Oh, of course...

Why? Because if I let the kids I tutor do whatever they wanted instead of taking care of them they would run through halls, fighting, yelling at each other, throwing stuff, etc.

Its true of children. Because if left to do whatever they wanted they are liable to harm other people's property, harm each other, or themselves.

Of course.

...but the same was "true" of the african-american populace of the south, or the original inhabitants of the americas, or, well - just about every place some european country needed some resource that someone else had.

It stopped being "true" the minute people stopped justifying such behavior towards them.

So, I say again - why is it "true" at some times, and "untrue" when the need to justify a heirarchy goes away... and if children are as "bad" and "inherently unworthy" as you claim - why do the already existant cultures that do not do this have these problems... less problems, usually?

And last but not least - who, exactly, sets the rules for the rulemakers?

If its not true there needs to be three options. That culture needs to assimilate into the other culture that it is true in, move somewhere else where they can practice that culture, or they should be given their own land to form a separate nation where they can then practice their culture.

The first is usually called "genocide," and is considered a crime against nations. The last two are called "reservations" or "internment camps," and share a similar standing at international law.

So here's a question - why is the violent culture which seeks to bully, dominate, and eradicate others the one which must be appeased?? Isn't that directly... backwards?