Probably they don’t.
The European invasion wiped out 97 percent of the population.
Nonetheless, the human sacrifice incidence dropped a bit, post-invasion.
In what is now the East Coast of the United States, for example, the Indians OUTNUMBERED the newcomers until about 1648 ~ that's when a particularly bad winter combined with a slightly higher than normal incidence of several communicable diseases (probably could add in the flu to the situation), boosted the death rate among Indians and Europeans right through the roof.
The big difference between the two groups wasn't natural resistance ~ it was far simpler ~ Europeans could ship in an indefinite resupply of human beings, which they promptly did.
There are a number of good books on the market that cover the American population catastrophe of the 16th and 17th centuries.
You shouldn't blindly accept Leftist poopaganda. It was only 92% at most.
You have to wonder what kind of revulsion they witnessed to cause them to want to wipe most all of them out. They should have, morally before The LORD, witnessed Jesus Christ to them but they seemed like they were propelled by seeing a culture that was so utterly depraved and wickedly blood thirsty that they lost control of their senses and wanted nothing more than to rid the earth of them as quickly as they could.
Others may believe that they had largely different motives but my gut reaction tells me that they couldn't mentally cope with what they witnessed about how the people lived, and how they were ritualistically murdered.
There's a few things wrong with this statement. Calling it a European invasion is the first. There isn't a monolithic European culture as demonstrated by the current EU difficulties. The invaders represented distinct cultures and didn't see themselves as one and the same or even 'European'.
Furthermore, there is a Western bias in considering all 'Indians' as one population. They didn't see themselves that way at all. Instead, they behaved and warred as distinct peoples and cultures and didn't even share languages. The Americas are and were quite diverse with the affected populations geographically limited. Try calling a Mexican a Guatemalan and see the response. The modern liberal term Hispanic is another such contrivance.
Finally, the population numbers of extant pre-Columbian peoples in the Americas varies wildly depending on which 'expert' you consult. These people were dying from disease, famine and war long before Cristobal's 'discovery'. The danger in focusing only on the post-Columbian experience is that it serves to further the Left's agenda. I do understand your perspective and point, but it deserves a clearer picture and more explanation.