HP, you flunked pre-school level biology on territory and its role in the natural world. It is the foundation we all stand on. Your claim that Africa is for the Africans, Middle East for the people of the East and-so-on is meaningless.
There exists tribalism and its expansions into Empire through conquest. No difference between Roman Empire, Genghis Khan, Crusaders, Napoleon, Han Chinese, Muslim Empire, Persian Empire... tribes taking control of larger swats of land and people already living there. Co-operate or die. Live by the rules of the winner. Nothing else is there.
Of course, nature of Empire (a) is different than of Empire (b), but they were born the same way: violent conquest, war, competition. That's all I am saying. It matters what happens after that: how does an empire operate, its nature?
You are right: Persian Empire, after all the bloodshed was over, stabilized into a culture with a spirit of tolerance and respect for differences between the conquered tribes. Enlightened dictatorship. A big plus for Cyrus the Great. I'm a big fan of him.
During all periods of relative peace anywhere in the world, people become "Mensch" to borrow your phrase, arts and science develop naturally. And in as far as different cultures made contact they started to cross-pollinate and give birth to more universal values. Democracy, free speech, trias politica, separation church-state... most successful formula to date and best-fit to human nature and needs. It is the only formula having a future.
I'm willing to consider your claim that Africa can only be for Africans. Homo Sapiens however were Africans who conquered the world. They took over Europe from Neanderthal people, pretty much the same way Europeans conquered the Americas. If we should all go back to where our ancestors came from, we better take a one-way ticket to Africa. Those Dutch farmers who went to South Africa were the first to do the right thing then, but now you blame them instead!