Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Do the uncivilized deserve to be conquest.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 1:08:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In some country, the fact that we had never been colonized by any European country, has been very well celebrated (and still is). However, many of the society that met with European explorer at the time were truly primitive and uncivilized. Do you think that the European nations or any other civilized nation have the right to conquest such society to uplift them to the degree of culture and technology of civilized world.

Before you answer my question let me remind you that many of the "uncivilized" society in colonial era were in serious conflict both in term of ideology and culture to the point that it is intolerable by many of those who called themselves civilized. The native Indian for example, had been extremely cruel toward their captives, subjecting them to torture for days and slay them just for the sake of their culture. Village are plunder, all men are massacre, women and children were enslaved. The Aztec sacrifice people. Many more are just a little more than cannibal and salvage.

After the French Revolution and the idea of freedom and liberty became widespread, some of the European nation (France in particular) also claimed to conquest many of the small uncivilized country in order to spread the idea of liberty and the right of man (though in practice, that is often not the case).

In fact, many of these nations were actually benefited from the colonization program. Indian, as diverse and chaotic as they were, would never be able to form a unified nation if they had never been together under the British government (and never had all the infrastructure and education developed by the Brit). Many of the society would still be engaged in slavery and the people would never even know the concept of liberty and their right as a man. Even worse, human sacrifice or cannibalism might still be practiced even today.

So that is the context of my question, do you think it is justified to colonized a country in order to, and strictly to, uplift the people standard of living, put an end to slavery, or bring liberty to the oppress? Colonization program that is purely made for economic or political benefit is excluded from the context of this question. However if the colonizers did at least had some degree of willingness to uplift their colonial subject (such as the Napoleon conquest of German state, to bring liberty, regardless of how sincere he was) or directly result in such a case (such as British colonization of India), it will still be considered.

This question may sound like a classic case of white man burden, which I am fully aware that it is a decades past. I am not a European and my country was almost fell a victim (or blessing, depending on your answer) of European empire. The reason I asked you this because I feel like this question still carries a significant meaning even in today geopolitics.

The basic idea of this question is that is it justify to forcing people to agree with our ideology. Forcing people to abolish slavery (with a threat of conquest) is, for me, exactly the same with using arm intervention with undemocratic country to force them toward liberty and in some case, that is resulted in significant improvement from its previous condition. If you agree with the ideal of colonization to bring about civilization, that would make every aggression of communist regime justifiable, the USSR had the right to occupy Eastern Europe because he is bringing civilization (communism) to the uncivilized (oppressed capitalist subject) society. China annexation of Tibet would also be justified because they bring about social equality (in Chinese point of view -_-) and get rid of "uncivilized" ecclesiastic rule of Tibetan priest. In fact, it also did significantly improved Tibetan standard of living and economy as well. If you disagree, and colonization for whatever purpose is wrong, then even the EU intervention in Libya is wrong, the US had no right to go to Iraq and Afghanistan (probably they really had no right to). Perhaps even the American civil war is unjustifiable.

I believed every ideology is subjected to personal interpretation. You have the right to believe and so do I, there is no absolute right and wrong that everybody can agree to. Thus every idea carries the same weight: yours and mines. The only question here is that is it okay for you to make mines yours.

So what do you think?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 2:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Most of them died.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 2:53:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 2:51:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Most of them died.

And the ones that are left on reservations aren't much better off.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 2:51:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Most of them died.

It is estimated that about 300,000 Native americans died as a result of our conflict w/ them. There were 4 million native Americans here before us.

300,000/4,000,000=0.075 or 7.5% of all native americans. So I guess 7.5% of all native Americans=All Native Americans. k
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 2:53:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:51:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Most of them died.

And the ones that are left on reservations aren't much better off.

They choose to live there, you know this right?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.

A true ignoramus, making brief statements that do not directly address me points.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:17:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.

A true ignoramus, making brief statements that do not directly address me points.

I'm sorry, I'll let you clarify, was what we did to the Indians a good thing or a bad thing?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:21:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:17:54 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:17:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.

A true ignoramus, making brief statements that do not directly address me points.

I'm sorry, I'll let you clarify, was what we did to the Indians a good thing or a bad thing?

Twas' bad, but that does not make myself or any other current American liable for their plight.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:21:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:17:54 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:17:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.

A true ignoramus, making brief statements that do not directly address me points.

I'm sorry, I'll let you clarify, was what we did to the Indians a good thing or a bad thing?

Twas' bad, but that does not make myself or any other current American liable for their plight.

