I'm reading an introductory textbook, Indigenous Peoples within Canada by Olive Patricia Dickason and William Newbigging, and at the end of the second chapter, the authors claim that "Indigenous Peoples did not fight to gain land or to subjugate others, but rather to protect natural resources, and then later to avenge the fallen."
I found myself not finding this very convincing. They continue with an excerpt from Ojibwe historian Basil Johnston that seems to support their claim. It seems unlikely to me that this would be true, especially with the amalgamation of various peoples into empires and confederacies, seeing as there is evidence of war that includes territorial expansion throughout the world. Did Indigenous Peoples in North America go to war for territorial gain?
There were empires extending from Mexico to Chile. If Mexico is North America then obviously there was territorial conquest. North America at the very least was integrated with the rest of the Americas through various trade networks (see ‘Indigenous Peoples History of the US). Greenland is North America, as well, and the Inuit there took it from the Norsemen by conquest, as some recent archaeological and other evidence shows. In the Caribbean, the Caribs were reported to be fierce conquerors by the settlers but this may have just been propaganda (see ‘A Concise History of The Caribbean’).
But setting side these cut and dry examples of empire or pure conquest surrounding the Americas, the short answer is still, yes, they did.
Some sources to check out are Axtell ‘The Invasion Within’, Richard White ‘The Middle Ground’, Witgen ‘An Infinity of Nations’, Calloway ‘American Revolution’, and Simpson ‘Mohawk Intrerruptus’.
The Mohawk spread by territorial conquest at the same time as French and other settlers. Dutch, French, Spanish and British use of treaties and trade armed various native groups to take over from their Allies. The Iroquois Confederacy would have been called an empire if it existed in Europe. The Comanche also spread through conquest in the Southwest, as did the Cree in the Pacific Northwest. (See https://history.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/u184/aron/borders2.pdf and also see discussions in Wengrow and Graebers new book the Dawn of Everything about various tribes who distinguished themselves from other native conquerors).
A civilization centered on the Hopewell site came to ruin in part climactic and other variables, but conflict both resulted and sped it up as it receded. There is evidence of conflict at archaeological sites from the Gulf to Canada. See ‘Population Decline and Culture Change’ in ‘Beyond Germs’). A previous meta society centered called the Hopewell Culture existed and fell around 500 Ad.
So territorial conflict and conquest definitely played a role in Precolumbian Native life. Settlers and colonists made this much worse, by putting large scale population pressure on groups, forcing them to move into other territories, arming some and not others, spreading disease and accelerating through collapse by preventing population recoupment.
The key point here is that however much territorial conquest or conflict existed it was nothing compared to what the Settlers unleashed. See DS Jones ‘Virgin Soil Revisited’, Ostler ‘Surviving Genocide’, plus the work of Stennard, Tully, Byrd, and others I can recommend if you’re interested).
It’s also important to understand that although Natives could, in fact, understand European notions of exchange and land, they nonetheless did not share them prior to contact. See ‘How the Indians Lost Their Land’. As such, territorial conflict and conquest must be understood in such a light.