The world trade organization - is it a positive influence on the world Term Paper

The world trade organization - is it a positive influence on the world economy - Term Paper Example Decisions in the WTO are normally made through negotiation among all of its members and they are approved by the member countries’ legislatures.1 Trade conflict is handled through the dispute settlement system of the WTO where the emphasis is on making sure that trade policies of member countries comply with agreements. This paper argues that the WTO is a positive influence on the world economy. By loosening trade restrictions, the WTO also eliminates other boundaries between countries and peoples. At the core of the WTO—called the multilateral trading system-- are the treatises, discussed and approved by most of the world’s trading countries, and signed in their legislative bodies. These treatises are the legal protocols for global trade.2 Basically, they are agreements, granting member countries major trade privileges. They also oblige these countries to conform to agreed trade rules to the benefit of everyone. The recent years have been very unstable and turbu lent. Stock prices have plummeted, the financial sector has crashed, important commodities like oil have dropped severely and inflationary demands have become deflationary problems. The prospects since 2009 appear bleak, as the global economy is declining, the population of unemployed is growing, trade levels are dropping, and nobody is sure when the financial havoc will end.3 Global production is dwindling as rapidly as demand is declining and foreign direct investment keeps on dropping. In spite of some common declarations from world leaders about the threats of protectionism, it is actually rising in several nations, while public approval for trade liberalization is negligible among others.4 In such an environment, the issue should be raised whether trade liberalization remains vital. The financial crisis clearly appears to be the more urgent concern, and trade has gradually recovered since the system of loosening trade barriers started with the establishment of the General Agree ment on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) after the Second World War.5 Since its establishment, the WTO has carried on with the process of trade liberalization, and broadened the directive of the earlier GATT administration to include other trade-based issues, like intellectual property. Abolishing the WTO would be unreasonable. Trade policy is still essential, and it can serve a vital function in boosting the recovery of the world economy. The formation of the WTO reformed many of the original weaknesses of the GATT and created a strong institutional foundation from which the system of international trade could develop. The WTO had several accomplishments, such as China’s accession in 2001, and it is still one of the most important international agencies.6 The Economic Advantages of the WTO Distributive principles and efficiency concerns are generally shown as being in disagreement. Yet, they should not be. Making sure that every party gains from the liberalization of trade is ration al from the point of view of economics. Enhanced trade heightens general wealth. Hence enhancing the production and consumption capacity of the poorest nations will result in greater boosts in general wealth. If distributing the wealth will strengthen trade liberalization, this is to the benefit of the nations that are already the frontrunners.7 Moreover, to the point the gains of trade are distributed, nations that would not have gained will have assets to use in the markets of other member countries and to improve the capacity of

Chemistry Essay 4 Lab Report Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Chemistry Essay 4 - Lab Report Example However, they are not educated on the required limit of intake and over consciousness might cause them to develop vitamin imbalances detrimental for the body. Recently, an increase in the number of fatalities has been recorded because of the presence of a particular natural supplement called ephedra in the dietary products in USA. (OMeara, 2003). Intake of such supplements may cause an individual to develop heart attacks, coronary diseases and hormonal imbalances. Not only this, there are drug producers that intend to increase their sale by presenting the drugs in disguise of the vitamin tablets. They deem it an appropriate way to confidently advertise their drug without being criticized for its negative impact on the users. There are supplements that cause addiction, and their validity is highly questionable. In such circumstances, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should regulate public access to such harmful so-called â€Å"nutritious supplements† in an attempt to c ombat the drug producing companies in this field. In addition to the free public access to dietary supplements, there are other issues that need to be done something about. One of such issues is the tendency of people to get the medicines they require imported from other countries in an attempt to escape the check of local DEA that might have scrutinized them given the bad health effects of the medication. In other cases, people prefer to import the medicines prescribed by their doctor simply because they may be cheaper as compared to their price in their own region. For example, many Americans prefer purchasing medicines from Canada because the rates are much lower in the latter than in the former. There are many evils associated with such a practice. First of all, medicines available in the stores in local region complete their life and expire before a patient buys them because many

Louis XVI Failure to Prevent the French Revolution

