To be clear: most of the original claims about historical, prehistorical and then-contemporary indigeneous societies that have survived into the Western cultural canon were written by people who were used to extrapolating from their own cultural and social norms to others and judging everything on a scale that favored them and their social hierarchies. This also bled over into other natural sciences, which is for example why Darwin's theory of evolution was so disruptive.
Another example is how a lot of national mythologies were invented largely out of thin air in the 17th through 19th centuries, e.g. the Scottish clan system with its strict lineages and tartans. Most of the mythology around kilts is pure fabrication.
Even in economics this can be found with the common wisdom that money/currency was preceded by bartering, which we now know to be an oversimplification to the point of being wrong with in-group gift economies apparently having been far more common and bartering being part of diplomacy between separate groups rather than something you'd do with your neighbor.
Arguably this tendency even persisted to the point where the myth of an "alpha wolf" arose based on observations of wolves in captivity that was quickly dispelled after actually looking at wolves able to roam in their natural environment.
If you want to present the Victorian Age as the pinnacle of human development, of course you'll see the "uncivilised" natives as beneath you in every way and after hunting their prey animals for game and destroying their natural resources claim that starvation is just part of their natural experience rather than something you inflicted on them by taking away their livelihoods. Luckily most fields of study have moved away from this antiquated approach but sadly there's a growing call among certain people to "return to tradition" and dismiss this as "woke" nonsense.