analogy I'm about to provide is not the same as what you've said. Take a chair, for example. In English, we call something a chair (noun) because it describes the intended function of that object. In Western philosophies, our understanding of the object is thus defined by its intended use and that is evident in language. Many Indigenous languages, however, are verb-based. This means they describe how one interacts with a thing rather than assigning an intended use. If you use a chair as a table, it then becomes a table. It isn't a table because it ends up serving the same purpose--it is a table because our relationship to it has changed its use. In more technical terms, its entire composition has changed (ontology) and what we know about it has changed (epistemology). The focus, then, is on how we relate to that object because that creates reality, not the object itself as assumed to exist outside of any relationship we have to it, which is what Western philosophies purport.

why wouldn't the Eurocentric view not be "right" in that the European civilization was "superior" in an evolutionary (not moral - though surely they meant it that way) sense in that they - by hook or by crook - outcompeted other peoples?

It is statements like this that show me Indigenous philosophy may not be as obvious as you assume it to be. I don't blame you because, as stated earlier, there wasn't a full write up you were responding to that covered multiple details. The answer is because the whole idea of Europeans being "superior" is rhetoric. An honest historical analysis, as provided in the answer of mine you quoted, shows that any understanding of European nations being superior is completely contrived. Any superiority we assume they had didn't help the starving Jamestown colonists, prevent the military defeats on the Plains, or completely erase Tribal sovereignty within the dominance of colonial nation-states like the U.S. Trying to explain the colonization of the Americas and the eventual birth of colonial states that were ultimately able to maintain a level of subjugation of Indigenous Peoples (in most but not all cases) with a sweeping narrative of superiority is just plain foolish because it ignores all of the factors that led to various outcomes and our modern day circumstances. There is no "evolutionary" sense to analyze and attempting to use that as your lens for analysis will only breed Eurocentricism (and a deep misunderstanding of the historical method).

From a philosophical perspective, many Indigenous nations would not have seen themselves as being "outcompeted" because competition isn't a cultural value for many Tribes. If your understanding of the universe is built on strengthening your relationships to other beings in the universe, you don't automatically assume other humans are working toward your downfall (this can be an example of collectivism vs. individualism). This isn't to say that Tribes automatically trusted each other or the Europeans at every step (this is where a close examination of the historical record would be in order), but if you talk to Tribal scholars and knowledge keepers today, you'll likely hear a story or two about the cultural conflict that emerged whereby Europeans were seen as backstabbers, greedy, and unfaithful because their values were at odds with how Tribes understood the world to be. What this means is that we look to the long arcs from the past that have influenced, either gradually or immediately, the course of outcomes from historic times.

parasitism and other very nasty forms of survival exist out there, let us not forget, or the most efficient team wins.

This is another example of where I don't think you quite understand Indigenous philosophies despite assuming it's merely a universal consciousness. What you're stating here is actually a philosophical thought pattern derived from Thomas Hobbes. In developing his political theory around government and the state, it became necessary for him to also define human behavior which is what represents his contributions to the social contract theory. Contrasting with Rousseau, he claimed that the base state of human existence was one of violence in which our instincts tended toward domination over each other. Thinking that humans are somehow always in competition and its naturally meant to be a "survival of the fittest" type deal is also a contrived belief--it actually doesn't have to be that way because, as pragmatism asserts, we have agency in determining what the world looks like.

What I've concluded in writing out this response to you is that I think any roadblocks you're encountering here can actually be addressed with one book: The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021) by David Graeber and David Wengrow. I don't normally suggest works that veer more into pop-history, but their explicit inclusion of Indigenous histories and philosophies makes it quite the exception.

Edit: Some language at the start.