Louis XVI Failure to Prevent the French Revolution Through a close analysis, to a certain extent Louis XVI plays a major role in the advance of the French revolution. He was responsible for aspects of the revolution, but it was an event which was ready for creation, and nothing was going to terminate its destiny. The times prior were becoming extremely difficult, and France was becoming a worn-out, desperate country suffocating from finances and other communal issues. There were numerous causes for why the revolution took place such as the great division in society and specific events, and Louis XVI plays a minor role as the authority figure through the hardship and change. Thus, Louis XVI becomes a vulnerable king who receives a substantial amount of blame for the revolution. Louis-Auguste ascended the throne at the age of 20 after the death of his father and was married to Marie-Antoinette, a queen which was disliked by the public of France. Their characters were seen as contrasting, yet both were disfavoured by the people. Louis was the King in name and in power, but did not support this authority with his character. He was mildly interested in reform, more interested in his kingship, but most interested in hunting. Queen Marie-Antoinette was at fault for the revolution to a small extent also, and was extremely unpopular among the common folk of France as the representative of the hated Austrian alliance. The king was over-powered by the fatal influence of Marie-Antoinette, and was too weak-minded to be stable, and the Queen was too strong-minded to be sensible. The image that was portrayed of the King and Queen to the public eye was not of positive attitude, which causes the people of France to accuse the monarchy The first signs which revealed a crisis to be uprising were the financial situations France was confronted with during the 1780s. There were three main reasons for bankruptcy to take place in France, one which directly involved Louis XVI and caused repugnance to be felt by the public. The constant wars and ruinous loss of most of the French Empire made continuous borrowing a necessity, and along with it came an enormous amount of debt. France was known to have an inefficient taxation system, by which the third estate paid all the taxes and the nobles and clergy escaped on light terms. The main situation which directs at Louis XVIs flaws was that the French court alone was accounting for one twelfth of the whole revenue of the government, which allowed them to live in luxury while the government continued to slip into financial debts, and all the common folk of France. Louis XVI is a major part to why the government was continuing to subside into bankruptcy, and he is seen as a poor r ole model of high status. Specific events from 1788-1799 caused a pressure on France, and created a numerous amount of problems to occur. Louis XVI was not of fault for the reasons, which shows that he was not the only source of the revolution. Frances population growth had risen from knowledge of medical technology upgrading, causing strains on the economy and the agricultural resources of the country. With an increase in population came a decrease in job vacancies, causing a rapid increase of unemployment of the Parisiannes. Another specific problem to occur during the time period of a year was a harsh winter, which forced people into Paris in search of food and shelter. Food started to become increasingly short and prices began to fluctuate. The typical worker was now spending three quarters of their wages on food. The tension that grew from these important events during the year of 1788 and 1799 caused a sudden outbreak of a Paris Mob to form. They were a desperate mob of exceptional size that were idle a nd ready to cheer on the most extreme measures to create a change of misfortune. Therefore, this is evidence of one cause of the revolution, which Louis XVI was not of fault. Additional evidence supporting the fact that Louis XVI was not the main factor for the revolution to take place was the growth of ideas, which had been brought to the attention of the French people. Ideas were brought to the public by members of society who began to question the hierarchal society and its oppressive structure. Philosophers and thinkers were the main bodies of the ideas and believed in rights of the individual in society and the division of power and the basic freedoms of man. Many famous writers such as Voltaire, Jean Jaques Rousseau and many other familiar names endorsed the general feeling of uprising. It was an age of enlightenment and it was designed to liberate men and set them free from fear. They were against the beliefs churches were imposing on educating and religion. They wanted to create a change, and not allow the church to be in such dominant power anymore. Thus, this proves to the point that Louis was not the main vehicle behind the revolution that othe r dominant forces such as the church were oppressing towards the French society creating this distinct tension to the up rise. The last influence to the revolution was how the society of France was divided distinctively into three sections, and this was a subject that was in the power of the king, Louis XVI to govern. An extreme amount of tension and hatred had grown from the three separate classes; they were known as the first estate consisting of the clergy, the second estate which were the nobles, and the third estate holding a large percentage of 90 percent of the population, were the middle class, otherwise known as the bourgeoisie and peasants. The major resentment was held by the middle class who did not want to be categorized in the same title as the underprivileged. The nobles were exempt from almost all taxes, leaving the peasants and middle class to pay for them, which they could not afford to do. The Sans-culottes which was the term given to the radicals of Paris who wore long trousers instead of the aristocratic knee-breeches were from the class of artisans and small shopkeepers. There were no m ajor industrial enterprises, since they tended to be state monopolized or strictly regulated by the state. There were not many job opportunities for the peasantry and middle-class. The third estate was never given a fair chance of speech