The sentences in question are:

Conversely, in 1969, Francis Paul Prucha argued that Jackson's removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the extremely hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence. Similarly, Remini claims that, if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been totally wiped out, similar to people such as the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett.

Is this considered a legitimate stance to hold today? I know Remini from his book "Andrew Jackson and the Bank War" and he didn't strike me as being particularly biased in his representation.

I just feel uncomfortable with what might be a mild form of genocide denial, and any further context on the native removal act would help.