Nobody said they were, what we are saying is that what the Americans did to the Indians is indefensible. You tried to defend it, i.e. only 300,000 died in the genocide.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:41:03 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:21:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:17:54 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:17:11 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.

A true ignoramus, making brief statements that do not directly address me points.

I'm sorry, I'll let you clarify, was what we did to the Indians a good thing or a bad thing?

Twas' bad, but that does not make myself or any other current American liable for their plight.

Nobody said they were, what we are saying is that what the Americans did to the Indians is indefensible. You tried to defend it, i.e. only 300,000 died in the genocide.

Genocide is defined by the UN as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[3]

We did not intentionally seek out native Americans and then kill them based on their race.

Also, what should we do know that it's all over with?

Give them free money?
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:42:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Wtf is this shitt? The primary reason Africa is screwed up is because the cultural destruction from imperialism.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:52:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:42:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Wtf is this shitt? The primary reason Africa is screwed up is because the cultural destruction from imperialism.


Wrong, Africa experienced just as much, if not more civil unrest before the Europeans came along.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:56:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:15:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
A true patriotic American, defending the genocide of the Native Americans hah.

It was natural selection at its finest.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 9:25:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:52:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:42:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Wtf is this shitt? The primary reason Africa is screwed up is because the cultural destruction from imperialism.


Wrong, Africa experienced just as much, if not more civil unrest before the Europeans came along.

Bull. There was tribal warfare sure but certainly nothing like it is now.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 10:15:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:52:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:42:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:38:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/5/2013 2:34:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Damn straight, those Native American's should have been thanking the Europeans for Civilizing them.

Well, considering that the US would be another Africa if we didn't, maybe a bit. Lol

Wtf is this shitt? The primary reason Africa is screwed up is because the cultural destruction from imperialism.


Wrong, Africa experienced just as much, if not more civil unrest before the Europeans came along.

Actually, it didn't. I have studied and written papers about this topic. Obviously there was warfare (I mean, that's how Egypt expanded, for example), but the internal unrest arrived through the development of the European slave trade. The Europeans provided any chiefs who gave them slaves guns. Those chiefs used the guns to destroy other African societies, so in order to protect themselves, the chiefs had to sell slaves from other tribes to the Europeans so that they could also obtain guns. This lead to intensified warfare as tribes competed to protect their people. Eventually, the chiefs began selling their own people in order to consolidate their military might. This caused the people to start rebelling. Islam became popular at this time as a result of backlash against the chiefs, and the new converts asserted that slavery was immoral and thus rebelled against the chiefs.

In addition to this, at the end of the colonial era, the Europeans drew borders that would allow them to install their European-educated lackeys into power (they even assassinated popular reforms like Lumumba) and grouped historically belligerent groups together under the same country.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 10:24:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:50:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, what should we do know that it's all over with?

Give them free money?

We already give them free health care and college tuition. Why not just tack free money onto the list of sh*t they get for free?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 10:31:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 10:24:45 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:50:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, what should we do know that it's all over with?

Give them free money?

We already give them free health care and college tuition. Why not just tack free money onto the list of sh*t they get for free?

It's their land. Give their property back and you won't have to give them anything for free.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 10:31:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/5/2013 10:24:45 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:50:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, what should we do know that it's all over with?

Give them free money?

We already give them free health care and college tuition. Why not just tack free money onto the list of sh*t they get for free?

It's their land. Give their property back and you won't have to give them anything for free.

You know , that is not a kind of answer I am expected from you.

I thought I made my point pretty clear, this is a principal question. I didn't ask if the Native Indian would be better of under European rule, the reality is pretty obvious and if not, that is why I provided the condition that "let's assume it is good in the end".

My question is that is it ok to force people in your believe, assume that it goes for the better and why? Please address it properly.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:01:41 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/5/2013 10:31:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/5/2013 10:24:45 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:50:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, what should we do know that it's all over with?

Give them free money?

We already give them free health care and college tuition. Why not just tack free money onto the list of sh*t they get for free?

It's their land. Give their property back and you won't have to give them anything for free.

You know , that is not a kind of answer I am expected from you.

I thought I made my point pretty clear, this is a principal question. I didn't ask if the Native Indian would be better of under European rule, the reality is pretty obvious and if not, that is why I provided the condition that "let's assume it is good in the end".

My question is that is it ok to force people in your believe, assume that it goes for the better and why? Please address it properly.