and was cast aside and ignored in any of its ideas or needs. No matter if they were of the middle class with academic background or just the common peasant they were treated as the outcasts of society. Louis XVI had the power to change the classes, since he was in absolute monarchy, but he was content with the way France was divided and felt there was no need to make the third estate pleased. Instead he decided to ignore their requests for change and left the tension of the estates to escalate. This is an indication that Louis XVI can not be completely excluded from the bringing about of the French Revolution. Thus, through the identification of the reasons of the initial events occurring to the uprising of the revolution, and through the cross analysis of Louis XVI being entwined to the causes, it can be seen that he was only a small component of the reasons. Louis XVI was in absolute monarchy and had power over many subjects, although there were reasons that no amount of power could have discontinued. As many historians have concluded about the French Revolution, France had become a very desperate country with a weak king and had a strong body of reformists, and needed only the smallest of events to occur to set it into fire. Louis XVI (23 August 1754-21 January 1793) was King of France and Navarre from 1774 until 1791, and then King of the French from 1791 to 1792. Suspended and arrested during the Insurrection of the 10th of August 1792, he was tried by the National Convention, found guilty of treason, and executed on 21 January 1793. His execution signaled the end of the absolutist monarchy in France and would eventually bring about the rise of Napoleon. There are conflicting views about his conviction. Not only is it believed that he was guilty and deserved to be guillotined in front of a cheering crowd on 21 January 1793, but a divergent view is held, outlining how his intentions were good but the circumstances were. But to what extent was Louis XVI really to blame? Though it is certain that Louis XVI failed to maintain the centralization of power; people were under the false impression that he was a vain, obtuse, and inadequate monarch, so clueless that on the day the Bastille was seized by revolutionaries, he wrote in his diary, Rien, Nothing happened.. This led to all the large forces in France conspiring to fragment power away from the monarchy. This meant that Louis could have been a scape goat and someone easy to blame for the revolution. He inherited the debt problem left by his grandfather, Louis XV, and contributed to the predicament himself through heavy spending during Frances involvement in the American  Revolution  (1775-1783). Because this massive debt overwhelmed all of his financial consultants, Louis XVI was forced to give in to the demands of the Parlement of Paris and convene the Estates, General. Also Marie Antoinette, who was brought up in indulgence as an Austrian princess, after their marriage became, in the French commoners eyes, the primary symbol of the French royaltys extravagance and excess. She was hindering their payment of loans both Louis XVI and his predecessors had. Thought she didnt have power of anything more than any other French queen until the reforms were rejected, she still had power over his purse, and carried on her indulgent life even when the country was declaring bankruptcy.    This was another target that France used in their feud against their youthful king. He had an Austrian queen, in an attempt to reconcile differences between the two countries, but with many French people against his wife, Louis was led to ignore those citizens opinions and carry on, not worrying about how he could be wrong in having a queen like Mary Antoinette. This in turn may explain why the French started to despise Louis xvi, and in the end turn to executing him.    Complaints about the king, taxing, and voting in the Estates General were on the increase. The bourgeoisie were well informed of their legal weakness and conscious of the rights that other people in other nations, such as the new United States of America, were receiving as a right of a drastic change in judgment. The most important causes of the French Revolution, therefore, were these: the constant unprofessional conduct of the French government and the subsequent unfairness in the distribution of wealth, the incredible hardship that the populations of the Third Estate were subject to, and, finally, the Enlightenment principles finally reaching the thinkers of the day. The ruling parties in France had long since overstepped their boundaries in terms of levying taxes. The Old Regime had become antiquated and impractical, unfit for the growing size of the country and for the well-being of the people. Feudalism had existed for centuries, but it was time for a change. King Louis XVI and his teams of advisors were forced to develop elaborate taxation schemes to pay the inflation on the national debt, which was partly the fault of his predecessors, who had spent colossal amounts of money on Versailles, amongst other things. More than fifty percent of the total budget was directed toward this renumeration. Tax collection, however, was a debacle. Taxes mixed from region to region, and most of the taxes were collected by private businessmen. They would lend the taxes to the government and then accumulate the taxes directly; they then paid themselves both the principal and the interest on the loan and sent the rest to the government. They were liberated to hold back as much as they wanted, so the Third Estate was paying far more in taxes than truly went to the government. Whats worse is that the assets of the country were not centralized; there were hundreds of offices paying out money. By the 1780s, no one had any idea as to what the total asset and liability profile of the nation looked like. The financial crisis precipitated a steep inflationary rise in prices. This inflation was good news for French manufacturing and mercantilism because it resulted