Originally posted by caissad4
I say yes.
I would say that you have a valid point, but that the historical expanionism is more complicated than that. On the one hand, there are, historically, surely converts of good conscience for whom cargo considerations did not/do not play a role. On the other hand, there have been wholesale coercive conversions of people who would not have voluntarily chosen to convert out of cargo considerations, or any other. (In neither case am I referring to such converts coming from the dominant, cargoed culture.)
Still, there is likely some historical truth in the idea that these groups believed that the cargo of the dominant cultures (e.g., the pagan Roman empire for Christians, the Christianized Roman empire for Muslims) rightfully belonged to them, based in part on the belief that their religion was the true and righteous one—and that, as such, it bestowed entitlement. And that some converts to those religions based their decisions, at least in part, on cargo considerations.
I also think that this is still sometimes the case. There, for example, are businesses that explicitly advertise their religion (not always, but I would say at least sometimes) because they believe it enhances their ability to acquire the cargo implicit in business transactions.