[vladekad]

Could that make Richard the Brit Ringleader responsible for all?!! There are many definitions of the term, I will admit to that. But if we choose a definition such as the above who is to say what is to be considered the limits?

A map stating that it is a territory?
A police force enforcing unwanted rules?
Taxation that previously didn't exsist?

In all reality and by that definition, the world is being colonized by the Chinese because of their vast resources for manufacturing. They exploit or use American chemicals (colonizing the USA), use German engineers (colonizing Germany), use Mexican labor (colonizing Mexico). Or what about mass immigration (legal or not), are not the Latin people, now over 60% of the city of Miami Florida colonizing Florida USA? Surely they are using Miami's resources, many of them with no right to be there legally.

Or even in Australia, Paul mentions that there is a huge influx of Asian's (or maybe he said Arabic?) would not that be considered colonization? Or does there need to be something in writing? If so, that means that nobody has ever colonized the United States, because we don't have anything in writing? What about the Chinese that moved to Thailand, or the Burmese in the hill tribes? I mean they have very large, closely knit and closed communities, why is that not considered colonization? Because they never overthrew The Kingdom?

Not being argumentative, just asking for you all to share your viewpoints because this is where I am confused by the definitions. I am not saying I am right, but I am simply saying I have some decent points that seem to contradict some of the views. Too my own points have contradictions in some areas going to other way. Maybe we need to invent a new word?

I like the dog story Faranginphetch, very American and very funny. Betti too I do agree that exploit should be the wording used for the definition. God knows the Europeans exploited the hell out of the native Americans before killing them off and calling themselves the Americans.