[quote=Vortex]
Yet the settlers still took the land from the native peoples whim had been living for many years prior. It matters not which country it is for it happened in Asia, Oceania, Australia, North and South America and Africa and the story is the same, settlers come, they exploit the land and people a imperialist Goverment is put into place.
[/quote]

[i]"Took the land"[/i]

No. They already owned the land.

[i]"from the native peoples who had been living there prior"[/i]

Also no. The Métis were about as new to the area as white settlers.

[i]"Asia, Oceania, Australia, North and South America and Africa and the story is the same, settlers come, they exploit the land and people a imperialist Goverment is put into place."[/i]

I can't think of any examples of settler migration ever having happened in Asia on any large scale. In Africa, people like the Boers had lived in their lands since before the later comers, the Zulu—who had the advantage of having black skin and thus being assumed to be the original inhabitants of whatever part of Africa they migrated to—had arrived. It's not important who lived there originally anyway; no ethnicity is native to anywhere on the planet. The only differences are how long that group has been there, and more importantly, what they've done since they got there.

You keep using the term 'exploitation' as a buzzword, as if the evil white-devils swarmed in and slaughtered the local populace, then used their bones as pickaxes to mine the diamonds out of their sacred monuments after having eaten their flesh. You need to learn that the world isn't black and white. Teaching the locals that the riverbed they've been using to shit in actually contains massive deposits of gold is hardly exploitation. There's a mutual benefit there. Who's benefiting more? That could be argued. But if it's the Europeans, then rightfully so. They're the ones who found the stuff in the first place.