Americans don't want to mention history, because history has always been the result of burning and looting Indians. Were they complete intruders at first?

The United States reconciled with the Indians and Australia reconciled with the aborigines. . .

You can't look at what people did hundreds of years ago from a modern point of view

Qin Shihuang conquered Baiyue area, and the Mongols of Yuan Dynasty went to the Western Ocean many times. Didn't they bleed? There is also a saying in Mongolia that all men who are taller than the wheels are killed. Fortunately, some people persuaded the Mongolian Khan that people could farm and pay taxes, but they didn't implement it.

If there were no Qin Shihuang and Yuan emperors, would China have such a large territory today? European countries fought n wars to expand their territory. . .

Later, human beings made progress, found that they could develop the economy without aggression, and knew the harm of aggression. That's why they stopped colonization and violent invasion. People always have a process of progress, and it is impossible to achieve their goals in one step.

But now you use a modern point of view to talk about other people's aggression. . . It's like accusing primitive people of eating animal meat raw from a modern point of view.

As the saying goes, European adventurers used this routine when they discovered the new continent and colonized it. Now people have improved it and stopped using it. . . Britain, Spain, Portugal, etc. Which country didn't shed blood in the colony in order to completely defeat the locals? Did the local aborigines give up their land for your development? Do you think it's possible? Of course, it can't be done now, but people didn't expect so many at that time, and the whole world played like this. It's hard to say right or wrong.