Don't give me that bullshit that the Sioux were "just" at war. The Sioux were out to wipe out other tribes, aka extermination. That's why they chased the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikira 3/4 of the way across the state. That's just in ND. There's some members in this forum whose tribes got slaughtered by the Sioux and pushed out of their home land.
Aren't you from the Fund Du Lack band?
Nah i'm Fort Sill Apache and Mississippi Choctaw, one of those tribes historically being (or having become tbh) an order of magnitude more warlike than the other.
But there's a distinction here I think you're missing, and that's ok. Now, take a few different "sioux" bands, any will do. Some of them, historically, were much much more conflict oriented than other tribes for a variety of reasons. It's not too far of a stretch imo to view that tribal grouping, generally speaking, as forming into an almost mini empire of its own prior to westward expansion by whites. This was accomplished through the introduction and extreme mastery of both guns and in particular horses, making them capable of driving out any and all other tribes that could possibly compete for resources (especially bison). But if you're convinced that the
point was to wipe out other tribes
simply because they existed, you'd be wrong- even if the conflicts were extremely violent and resulted in large loss of life, villages being razed, tribes diminishing or vanishing. Such behavior isn't 100% unknown on this continent prior to euro contact (even in that region) but
broadly speaking, it was introduced. That kind of soup-to-nuts extermination was basically new for most tribes. For white society (again, broadly speaking)
the very idea of an indian was often completely intolerable, and I do mean the idea itself. If physical extermination couldn't be accomplished, which was risky and harder to swallow morally, then culturally they had to be fundamentally eradicated in many cases.