Well, it’s trying to find a set of standards that are equally applied to everyone no?
If I kill someone and call it “self-defense” and someone else kills someone under the same circumstances and I call it “murder” that doesn’t make sense does it?
But this thread is not about other people, I haven't said that it was ok if Spanish or some indigenous people's were carrying out violence or just the British carried out violence.
I have made a statement that the British Empire is absolutely / objectively bad - what's the comparison aiming to do?
I'm trying to connect the dots in a logical way. How else does one arrive at a logical conclusion?
You seem to draw a distinction between the British conquests (which you refer to as "land theft") and the native conquests (which you do not label as "land theft") and I'm trying to figure out why.
You seem to be fall for the myth of the "noble savage"[1]. The myth is basically that before the white man arrived, the natives lived in some "natural, uncorrupted" form of life that was inherently superior. This is a myth.
At least with some native American Indians, conquests involved things like rape, slavery and the murder of non-combatants. And warfare not because of some dire need for resources, but rather just for conquests sake.
So I would argue that what the British did is not exactly unique (except for the breadth of it) and thus doesn't deserve a label of "land theft" unless you're willing to apply that with any type of conquest and in that sense, it's a pointless distinction.
If I kill someone and call it “self-defense” and someone else kills someone under the same circumstances and I call it “murder” that doesn’t make sense does it?