- the notion that these native peoples lived in perfect harmony and were somehow more attuned with nature than others... it's a dangerous trap to fall into which inhibits an objective view of history.

>Clanic organization marks the beginning of civilization,
>when man ceases to no longer be just a animal.

That's different from the commonly accepted definition for the beginning of civilization, but that's besides the point...

>Nature was
>not enough, while some people choose to live in harmony with
>nature, others sought to master or dominate and control it.

What about the Polynesians of Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island? When the Polynesians arrived on the island it was densely forested and had plentiful natural resources... but by the time the first Europeans came in the 18th century, the native Polynesians had entirely wiped out the forests, driven many of the island's plants and animals to extinction, and their society had fallen into decay and chaos, decimated by tribal warfare and even devolving into cannibalism. And all this happened in the course of a few centuries. I can't think of any European society in history that was ever that self-destructive.

>This is not by accident. I do believe that patrilineal,
>'indo-aryan" people were more apt to conquer and spread out.
> There were many groups that organized, not for conquest,
>but to drive off enemies. Others developed more
>militaristic activities.

Like I said, the Mongols were as apt to conquer and spread out as any other peoples in history - not to drive off enemies, but specifically for conquest - and they were not "Indo-Aryan." Neither are the Arabs, who also spread out and conquered. And they were both patriarchial/patrilineal societies as well, so that is not unique to "Indo-Aryans" either.

>I do think that so-called "super imperialism" was to benefit
>Europe (and later the U.S.) over all others. In
>civilization and humanity, we are all connected but I think
>some have had a better time at seeking external
>power...global power at the expense of many people and the
>Earth. In general, Europeans and Asians, formerly
>"indo-aryan" stand out here.

Like Bob said, what about the Japanese and the

"The idea of Japanese cultural superiority over other Asian races had been expounded as early as the late nineteenth century... the famous Japanese educator Fukuzawa Yukichi wrote "Japan's Mission in Asia" in 1882 to support the idea of Japanese imperialism and the "manifest destiny" of Japan to be the leader of Asia... ultranationalist groups believed that the moral purity of the Yamato race and Japan's unique ancestry as descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu entitled the Japanese to such a leadership role in Asia.

Economic reasons played a large role in Japan's announcement of the Co-Prosperity Sphere in 1940. Japan required East Asian raw materials such as oil from the Dutch East Indies and rubber from Indochina in order to keep its manufacturing industry and military in China supplied... The other Asian countries in the Co-Prosperity Sphere also would provide Japan with export markets for its manufactured goods and with land for its surplus population.

...The Japanese conducted themselves with great haughtiness and disdain to the local population and imposed a program of "Japanization" on the people with little or no regard for local customs and beliefs. Many native people of these Asians countries suffered and died from forced labor, torture, and execution."

- this was "industrial" or "super" Imperialism, just as surely as with the Europeans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters." - Ghengis Khan, aka the 'Universal Ruler'