This is actually a claim my father had; that the battles fought between North American tribes are no different to the expansion of the 13 colonies into Western America. A sort of, "they did it too, we just did it better" argument. I had my own response but I felt it lacking and was hoping for a more detailed explanation.
Forgive me if this has been asked before. The terms 'Native American' and 'colonization' end up together frequently on this subreddit so I wasn't able to find a related answer.
There's a few ways to address this question. First, we need to recognize that contrary to popular belief, there were millions of people living in North America when Columbus arrived in the Caribbean in 1492 (I actually answered a question about Native American populations right here that you can read for more info on that). While historians disagree on the exact number of people who likely were alive during this period, there was absolutely a large number of people there and North America was fully-populated with a diverse number of people with their own languages, customs and societal order. My issue with "they did it too" argument, is that no matter which way you position the argument, all of North America belonged to the Native Americans, and practically all of North America was conquered by force. Some historians have reasonably argued that its unfair to use the "they did it too argument" because, for the most part, they were trying to reclaim lost land.
One of the most important elements that are often forgotten by people who make this argument is that many tribes across the North American continent made hundreds of treaties with European settlers. English, soon to be American settlers were notorious at breaking these treaties. A good example of this can be seen with colonial violations of the Proclamation Line of 1763. (I mention this specifically because you are referencing the 13 colonies and not, necessarily, early America, the nation, itself).
The Proclamation Line of 1763 was a boundary line that the British imposed on colonial expansion in order to honor a treaty made with North American tribes who sided with then during the French and Indian war. The Proclamation Line forbade any expansion by white settlers out west, into areas like the Ohio Valley, where Native American tribes had already been pushed back too. This was in accordance with a treaty shared between Native Americans and Great Britain in order to gain their cooperation during the war. Great Britain also set up and manned a series of forts along this boundary line to prohibit westward expansion, which was quite expensive. The paying for these forts and the manpower to man them was actually a justification factor used during the taxation acts against American Colonists during the 1760s and 1770s.
The Proclamation Line however, was largely a failure. Many settlers, especially American gentry were offended at this line, that they viewed aimed to cap on their potential wealth. With the exception of a few houses that were burned by the British against people who had moved passed the line, settlers largely got away from expanding passed it. This caused new tension between Native Americans and colonists, leading to increased fights between the two.
This situation is just one of over 370 examples of where Native Americans acted on good faith with the British, colonists, or American people, only to be betrayed shortly there after. This left millions of Native Americans on the defensive, forcing them to try and fight to keep the land that they were repeatedly promised. This got even worse for them during the 19th century, where American western expansion seized almost all Native land by the end of the century. So again, it's not fair to say "they did it too" when they were largely on the defensive the entire time and Anglo-Americans were constantly on the offensive.
Edit: I realize that I misunderstood the initial question, thinking the "they too" argument was refering to wars between colonists and Natives, not Natives against Natives. So I expand on this below.
Yes, conflict between Native American tribes existed before Europeans arrived in North America. Skeleton remains dug up in the Great Plains region indicate that occasional battles took placehere dating back to at least 250 BCE through 900 CD, but fighting intensified after the 13th century. It's also worth noting that prior to the 13th century, fighting between tribes appears to be very rare.
13th century warfare intensified in the Great Plains region between several tribes that controlled the area. An example of some of the brutal aspects of Native American warfare was discovered by the uncovering of a mass grave, known as the Crow Creek site where the bodies of over 400 adults and children were buried. However, archaeological evidence suggests that fighting between tribes in the pre-Columbian era was still much less frequent than what happened after Europeans interacted with them. It's also worth mentioning that warfare west of the Rocky Mountains was much more uncommon than what I just wrote about in east. Historians have generally said armed conflict west of the Rockies was limited, even "negligible," to say the least. Here, Oxford University's study into Native American Warfare said:
Unlike the Plains and the Eastern Woodlands, pre‐Columbian warfare was almost negligible west of the Rockies. Northwest Coast, Columbia Plateau, and Arctic peoples tended to express violence at a personal level rather than between more elaborate political entities. Ceremonies often resolved conflicts between groups; rituals such as ceremonial gaming and the potlatch—a gathering at which the host acquired honor and privilege through the distribution of goods—allowed individuals peaceably to acquire prestige and leaders to compete for the allegiance of followers, and minimized warfare in the northwestern quadrant before the arrival of Europeans.
As can be expected, warfare between tribes increased after the arrival of Europeans to North America in the 16th century. The introduction of more deadly weapons and horses that Native Americans traded for with Europeans were part of the driving force behind this. During the colonial period and into early America, we do know that there was inter-tribal warfare that impacted areas of North America. In particular, the Great Plains region saw a significant warfare between tribes between the 18th and 19th centuries. A large part of why there was increased conflict between tribes by the 19th century was a fight over resources, especially hunting grounds that were now severely limited due to American Westward expansion.(1) This isn't to say that the presence of Europeans were the only cause of conflict, but it certainly added pressure to resources that were severely limited due to tribes having been displaced.
To address /u/AwesomeDracula's follow up question:
What's fundamentally different between a Native territorial expansion and a colonial one?
Two major things stand out. The first is that fighting among Native American Tribes in the west was practically non-existent and in the east, was on a much smaller scale than what they would experience after the arrival of Europeans. The second, is that due to the expansion of Europeans, Tribes were forced to fight each other for their own survival, something that likely would not have happened, at least not in that way, had Europeans not moved west.
In addition to the good answer that u/uncovered-history left here, I'd also point you to these two posts by u/snapshot52 that get to another issue about the difference between native wars and American colonization: namely, that the American colonization of what's now the US was built on genocide (or, rather, genocides) of native tribes.
and