Bullshit. Completely unwarranted assumption. And note how central such assumptions are to this kind of "analysis". Another interesting one is the conflation of military superiority with cultural innovation and sophistication in general. Splitting hairs with dubious judgements of "sophistication" and dubious assignments of innovation source within a culture does not conceal the basic situation - also visible in those other examples (Vikings, Scots, North and South American frontier settlers, Inuit, etc. We could add a couple of famous stagnations to the list - the Chinese empires, the Ottoman empire, noted for their oppression of women ). Now you are going around in circles - the Scots and Vikings were simultaneously more innovative, more expansionist, more culturally sophisticated and wider spread, and culturally more female promiscuous, than the people they bested in direct competition and still best in direct comparison. This kind of denigration of the acquired capabilities necessary to settle previously uninhabited, unsettled land is typical of this kind of analysis. I am taking your description of Unwin as given - if you have misrepresented his work, I apologize to his memory. No, he didn't. Nobody did. Not in the 1920s, and probably not now. If he thought that was what he was doing, he was fooling himself - for example, he had no way of determining the "dependent" or causal relationship, even supposing he could in some culture-bias free way evaluate something like "weaken" (or establish continuity of culture, for that matter). And let alone even mention "race" and "intelligence"!? Is that from him? I don't care what you call it. The US has some nice names for its drone attacks on funerals, too - does that make them all better? Bizarre - fundies are capable of believing just about anything, apparently. And it would still be oppression if it did.