what is the difference ?

Question

caution vs. warning

imperialism vs. colonialism

Answer 1

Caution & warning:
First, there is the difference between a watch and a warning. A watch is issued when there is a better than average chance that foul weather of one sort or another may invade our area during a certain time frame. Indications for this may be a sudden change in barometric pressure, wind direction or other event. A warning is issued when the foul weather in question has begun happening. This might be the spotting of a tornado, severe hail, etc that is happening in one area and headed for another. A warning, therefore, is far more important than a watch, but this certainly does not mean that one should ignore a watch. Watches often turn into warnings!

Wind advisories are issued when sustained winds reach 25 to 39 miles per hour, or when wind gusts are up to 57 miles per hour. A high wind warning is issued when winds are at least 40 miles per hour, or gusts exceed 57 miles per hour. Extreme caution should be taken when this warning is issued if you are driving tall vehicles such as trailers, trucks and motor homes. For reference, winds reach hurricane strength when they reach 74 miles per hour.

A wind-chill advisory is issued when wind-chill temperatures reach -30 to -35 degrees F. Wind chill is the cooling effect of a combination of wind and actual temperature.
- DANGER, WARNING and CAUTION are recommended
in many guidelines for conveying high to low intensities
of hazard [4]. However, people do not discriminate
between WARNING and CAUTION


**
Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon. World history is full of examples of one society gradually expanding by incorporating adjacent territory and settling its people on newly conquered territory. The ancient Greeks set up colonies as did the Romans, the Moors, and the Ottomans, to name just a few of the most notorious examples. Colonialism, then, is not restricted to a specific time or place. Nevertheless, in the sixteenth century, colonialism changed decisively because of technological developments in navigation that began to connect more remote parts of the world.
The difficulty of defining colonialism stems from the fact that the term is often used as a synonym for imperialism. Both colonialism and imperialism were forms of conquest that were expected to benefit Europe economically and strategically. The term colonialism is frequently used to describe the settlement of places such as North America, Australia, New Zealand, Algeria, and Brazil that were controlled by a large population of permanent European residents. The term imperialism often describes cases in which a foreign government administers a territory without significant settlement; typical examples include the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century and the American domination of the Philippines and Puerto Rico. The distinction between the two, however, is not entirely consistent in the literature. Some scholars distinguish between colonies for settlement and colonies for economic exploitation. Others use the term colonialism to describe dependencies that are directly governed by a foreign nation and contrast this with imperialism, which involves indirect forms of domination.

The confusion about the meaning of the term imperialism reflects the way that the concept has changed over time. Although the English word imperialism was not commonly used before the nineteenth century, Elizabethans already described the United Kingdom as “the British Empire.” As Britain began to acquire overseas dependencies, the concept of empire was employed more frequently. Thus, the traditional understanding of imperialism was a system of military domination and sovereignty over territories. The day to day work of government might be exercised indirectly through local assemblies or indigenous rulers who paid tribute but sovereignty rested with the British. The shift away from this traditional understanding of empire was influenced by the Leninist analysis of imperialism as a system oriented towards economic exploitation. According to Lenin, imperialism was the necessary and inevitable result of the logic of accumulation in late capitalism. Thus, for Lenin and subsequent Marxists, imperialism described a historical stage of capitalism rather than a trans-historical practice of political and military domination. The lasting impact of the Marxist approach is apparent in contemporary debates about American imperialism, a term which usually means American economic hegemony, regardless of whether such power is exercised directly or indirectly (Young 2001
.