'Not beggars and thieves...'?

If Dunbar, and this whole movie, seem to insist that the Native Americans had nothing but good intentions, and "weren't the beggars and thieves they'd been made out to be" then how come:

When those kids first heard of him, their first instinct was to try and steal his horse?

You can't say "it's just cause they were kids and were trying to show off" because the men of the tribe did the very same thing the next morning. So their way of trying to make a point is to immediately try and steal Cisco?

The Pawnee ruthlessly and maliciously killed Timmons? Fine, he was a disgusting slob, but he wasn't doing anything to anyone and posed no threat to them, so half a dozen of them surround him and shoot arrows into him?

Stands With a Fists' family was hacked to death by Pawnee, Jason Voorhees-style?

And of course that nice little dandy the night before the buffalo hunt where they've killed some white people and are parading around their scalps and limbs and cheering about it, and Dunbar finds viscera sitting in the wagon. Yup, totally blameless right there. Naturally this scene wasn't in the original theatrical version, heaven forbid there be an objective view come out of Hollywood.

And what's it supposed to mean, after that final battle at the river, that while he was fighting in the Civil War "he didn't know what he was fighting for," but now he did... so it's somehow more noble to fight and kill over food stores for the winter, but when white people are killing each other, it's just pointless and hollow? How about war is immoral no matter who's doing it? But oh no, white people are nothing but evil and mean, and Native Americans were all noble and pure innocence.

That's why I don't like this movie nearly as much as I once did: there's a double standard.