in a significant shot of capital into emerging industrial and mercantile businesses. It played hell, however, with the peasantry. Not only did the peasants have to pay higher prices for the basics of life, but landlords began raising fees on the peasantry when they saw their purchasing power decrease. By 1789, over 80 percent of an average peasants household income went to purchasing bread alone, just bread. In that same year, unemployment in many parts of France was over 50%.This, of course, meant practically bleeding the poorest, most disadvantaged people in the country dry of what little capital they had. As time went on, the Churches and the nobles, making up only three percent of the territory, gathered to them upwards of half of the land in the country; they then turned their sights on the largest portion of the French people, and began to take whatever they could from them. Louis was blamed for this as he was that kept the taxes and even added some on to pay off his debts. On top of the taille, the corvà ©e, the tithe and capitation, the vingtieme was called on even when France wasnt at war. In 1787, Louiss financial ministers, Charles de Calonne and Lomà ©nie de Brienne, tried to initiate a series of reforms to stop the complete financial ruin of the French government. They wanted new taxes. The Parlements, which had the authority to raise taxes, want something in return: more regional independence. The aristocracy wouldnt budge on the matter; when Louis calls a select group of nobles together to sell him on the reforms, they flat out declined to consider the matter. They insist, rather, that the only governmental body that can support the new taxes is the Estates General, which hadnt been called since 1614. So Louis XVI decided in 1789 to convene the Estates, General, and an ancient assembly consisting of three different estates that each represented a portion of the French population. If the Estates, General could agree on a tax solution, it would be implemented. However, since two of the three estates; the clergy and the nobility, were tax, exempt, the achievement o f any such result was unlikely.    Furthermore, the out of date rules of order for the Estates, General gave each estate a single vote, despite the fact that the Third Estate, consisting of the general French public, was many times larger than either of the first two. Feuds quickly broke out over this discrepancy and would prove to be contradictory. Realizing that its numbers gave it an automatic advantage, the Third Estate declared itself the sovereign National Assembly. Within days of the announcement, many members of the other two estates had switched allegiances over to this revolutionary new assembly.    On May 5, 1789, Louis XVI convened the Estates General. Almost immediately, it became apparent that the 1614 arrangement would not sit well with its present members. Although Louis XVI granted the Third Estate greater numerical representation, the Parlement of Paris stepped in and invoked an old rule mandating that each estate receive one vote, regardless of size. As a result, though the Third Estate was vastly larger than the clergy and nobility, each estate had the same representation, one vote. Inevitably, the Third Estates vote was doubled to accommodate the difference in population. Louis XVI could be commentated on his good intentions in light of this event. Knowing very well that a revolution was imminent, he let there be an equal ration of representatives, thus editing a tradition to mace it democratic.    The fact that the Estates General hadnt been summoned in nearly 200 years probably says a thing or two about the extent of the situation. The First and Second Estates, clergy and nobility, respectively, were too closely related in many matters. Both were linked to the royalty and shared many similar privileges. As a result, their votes often went the same way, automatically neutralizing any effort by the Third Estate. Additionally, in a country as secularized as France at the time, giving the church a full third of the vote was ill-advised: although Frances citizens would ultimately have their revenge, at the time the churchs voting power just fostered more animosity. There were numerous philosophers in France speaking out against religion and the mindless following that it supposedly demanded, and many resented being forced to follow the decisions of the church on a national scale.    In a way if it werent for Louis making his decision to give more votes to the 3rd estate, there would be no upheaval from the 1st and 2nd estates. On the other hand the revolt of the 3rd estate would affect him. He was stuck in the middle with no was of compromise. Things got worse when the third estate segregated. The Third Estate itself varied greatly in socioeconomic status: some members were peasants and labourers, whereas others had the occupations, wealth, and lifestyles of nobility. These disparities between members of the Third Estate made it difficult for the wealthy members to relate to the peasants with whom they were grouped. Because of these rifts, the Estates, General, though organized to reach a peaceful solution, remained in a long-lasting inside feud. It was only through the efforts of men such as Sieyà ¨s that the members of the Third Estate finally realized that fighting among them was fruitless and that if they took advantage of the estates massive size, they wou ld be a force that could not be ignored. In conclusion, I believe the French Revolution was an astonishingly convoluted affair; it was principally lit by the antagonisms between the first two and the Third Estate, antagonisms rooted in decades of abuse and frustration and not a despot who was trying to fix his families mistakes along with his own. Louis xvi may have made some decisions that would make any other monarch twitch with distaste but his intentions were good , and considering his age and his power , he was an adequate king for a place that certainly had a revolution in its midst.

