Instructions In history it is easy to look back and select something and be outr

Instructions
In history it is easy to look back and select something and be outraged over treatment in the past. Some of these issues are far more complex than anyone really wants to know, including those who study it. The war with the Native American tribes in the second half of the 19th Century (1800s) is one such example.
In Historian Stephen Ambrose’s work Crazy Horse and Custer he pointed out the Anglo Americans continued to do to the Native Americans what has been done to people since the dawn of humanity, the stronger, more technologically savy societies advance and push the weaker foe off the land. This had not changed since the dawn of time. As an example all Europeans from all the nations of Europe have a genetic connection that is culturally and nationally different from other Europeans for only for about 1000 years. If a Greek takes pride that they decended from the ancient Greeks, well genetically every European also decends from the ancient Greeks, along with many in North Africa, and vice versa. So pushing people out is not new. In the future it may be different kind of pushing out. Think of the tech savvy getting ahead and in many ways becoming the superiors of those who don’t understand it.
Ambrose then posed a difficult thought to the modern reader about the war on the Great Plains. Which was right, to leave the native tribes alone and let the 250,000 people inhabit the land knowing they were not going to change their ways? Preserving them. Or for the land to be developed to produce food whereby the Great Plains now feeds over 1.5 billion people a year. The development of the Great Plains has helped end famine in the world and has been a benefit to people in other societies all around the globe. If we look back in history the cost of feeding the world was the destruction of these tribal societies. Now what is the morally right answer?
In about 250 words What is the right solution?