"European" or "asian" seems to be as big of a monolith than native american and yet it's a convenient term and in many cases it's not offensive.
I don't see why "native american" has to be euro-centric. They are the people that were living before the europeans (and middle-eastern, asians and africans) arrived. Those are also american now (as in: they are now citizens of a nation in the american continent), but I think we can distinguish the original population as "native".
On the other hand I (personally, as a mixed race native american, I know other people don't mind) quite dislike the term "indian" as it stems from a confusion that europeans had many centuries ago...and somehow they haven't bothered to correct it?
This tone isn't helpful and it's not the tone we expect in hacker news.
Additionally, the parent commenter talks explicitly about genocide, not wars. And I don't think the particular displacement you're talking about compares to systematic displacement and genocide in some cases of the native americans
I don't see why "native american" has to be euro-centric. They are the people that were living before the europeans (and middle-eastern, asians and africans) arrived. Those are also american now (as in: they are now citizens of a nation in the american continent), but I think we can distinguish the original population as "native".
On the other hand I (personally, as a mixed race native american, I know other people don't mind) quite dislike the term "indian" as it stems from a confusion that europeans had many centuries ago...and somehow they haven't bothered to correct it?