Writing is literacy.

No, it's not. See reference earlier in the thread.

the tribes in what is now the US did not have agriculture before the arrival of whites, so no civilization.

Another falsehood.

if you made judgments 3000 years ago, let alone 5000 years ago, your conclusion regarding white people would not be favorable at all.

It would change nothing. At any point in time back as far as archeology has found evidence all the other areas were far more advanced. It was certainly true 3000 years ago as exemplified by that sword for instance.

I don't want to ignore all other factors for my pet explanation that just suits me really well.

Ignoring evidence is absolutely what you're doing. Pretending civilizations all started in a few places instead of all over, ignoring evidence of writing, building, agriculture, qualitative evidence you can see with your own eyes, and so on. Drawing false equivalencies like from small islands only seen from ships to explain whole continents.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you've presented no counter evidence that it's not a duck. But you're very certain it's not a duck - or more accurately that it's only partially a duck??

I could explain it for you if you're at all interested, but I think you're just interested in 'proving' negative claims about one group. That seems to be the only explanation that you'll accept.

Yeah I'm sure you do feel like you could explain it. And yet somehow you won't, will you?

I asked you for evidence that contradicts my contention of all other peoples being "far advanced" and you came up with nothing. I've supported my argument with references and examples, you've not done so while making some demonstrably false claims. And yet somehow you feel like you're operating from evidence and rationality. Well I'll be waiting for that illuminating explanation that makes so much sense to you.