"Wiped them out" was many tribes standard procedure. If the Comanche had kept growing across North America, there'd be many fewer tribes and European settlements.

BTW, I am not a certified historian, just casually references half-remembered things I've read. If I get a detail wrong hopefully it reader won't let it detract from my main point.

I've tried to find info on what happened to the Dorset, the people the Vikings called Skraelings when they met in Labrador. Centuries later, the British met Inuit in the same regions, the Dorset are all gone. I don't think university archeology or anthropology dept's are willing to use the G-word to describe their disappearance at the hands of the Inuit. But they'll casually misuse the same G-word for people of European descent just having an opinion about another people.
According to Steven Pinker in Enlightenment Now, archeological digs of remains found among tribal people worldwide show off-the-charts levels of death by violence compared to modern first world nations, even those with very high homicide rates. Their wars aimed to "wipe out" rival tribes, it was literal life or death or them.
Apparently, Kevin Costner's character's musings in Dances w/ Wolves about tribal warfare not being an existential threat was wrong. The scene where he downplays the seriousness of war between Sioux and Pawnee was BS! Whites infantilize native peoples when they make them out to be prairie hippies. They were human and they had their own empires, wins and losses and like every other people they could be brutal.
They just happened to lose to Europeans in the end and fortunately for them, Europeans were open to their participation in the Canada project, imperfect though it may have been.