Grapes of Wrath :: Essays Papers

Grapes of Wrath4 In John Steinback’s masterpiece novel, The Grapes of Wrath, the novelist uses Ma as the loving, caring, and physical backbone of the family. She is the prime example of the novel’s theme: in order for survival to be successful, people must join together and form a "we" environment as oppose to an "I" environment. Her strength that she instills throughout the novel, her leadership role that she has to help keep the family together, and her love she nourishes to her family shows the readers the true meaning of Ma as Steinback expresses her. Her outstanding characteristic is the essential need for the family’s unity. As the emotional and physical backbone of the Joad family, Ma demonstrates her leadership skills throughout the journey to California. There were many situations in the story, in which, the family began to drift apart and Ma would shift to a position of active leadership. Ironically, the father is usually the head of the family, but as the days continue in the long journey to California, Ma develops into the role of the father. Some situations in which Ma shows her leadership role is when they are camped at the Colorado River, she wields a skillet when confronting an officer who orders the family to leave. "Ma’s face blackened with anger. She got slowly to her feet. She stooped to the utensil box and picked out the iron skillet." Another situation, where Ma’s control is used, is when they are traveling and Rose of Sharon talk’s about living with Connie in a town. "Well, we talked all about it, me an’ Connie. Ma, we wanna live in a town." After hea ring her story, Ma became in a state of shock, proclaiming "We don’ want you to go ‘way from us. It ain’t good for folks to break up." Ma demonstrates her leadership and love by telling Rose of Sharon that she should stay with the family and not go off with Connie and begin a new life. Although Ma is seen as a leader, it does not mean she is motivated to be one. Her primary desire is to continue nurturing the family and keeping it together. "Twenty families became one family, the group was welded to one thing." Ma’s primary responsibility is to take care of her family and to provide them food, upraise, support, and love.

Free Will Essay

Vilayandur S. Ramachandran came from a distinguished family in Tamil Nadu, India, and was neuroscientist, which is a field of study encompassing the various scientific disciplines dealing with the nervous system. Ramachandran’s views on the brain and how it works are discussed in his work â€Å"The New Philosophy†. In his essay he discusses the nature of consciousness, discussing the effects of certain mental states and their influence on the body and the brain. One of his main topics, however, is the Ramachandran’s view of free will. He suggest that â€Å"†¦neuroscience intersects with philosophy because the question of free will has been a philosophical problem for hundreds of years and more† (Jacobus 569). He discusses the significance of the brain imaging that shows a â€Å"readiness potential† and what it really means to have a free will. Through his essay, though, it is interesting to point out where religion and Christianity stands on th e issue of free will and whether Christians are puppets under God’s command. Ramachandran poses this question about free will: â€Å"Is your brain the real one in charge, making your free will only a post-hoc rationalization; a delusion..?† When a special experiment was underway, it was discovered that when a person was told to move their finger within the next ten minutes at their own free will, their brain would kick in almost a second before the actual willingness to move the finger. This posed the original question stated above and brought on other questions as well. If this person is now shown the screen displaying the signal from the EEG scanner hooked up to your brain, they can then see their free will. They will then have three options: 1) They will experience a sudden lack of will, feeling as though the machine is controlling them, making them feel like a puppet. 2) They will refuse to have their belief of their free will to be altered but instead believe that the machine has some â€Å"paranormal precognition by which it is able to predict your movements accurately† (Ramachandran 559-60). 3) The person will reconfigure the experience in their mind, and cling to their sense of freedom, denying what their eyes have seen as evidence and maintain that â€Å"the sensation of will precedes the machine’s signal, not vice versa† (Ramachandran 560). The point when the brain would â€Å"kick in† before the movement is called the â€Å"readiness potential†. The â€Å"readiness potential† is what happens when there is a change in the electrical activity of the brain that occurs before the subject’s conscious decision to move a muscle (medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com). Ramachandran believes that â€Å"†¦there is an inevitable neural delay before the signal arising in one part of the brain makes its way through the rest of the brain to deliver the message†¦natural selection has ensured that the subjective sensation of willing to delay deliberately to coincide not with the onset of the brain commands but with the actual execution of the command by your finger† (Ramachandran 560). Ramachandran is a firm believer in evolution, believing that the events must have some sort of evolutionary purpose. â€Å"On one hand,† he says, â€Å"this experiment shows that free will is false and cannot be causing the brain events because the events kick in a second earlier. But on the other hand, the pause must have some purpose, otherwise why would the delay have evolved† (Ramachandran 560). Though these events have a purpose, evolutionary is not the answer. In Joshua 24:15 it says â€Å"Choose for yourselves this day who you will serve, as for me and my household we will serve the LORD.