In 418, [Western Roman emperor] Honorius rewarded his Visigothic federates by giving them land in Gallia Aquitania on which to settle ... and eventually were invited into Spain by a Roman usurper in the autumn of 409 .... This was probably done under hospitalitas, the rules for billeting army soldiers. The settlement formed the nucleus of the future Visigothic kingdom that would eventually expand across the Pyrenees and onto the Iberian peninsula. That Visigothic settlement proved paramount to Europe's future as had it not been for the Visigothic warriors who fought side by side with the Roman troops under general Flavius Aetius, it is perhaps possible that Attila would have seized control of Gaul, rather than the Romans being able to retain dominance.
I am introducing that complexity. It is the article that omitted it to tell a simple bad guys oppressing good guys tale.
> 1492 Spain as such didn’t exist. The Moors invaded the Visigoths! It was no more a rightful invasion that what the Visigoths themselves did when Rome fell.
So you should have no trouble or qualms justifying the colonization of the Americas or India using that same logic, correct? It's strange how fluid and complex identity is in some cases, but straightforward in others. The Alhambra decree wasn't passed by "Spain" either, but by Castile and Aragon, yet we have no trouble drawing a line between these entities, at least when we want to assign blame.