The result is usually the destruction or degradation of the more primitive-tech group.
Or am I generalizing?
--------------------------------------------------
You are generalizing.
When differing cultures interact they are almost inevitably both changed. It is not inevitable that the more primitive group is destroyed or degraded. In fact as I remember Adam Smith believed that until his time the more primative group had generrally had the advantage.
When the Romans came to Europe the result was both good and bad for the locals. The bad part is fairly obvious "they make a dessert and call it peace"-Tacitus. There was also plenty of good: the usual roads, bridges, Pax Romanna, etc. European society was changed beyond recognition. However it is a stretch to say that a Western society that can reach the moon, create the internet, and eliminate mass famine and mass plague from large parts of the world is a "degradation" from the society before. We would not be what we are without Rome, Greece, the Jews, and less directly, the Arabs, the (Asian)Indians and the Chinese.
There are other possible results. Rome was to a large degree degraded by it's contact with the Germanics in a most direct manner when the Goths sacked Rome. China, which for many centuries had the highest tech level in the world certainly didn't degrade, or destroy the Mongols(until comparitively recently), and we all know what the Mongols did to China.
Even the fammiliar examples, like the Native Americans, always have exceptions. The Plains Indians actually got a bounce in power and influence for several generations by acquiring the horse from the Spaniards.
However in any case there is a problem as positively overwhelming technological differences seldom took place until the last few centuries. When there was a difference it was in a few key areas such as iron, or sailing ships(I deliberatly leave out gunpowder as I think the advantage the Europeans had is exaggeratted: Asians had muskets and cannon too, and North American Indians had thick forests which tended to negate the advantage somewhat).
One thing that is left out is cultural organization. The difference between tools "hardware" is seldom as great as the difference in culteral organization "software". Caesar conquered Gaul not because the "gladius" shortsword was so superior to the Gauls swords, but because the leigion was so superior to the warband. Overwhelming organizational superiority certainly existed many times in the past. When contact occured there were a number of possible results.