I wasn't responding to your question or to you at all. I have had this same conversation at least five times in the last year. I don't want to repeat the same discussion every time a new jingoist come to the website.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:58:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:12:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/5/2013 11:01:41 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/5/2013 10:31:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/5/2013 10:24:45 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:50:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, what should we do know that it's all over with?

Give them free money?

We already give them free health care and college tuition. Why not just tack free money onto the list of sh*t they get for free?

It's their land. Give their property back and you won't have to give them anything for free.

You know , that is not a kind of answer I am expected from you.

I thought I made my point pretty clear, this is a principal question. I didn't ask if the Native Indian would be better of under European rule, the reality is pretty obvious and if not, that is why I provided the condition that "let's assume it is good in the end".

My question is that is it ok to force people in your believe, assume that it goes for the better and why? Please address it properly.

I wasn't responding to your question or to you at all. I have had this same conversation at least five times in the last year. I don't want to repeat the same discussion every time a new jingoist come to the website.

Yes you don't and in fact most of you guy don't, which is kind of disappointing because I expected this forum to be some kind of mock debate where we can observe how argument is engineer. So it can be used later on by anybody. Too bad if I am wrong.

And don't you call me nationalist, the second thing I hate from communist is the non sense nationalistic idea. I didn't make this post because I want to justify aggressive foreign policy. I just wanted to see how it can be successfully attacked or defensed.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 12:14:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that it depends on how, precisely, it is done. I think that such things turn out best when the expansion is regional and there is a melding of cultures. Examples would be Persia conquering Babylon and Lydia, Macedonia unifying Greece and then conquering Persia (at the times they controlled Babylon, the Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt). The Roman Empire's expansion. The unification of the Middle East under the Islamic Caliphates, culminated in the Abbasid Caliphate. China's unification and expansion. All of these resulted in scientific and cultural melding, as well as the proliferation of both ideas and infrastructure. The conflict drove innovation in politics, military thought and science, as those nations which were ineffective were absorbed by greater powers and improved.

But when you look at colonialism, you can see that there is often a certain detachment to the colonies that is above and beyond the provincial prejudices of their more ancient predecessors. Whereas a certain nationalism may have reigned in ancient days, territories which were conquered were seen as crucial, as a part of the empire. It was important to discourage rebellion, to incorporate the natives into one's society, to care about them to some degree. To provide them with infrastructure and degree of education, as land-based trade roots were a vital form of transport.

During the more maritime empires of the colonial period, the colonies were really only seen as sources for raw materials; the people themselves were sometimes seen as naught but a raw material for export. Other times they were either a nuisance or a cheap labor force. Attempts to 'civilize' the natives seemed to stop at religious indoctrination, which often did them little good. Overall I think that it was a bad system which upon its dissolution carved territories into ill-conceived new countries which were rife with demographic fissures and political turmoil.

The system which replaced it is even worse, because it further removes the victims of imperialism from those who inflict harm upon them. Now imperialistic hegemony is asserted unofficially, in countries which are ostensibly free and sovereign but are, in reality, ruled by tinpot dictators who kowtow to both America and the former imperial powers. If you don't believe this, just look at the histories of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, or just about any country in the Middle East. It's worse than any other form of imperial power projection because this sort of set up allows the citizens whose governments support such brutal oppression to deny to themselves that they have anything to do with it. The emperor, so to speak, has no clothes, and the third world's decrying of his state of undress is drowned out by the enthusiastic cheers of ardent citizens.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:00:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 12:14:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that it depends on how, precisely, it is done. I think that such things turn out best when the expansion is regional and there is a melding of cultures. Examples would be Persia conquering Babylon and Lydia, Macedonia unifying Greece and then conquering Persia (at the times they controlled Babylon, the Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt). The Roman Empire's expansion. The unification of the Middle East under the Islamic Caliphates, culminated in the Abbasid Caliphate. China's unification and expansion. All of these resulted in scientific and cultural melding, as well as the proliferation of both ideas and infrastructure. The conflict drove innovation in politics, military thought and science, as those nations which were ineffective were absorbed by greater powers and improved.

I don't think the Roman was so nice when the conquered a subject though, actually I think even though the empire may started of with very different ethnic background,given them time and they are going to melt down in to one any way. Look at the US for example, you have the British, the German, the French, and the African who eventually melted in to single American citizen in the end. So if the result of having a single unified nation is good I think you have nothing more to prove.

I wonder though, whether you also believe the Soviet occupation of Easter Europe is also right (forget the fact that they are communist, just focus on forceful occupation). The case actually fit you definition of ethical, cultural similarity, it also fit my definition above. If not, I sincerely want to hear how can you disclaim the Soviet in such case.