Context matters quite a bit. A person that kills out of self-defence is judged differently than one who slays unprovoked. You may think of them both as equal killers who should receive the same judgment and that's fine, that's your personal opinion, but keep in mind many others will not agree with it.
Likewise, people see one large group that exists comfortably with great resources, with a subgroup using their advantages to harm and oppress others, while another group lacks these resources, receives this harm and oppression, and attempts to fight back with a subgroup of its own. Additionally, the latter group obtaining a victory on the former isn't proof that they were both equal all along, but a temporary and fragile turn of the tables that could easily collapse back into the status quo if left unattended.
This context creates an imbalance of power that changes the way people see both groups. To me, trying to say "both sides have their flaws" is ignoring the context presented in the story and trying to force a balance to exist that isn't in the text.