One need only ask these questions.
Where was "native American" society headed, when the European's came here.
What was its level of "living"? Subsistance.
What was its organization? Tribal, chiefdoms.
What was its inter-tribal associations? Constant territorial conflicts.
What was the status of slavery? Practiced by most tribes with slaves seen as legitimate bounty from a succesful raid on another tribe.
What was the standards of education? Oral, and life experience; no written language with any tribe.
What was the standards of trade and industry? Raw materials, craftwork from animal skins and plants, no industrial or pre-industrial level of tools or tool use for "maufactures".
In other words, particularyly with no written language, the meeting of the Europeans with most native American tribes was never possible to be "favorable" to the tribes, because they lacked most anything with which to advance, other than acquiring the advancements that the Europeans brought; in other words, by assimilating with the Europeans.
This guilt ridden Mr. Jensen seems to not realize that all human progress - whether in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America or Africa - throughout all time has included the gradual increase of successful populations and the assimilation of other populations. In fact, most any Ethnic group in Europe or Asia today can not claim to be the "original" inhabitants of the area they appear to be a majority in today, with only a few exceptions.
This guilt ridden Mr. Jensen attempts to place modern sensibilities on a situation where he pretends that such sensibilities were active in the "native" populations and not active in the European populations - noble, caring, peaceful, etc., etc., etc. Mr. Jensen ignores that the entire world in the past, among all peoples, including "native" Americans, did not have the sensibilities with which he judges the Europeans of the 16 and 17 hundreds.
His biggest slime against Europeans, just like that professor Ward Churchill, has to do with the actual and extensive reduction in "native" populations due to disease, diseases that the Europeans brought with them, diseases the Europeans had much better immune defenses for and the "native" Americans did not. The diseases and the immunities came from the European periods of massive plaugues, which had not taken place in north or south America. And yes, a very many "native" Americans caught ill from simple contact with Europeans and died. Part of that truth though is the fact that the majority of those deaths accured early, spread quickly and spread far and had done most of the genocidal level of damage before major colonization began.
Just think of how fast they predict that the "bird flu" could spread today if they cannot produce antidoets for it.
The slime part is that the revisionist history of this aspect is written as if some secret cabal in Europe sought to intentionally eliminate the "natives" here by intentionally bringing European diseases here. It completely ignores the level of understanding about diseases in general and the total lack of understanding, at the time, about how one could have or not have immunities to disease. It happened, but no one sought to make it happen, no one brought disease to north America as a weapon.
Again I will cite survival of the fittest. We built up immunity to that which could kill us. US as humans. Not us as different nationalities.
Somehow Darwin evolution theory is good but health science is bad.
We can quantify the potential threat from a spreading virus like AIDS or the bird flu.
Too few are willing to acknowledge the danger posed by mental sicknesses such as socialism, antiAmericanism, homosexuality, and general self-loathing.
What this man preaches in his idiotorials is a poison that continues to spread and infect those susceptible.