Imperialism

Yes, Puerto Rico and Guam

State policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because imperialism always involves the use of power, often in the form of military force, it is widely considered morally objectionable, and the term accordingly has been used by states to denounce and discredit the foreign policies of their opponents. Imperialism in ancient times is clear in the unending succession of empires in China, western Asia, and the Mediterranean. Between the 15th century and the middle of the 18th, England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain built empires in the Americas, India, and the East Indies. Russia, Italy, Germany, the United States, and Japan became imperial powers in the period from the middle of the 19th century to World War I. The imperial designs of Japan, fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany in the 1930s culminated in the outbreak of World War II. After the war the Soviet Union consolidated its military and political control of the states of eastern Europe.

From the early 20th century the U.S. was accused of imperialism for intervening in the affairs of developing countries in order to protect the interests of U.S.-owned international corporations.

Economists and political theorists have debated whether imperialism benefits the states that practice it and whether such benefits or other reasons ever justify a state in pursuing imperialist polices.

Some theorists,have argued that imperialism is the justified result of the natural struggle for survival among peoples. Others have asserted that it is necessary in order to ensure national security. A third justification for imperialism, offered only infrequently after World War II, is that it is a means of liberating peoples from tyrannical rule or bringing them the blessings of a superior way of life

The First European group to colonize Brazil was...The Spanish

Yes. But primarily due to the formation of the United Nations, and advent of the global military power of the US and Soviet Union. Colonialism had essentially run its course, with few areas of the globe left to conquer or claim.

No and Yes. Kenya was a British colony. Small parts of Kenya such as the port city of Mombassa and its environs were historically part of the Portuguese Empire, but by the 1800s, Portugal was not able to prevent the British from colonizing all of Kenya.

-Same-

both wanted to modernize for the benefit of there country

-Different-

Africa allowed Imperial rule

Muslim Countries didnt allow imperial rule

The first English attempt at colonization was in Newfoundland in the early 1400s. The leader was killed at sea thus the colony withered away. The next English attempt at colonization was at Roanoke NC. This settlement mysteriously vanished. Spain tried to colonize areas in the Carribean and Mexico in the 1510s. Columbus "founded" America in 1492 sailing for Portugal. The first people in America were the Norweigan Vikings in the 11th century.

The Portuguese Colonial Empire was the first European global empire in history. It was the longest-lived of the modern empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta (South of Gibraltar and now Spanish) in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999.

The country that colonized Antigua and Barbuda was England.

The verb of colony is colonise.
Other verbs are colonises, colonising and colonised.

Some example sentences are:
"We will colonise this land".
"Britain colonises a new territory".
"They began colonising the island".
"We have colonised Uranus".

President Monroe signed a new policy called the Monroe Doctrine. President Monroe said efforts by European Nations to Colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention.

Colonization was expensive and risky.

There are a wide variety of countries that were colonized by Russia. Some of these countries include Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, as well as Uzbekistan.

economic imperialism

In 1531, the Spanish landed in Peru, and it became the prime territory of the Incas civilization. The Spanish gradually colonized all of Peru and received tributes from the Peruvian population.

The first English overseas settlements were established in North America and the West Indies, quickly followed by trading posts called "factories" in the East Indies, such as Bantam, and in the Indian subcontinent, beginning with Surat. In 1639 a series of English fortresses on the Indian coast was initiated with Fort St George. In 1661, the marriage of King Charles II to Catherine of Braganza brought him as part of her dowry new possessions which had been Portuguese, including Tangier in North Africa and Bombay in India.

