https://www.international.ucla.edu/apc/centralasia/article/1...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuban_Nogai_Uprising
https://fountainmagazine.com/1993/issue-2-april-june-1993/th...
(The Chinese are in the clear imo, so I parenthesized them.)
Just to be clear, even today in 21st you will note there are many global actors that deny the very notion of a "universal human rights". I'm not European myself and definitely not defending what happened. But it seems to me that what happened is an (inevitable) accident of history: two worlds that evolved in effective isolation for thousands of years. And I wonder: which of the relatively advanced societies would have left them in peace so they could catch up and integrate as you propose?
-
The point you raise touches directly on the essence of my original comment (which should have been clearer):
When we think of the value-system matrix of the 3 co-evolving continents of Europe, Africa, and Asia, the core commonality that is specially distinct from the value-system matrix that evolved in Americas is in regards to notions of property and nature 'husbandry'.
Any vanguard explorers from the Eurasian civilisational matrix would bring with them the entirely alien notions of property and systemic cultivation of nature, and that would inevitably result in a confrontation of value systems, in which the technologically superior side would dominate.
Consider it as a thought experiment - something that's been popping in my head lately:
under what sort of ideal conditions would have the native civilizations and peoples of Americas been left unmolested by anyone? An entire continent left in isolation while the more technologically advanced societies reached the way station of 'universal human rights'?
[typically don't mention downvotes but a difficult question does not merit it. If you so strongly disagree, discuss it.]