I would actually attribute their desire to "colonize" these peoples (I would say civilize) to their sense of paternalism and religious superiority. eg. "The White Man's Burden" by Kipling...
Certainly that was how they justified it, but in the end it all comes back to money. They never would have invested in the exploration if Colombus hadn't promised gold. But this is truly beyond the point anyways, because the point I was trying to make is that nothing really stood in the way of the Europeans from colonizing the native populations and effectively wiping them out.
Who's "we"? Do you think the masses decide what we're striving for, or those in power? I think while "we" may generally try and move towards peace and harmony, we aren't really in control. Furthermore, peace and harmony are different things to different people.
We need to get back on to the point, and that is of how humans would interact with alien life, and would or would we not try to impose certain beliefs or ways of life on these beings. It can generally be assumed that doing so would not be harminous or peaceful. That I believe is obvious. Thus lets not debate the wide definitions of peace and harmony, because their is a basic set of morales in all human societies, and imposing views on other cultures or life forms, is generally thought to be immoral in todays society. This is double so when we are dealing with another life form.
Firstly, it could have played out entirely differently and for the better, or for the worse. There were many very large thriving civilizations at the time - the various peoples inhabiting the US and Canada, the Aztecs, the Incas, etc... Why would we be living in a 1984 type world? I don't exactly understand the connection you're trying to make, here. Given, things played out the way they did, but did it play out really that well? What can you compare it to?
I agree with you, it could have played out much differently for better or worse. But all politics really is is speculating whether or not x or y belief or doctrine will work out better. And I speculate that the world
probably would be worse off today than it was had America not come into being. If we want to discuss that we can start an enitrely new topic, but I want to try to keep this one relitively on track. Oh and the 1984 analogy was just a way of saying what you did in fewer words, anything could've happened for better or for worse whether its a 1984 society or a world of universal peace.
How do you know democracy's even the best form of government?
I don't
know that it is, but once again all I'm doing is speculating and formign views based on history and the massive failure of other forms of government specifically speaking Kingships or Aristocracy's.
Sure, a lot of good things have come about, but what about the bad things? Not only that, but I don't think the ends justify the means. I think you're trying to defend a hypothetical situation. Instead of trying to defend our situation as it is, compare it to other possible outcomes and see if you really think it's best. Once again, pretty indifferent, here.
You're probably right, but as I've said a few times now in this post all I can do is sit back and speculate, and form views as to help me decide what I should fight for now and in the future.
Personally I think that's bullshit. Democracy is not an american invention and America was not the first country to become a Democracy. Democracy is a popular form of government because it gives people more choice and because they are more educated than they used to be they want to choose how their lives are run - it has nothing to do with the US.
This is a very, very subjective matter. I tend to believe that the French revolution was in large part due to Benjamin Franklands correspondonce with certain leaders of the 3rd estate. The French Revolution of course then spread throughout Europe through Napoleon and his Napoleonic code securing more or less the three main ideals of the revolution itself.
Their is no 1 flawless form of government, I just tend to believe than a Democratic Republic happens to provide the most secure form of checks and balances, to make sure we don't end up in another reign of Kingships were instead of footbaggers we're serfs working all day everyday.
Not only that, but I don't think the ends justify the means. I think you're trying to defend a hypothetical situation. Instead of trying to defend our situation as it is, compare it to other possible outcomes and see if you really think it's best. Once again, pretty indifferent, here. 
