Your reference to eskimo attack implies that the Vikings were entitled to displace the local population (if any) and, reflects a strictly Viking/European view. A more balanced view would be "eskimos repelling an invader".
The word attack implies no such thing, although it may suggest who was the aggressor. In addition, your assertion that the attack was an attempt at "repelling an invader" assumes facts you have not presented, and quite frankly, facts you could not have in your possession. Therefore, you're statement is not a "balanced view", but rather a one sided interpretation based on non existent facts and invalid assumptions.
Whatever.
Actually, I did not pass judgement on the merits of an Eskimo attack, since I was not there, and there are no records to describe any conflict between them. But if memory serves, the Eskimos were not present when the Vikings arrived, but migrated in from the north later. If I am mistaken, I invite correction. (Thats what I love about this website; mess up and someone is bound to set you straight).
Studies of Eskimo linguistics suggest that they spread from Siberia, across the Americas, to Greenland, and then later began a reverse migration westward, back across the Americas, and ultimately back to Siberia. The Siberian eskimos of today are direct descendents of Alaskan eskimos that migrated there in the twenties. Again, if memory serves.
Eskimo culture fascinates me.