I agree with your stance in the sense that it focuses on the basic behavior of humans. I perceive this as an acknowledgement of the fundamental nature of power within the human brain, and its ability to damage others. From this standpoint, it is true that all humans have potential to dominate, as you express.
But at some point, this statement becomes an excuse for the oppressor in its form of generalization. The fact of the matter is that Europeans DID dominate, not that everybody else might have given the same extrinsic situation (good nutrition, less disease, etc). The actual facts must be central: Europeans dominated, and they did so on a global level, a fact that is unique from the standpoint of historical reality (not just potential.) That is, regardless of the fact that any other group, such as the Turks, may have justified world dominance through claims of ‘superiority,’ only one group ACTUALLY DID. Europeans. And, as a result, most of the human race has suffered to some extent in the interest of pulling resources to that 10% which is European or white.
The behavior of Europeans from this standpoint was unique in (at least) 3 different ways when compared to conquest of the past: 1. Global; 2. Focused specifically on anti-blackness as a comparison point to create the superiority of white, which was expressed on a global level; 3. Included the TransAtlantic Slave Trade, unique in the history of slavery due to its global quality and the massive, worldwide lie required to buttress it: White supremacy. The invention of ‘race’ as a codified concept is a unique result of European self-serving attribution in the form of the lie called ‘Manifest Destiny.’
Europeans as a group collectively took a lot of extrinsic, environmentally-based luck and named it God-given, intrinsic superiority. This sort of self-serving attribution — even at this extreme — is typical of the human brain, as you express. But the bottom line is the actual commission of these crimes, who benefits (not just through action but through passive acceptance of the status quo), and what to do to fix the problem, not whether or not all of us as human would have acted the same way given the opportunity.
Do all men go to trial because one committed rape and another watched, enjoying it, just because all men have the capacity to rape? Or, do we only hold those accountable who took that power and used it?
There is a difference between potential and reality, and it may be the biggest difference of all.