Colonization had many positive and negative effects on the country. If colonization never took place; those effects would have been absent. According to the opinions of historians and analysts, colonization was good in the sense that it brought economic development to countries at the expense of another country. For example, when South Africa was part of the British colony, the city of Cape Town had grown significantly. Labour was imported. Machinery was imported. Farms grew. Many mines appeared. South Africa began trading big with the rest of the world. More people from Britain settled in South Africa to start businesses. Thus cities grew larger and larger. But, who had benefited? There was no Reserve Bank of South Africa. The indigenous people were not educated to start businesses. They worked for the British. But, they had to buy food and other goods to survive. They bought from British owned shops and thus only the British made money to keep. Since the indigenous people started working in these industries, they had depended on money to survive and not hunting or subsistence farming. Thus their cultures were destroyed. These are but a few effects. Now think about the opposite. If South Africa was not colonized, there would be slow development. The indigenous people did not have the knowledge, skills or funds to open mines etc. They would not have had any income. They would have thus stuck to traditional ways to survive in their tribes by hunting etc. This is entirely based on opinion. Some people might have different views. It is what you make of it.

well a similarity in the new England colonies is that shipbuilding was a main industry and in the southern colonies it was to

To control more territory without going to war. (APEX Class ;)

The British, it was called Betchuanaland. Bechuanaland was never a colony as such, it was a "protectorate" of Britain. In a nutshell, the people of Bechuanaland requested British protection from the South African Boers, the British did not want the Boers or Rhodes, who at that stage was in Rhodesia, moving into Bechuanaland, so this was an arrangement that was beneficial to both the people of Bechuanaland and the British.

they were very poor and sad that they did not have no food cuz the Americans blew it all up mwah ha ha ha ha

Language, in Post colonial context is a matter of concern and discussion for the kind of effect it has brought to the people. Even after several decades of the Britishers granting freedom to the colonized countries, the language that the colonizers spoke seems to be still relevant to the present context. India, for instance, has one of the largest English-speaking population in the world while it is now more than sixty years of independence that the country is enjoying.

Secndly the concept of language is related because the literature that evolved expressing the pain of colonialism had to be expressed in a language known by many. Many of the 'previledged' people of the colonized age who studied English were the first to voice against the tyranny of colonialism through English. Yet those literatures were regulated and barred from being published. Today however, we have high regard for the literature of English written about the colonized days. That is precisely the reason why we term it as the 'post-colonial literature'. Language, has played a major role in its realization.

There are many differences. One is that old imperialism mostly used trade ports to trade merchandise with other countries- they also did it respectfully. New Imperialism wanted domination. Instead of trading peacefully, they decided to just take over the countries. New Imperialism was all about getting more money. I hope this helped!

The answer may possibly be traced back to Alexander the Great. In those days the Greco-Macedonians were light-skinned, although they are no longer today because Greece has been invaded repeatedly by Asiatic peoples. An African queen wrote a letter to Alexander, and pleaded that he not think himself superior simply because his skin was lighter. As the Age of Exploration began, European countries vied for power with each other, but all regarded themselves as superior to darker-skinned Africans, Asians, Americans, and Australians. * Except for the Australian natives who were entirely tribal, some Africans, Asians, and Americans lived in towns or cities to compare or rival those of Europe. China and India especially had highly-developed cultures when Europe began searching for loot in other parts of the world. * Customs, language, religion, and facial features were certainly factors as well, but there may be many other references to affirm the European "White is Right" mindset. For instance, inhabitants of the "West Indies" were referred to as Red Indians, and those of the "East Indies" were Black Indians. * During the Age of Exploration, an Italian (name unremembered) wrote a book in which he argued that black Africans had been placed on earth by God to serve as slaves for white people, as they were incapable of governing themselves and suited only to physical labor. This belief persisted in America into the 1800's as Colonel William Travis (commander of the Alamo during the Texas-Mexico War) and Colonel William Quantrell (infamous Southern guerrilla leader who never actually held an officer's commission in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War) carried their belief in the slavery of Africans to near-religious extremes. * As a disappointment to racists both black and white, neither is a true color on the visible light spectrum. Black is the total absence of color, and white is all of the colors mixed together harmoniously. Unlike science, human nature is not all black & white, although it continually strives to be with often negative results.

i guess if we were not colonized by any other country theres gonna be a bog difference. Roman catholic will not be dominant in our country. We cannot speak English, theres a possibility that our way of writing would still be "baybayin". The classes in society. Chiefdom will be more active, no Main government. No president or even king or queen. we will still have rajas and datu's. Theres still alipin's, nomadic pastoralism is still active, we will be tribes. our way of living will be based on agriculture. and etc