Since India's civilization preceded that of England's by a millennium or so, obviously not. What I was saying, fairly clearly I thought, was that Americans killed the people whose land they 'conquered', whereas England, imperialists extraordinaire, built schools, improved agriculture and manufacturing, etc. etc. etc. Not minding killing quite a few thousand in the process as well, most assuredly. They just didn't wipe them out.
Actually my response was to your position that American and Texas ethnocentrism was/is not as offensive as that in African nations because we didn't commit genocide. In fact, we committed genocide. The fact that other countries were also committing genocide does not alter the moral judgement regarding our behavior, any more than our genocide justifies or minimizes the genocide being employed by other nations around the world, historically or currently.
The 'everybody else is/was' doing it sort of loses its appeal after about 12th grade for most folks.
My primary point, clearly stated, was that ethnocentrism does not imply genocide at all, by us or anyone else, now or historically. You seem to keep putting the accent on the wrong syllable.