Nay, settler colonialism

I think the claims about the U.S., Canada, Taiwan, and Singapore having settler colonialism, and the idea that later victims were once perpetrators, are very "hypocritical." Why? Because these academics are looking at the world with a "double standard"!

Take the UK, Korea, and Spain... Can you find any place on Earth without issues of settler colonialism? If you can, other than the Amazon, it's only because the indigenous people there have already been wiped out! After the extinction of the local indigenous people, some left historical records (like the Celts), but I think most didn't even leave a trace. On that note, only the Basques are the indigenous people of Spain, but not the Spaniards. The Korean Peninsula has had human traces since the Stone Age, and the current Korean people also migrated there later. When they migrated, did they "get along peacefully"?

I'm not against examining the colonization and transgressions of settlers, but please don't turn a blind eye to the "much earlier" and "unrecorded" pasts everywhere else in the world, treating them as if they never happened, just absolving them and declaring them innocent!

Honestly, even the indigenous peoples of Taiwan didn't all arrive at the same time. What do you think happened between the "indigenous" people who arrived later and those who were already there?

Conflicts constantly happen during human migration, driven by the struggle for resources and ambition. This is humanity's original sin. Using a double standard to scrutinize only a few places makes me sick to my stomach.

And this kind of double standard is just as hypocritical as their view on language names. Is there any place in the world with a single ethnic group and a single language? Why is it okay for the Italian language to be called Italian, Vietnamese to be called Vietnamese, and Balinese and Chinese to be used as language names, but Taiwanese has to be renamed Taiwanese Hokkien? Double standard! Hypocrite!