Inherent innequality

lalala Stargate.

We 'subjugate' all sorts of animals for labor and eating. It's ok because they are 'less' than us. If some other species/race/culture came that was 'more' than us.... should we submit? If said group was able and willing to exploit us the same ways in which we exploit bovines is it just a natural order thing...?
Maybe cows are fighting back as hard as they can... and PETA certainly fights for them. It just takes some critical mass of public opinion to make something true... so:

genocides
or
the enslaving of blacks in America

are they both bad now just because jews and blacks resisted strongly enough with enough support from PETA-like groups (ACLU etc...). i.e. history is written by the winners... when one wins equality... it seems to immediately become clear that all prior inequality was unjust. (this seems like a bad example because there were free blacks and popular jews who were seen as human... i.e. it is clear that it was not some sort of question of humanity (by species/race/ethnicity) that determined one's fitness for society, but rather some other qualifiers). However this leads to another interesting question: "what is such a qualifier? IQ? ability to add to society?" There are definetly dolphins and oxen that add more to human well-being or progress than many people... so where is the line drawn and even on what sort of conditions. (this is not a new question, I'm aware...)

Dolphins or monkeys or mice or some other animal could prove to have some rational faculties or some claim to equality or even superiority. What then? Do we fight as hard as we possibly can? Welcome them with open arms?

eh.... ramble, ramble

--showertime