Yet another one who knows zero about the history of Native American tribes and spouts pseudo history based stereotype crap from fictional movies and literature from the 60s and 70s, built upon the ignorance of the century before. The usual uniformed view that thinks "Indians" were nothing more than nomadic people who went to and fro with their teepees.
While some smaller tribes like that certainly existed, they also had huge agriculturally based societies with permanent settlements that traded between each other from the Rocky Mountains to the East Coast, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. One of the largest mound built pyramids in the Americas is located in the US.
This is Cahokia that was located near what is now the greater St. Louis area in Missouri. It was probably the largest of such settlements in what is now the US. It's estimated that there were over 500 fully thatched rectangular permanent homes in the main settlement with a potential population consisting of tens of thousands living within in the entire development that sprawled on both sides of the Mississippi River.
image
That palisade (defensive fence) built around that mound and communal area? It was over two miles long. Cahokia in the 1200s, when including all developed land, was as large or larger than any city in Europe at that time. Unfortunately most of these NA societies collapsed in part because of the introduced diseases, helped along by the continuous widespread trade contact between tribes. The specifics of the collapse of Cahokia are still unclear but are likely due to multiple factors. Along with outside disease there is evidence of two massive flooding events as well as the usual problems faced by rapidly growing civilizations of that size such as deforestation and other excessive exploitation of natural resources like hunting game.
This lack of knowledge of what was there before that collapse and the fracturing of these societies recoiling from it is what led to a lot of "common folk" history and popular writing that view these people as "savages" who "built nothing". Only someone who hasn't bothered to educate themselves with what we do know now about what they had accomplished and what they left behind could be this ignorant. This kind of nonsense is generally only pushed as fact when propping up a justification dismissing them and excuse them having been fucked over. (see also Ayn Rand's bigoted self-serving bullshit commentary on NAs)
That they "needed to be saved from themselves" and "didn't really build or own anything" is a load of horseshit. And this in particular ...
In fact, their entire bloodline up until the arrival of whites, was about impermanence, not leaving any kind of permanent mark on the land.
Is so egregiously wrong in that it fails to even acknowledge that the collective of various tribes, their ways of life, and their languages were as diverse as Europe at the time. "bloodline", singular, good grief. This is like referring to the entirety of European peoples using the stereotype of a singular outlying Germanic tribe as the base understanding of the greater whole. All I can say is expand your education on Native Americans beyond what I surmise is Dances With Wolves.
I freely point out my response to the quote is US-centric, just as the original quote is, and that is intentional to refute it within it's own context. However, as Master Red has pointed out above there were many such civilizations throughout the Americas.