>>And exactly where do you think the entire state of Illinois and Maine or any state came from? They weren't just sitting uninhabited waiting for your arrival :o) Look at every country in the world and find a handful whose residents were the original inhabitants and didn't end up there by virtue of conquering the locals or running from their land when it was conquered.
>
>Not necessarily and not in every case. It used to happen that a conquering army would just run out the previous conqueror and stay there, and unite with the previously occupied peoples to defend the land together. The one case I know of are the Hungarians and the Kuns - there wasn't enough of each of them to create a problem, there was enough land. But that was in the single digit centuries. The population was sparse and it was even possible that two migrations would just pass each other without knowing of each other.
>
>Though I'd still keep any culture responsible if it expanded at the expense of others, if it had the audacity to call itself civilized.

Then we have to look at places like sierra leone and (won't mention current places because they are incendiary topics) and question: would they have been better off if they were never occupied? would the results have been the same or worse? would it have been ok if the results were the same but they occurred without any previous occupation? is it any different than what happened in all those all places that had occupations once, twice, etc... it used to be the means of population control and now population control is only handled via disease and epidemics...

However, you are correct of course. That last sentence of yours states it all. :o)