Why does it even matter who was "evil" and who wasn't? The fact remains that one party killed off the other. It seems clear that among the killers there were some "evil savages", but of course not every European was evil. It doesn't even make sense to think in such generalizations. However, if some actions were ordered by "the state", then it seems to me to make sense to hold "the state" responsible for it. Whatever kind of entity the state is - of course not everybody in the state endorses it's actions, but they still benefit or suffer from it. I suppose you can not hold a soldier in a war responsible for killing, because he was ordered to do so and presumably had no other choice. But that doesn't validate wars - and if said soldier later lives on the farm of the person he killed, it seems fair to ask some questions.<p>I don't think in modern times if you murder somebody, the court will be very interested in whether the victim was a good or a bad person.<p>Also I have to admit I still don't understand what you are going on about - if the European invaders where not evil, ruthless and completely without moral compunction, how were they capable of doing the killing? (The ones who did, let's assume not everybody participated). Who did the killing?