† God gives mankind a choice to follow Him and so free will is a gift from God as something to be accepted. Humans have the gift of God to reject or take the free gift that He offers. If humans really are descendants of apes, then when did the gift of free will come into the evolutionary chain of today’s mankind? John 7:37 says â€Å"Anyone who is thirsty may come to me.† It is an offer. Not a demanding command. ‘Anyone who is thirsty may come to me’, shows us that God does not want us to be without his living water and without him, but it is our choice whether we choose to accept God’s free gift of salvation. When studying free will in the Bible and through works of literature like Vilayandur S. Ramachandran, there will always be people on both sides of the argument. Do we have control of our own destinies or are we merely puppets in God’s giant game of the world? My personal beliefs on the subject are as I have stated in this paper: Though God has a control over the destiny of the world and each of our lives, he gives us a chance to make a decision to follow him or to ignore the free gift of his son that he has offered to us. John 3:16 it says: â€Å"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believed in him would have eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.† Works Cited Jacobus, Lee A. A World Of Ideas. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. Print. The Free Dictionary. Medical Dictionary. Online source. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/readiness+potential Bible. New Living Translation.

A history of Latin America Essay

It was during the European colonial expansion that Brazil fell under Portugal as a colony. Colonization in Brazil spanned the period between 1500 to year 1815. Portugal was interested in Brazil for a number of reasons that included the hope of getting minerals, raw materials as well as slave trade and labor to among other interests. The colonization of Brazil had some effect on the native way of life, with most of these effects having had a lasting effect to date. It’s worth noting that from the history of Brazil, France also had an interest in Brazil but could not stand up to Portugal which had taken the control of this part of the world through the signing of a treaty. The Portugal king known as king Manuel 1 who was reigning then wanted the colony to be ruled under a system of 15 hereditary captaincies- a fit that failed to work due to large-scale failure. The system gave way to royal enterprise in 1549. The following essay describes the causes and the effects of the Portuguese colonialism in Brazil. Causes of colonialism There are a number of things that preceded the Portuguese entry into and colonization of Brazil. Following the signing of the treaty of Tordelsillas in the year 1494 that facilitated the division of the world between Spain and Portugal, all land falling to the east was taken up by Portugal while Spain took up the land on the western side. In the year 1500, a navigator, Captain Pedro Alvares Cabral in charge of a fleet of 13 ships trailing the route taken by Vasco da Gama to India, landed in Brazil. He possessed this land for king Manuel 1 as an overseas colonial land for Portugal. His possession of the land made it a colonial land for Portugal (Sweet 2007p233). The Portuguese expressed their interest in Brazil due to the presence of raw materials that proved to be valuable for Portugal. One of the raw materials that Portugal got from Brazil includes the Brazilwood tree from which dark wood and red dye could be extracted. The Brazilwood was readily available in the Brazilian rainforest where it grew naturally. The red dye was exported to Europe where it was useful in staining luxurious textile for trading. The dark wood was sought for commercial purposes as well- specifically for sale within the European markets. The Portugal colonial system was also interested in growing sugar cane from Brazil for use in making of wine and for exporting to Portugal. An interest in other agricultural products of the nature of cash crops also interested the Portugal royal government that was reigning under the king Manuel 1 to take up Brazil as a colony. The cash crops drawn from Brazil included cotton and tobacco. These two cash crops were exported to Europe for sale in the European market. Portugal was interested in Brazil due to the prospect of getting slaves for labor and trade. The plantations in Europe required free labor that slaves could provide. Portugal marked Brazil as a potential area where for getting slaves for their plantations in Europe or for trading them. Even though the Portugal authorities had managed to transact some of the slaves with a Brazilian origin, the coming of the Jesuits in Brazil greatly led to the fall of the trade since they were opposed to the trade. This forced the Portugal authorities to embark on importing slaves from West Africa. At the same time, labor was greatly needed in the sugar plantations in Brazil. The natives provided this labor in exchange of scissors, axes, mirrors and knives while some were captured and forced to provide the labor as slaves (Morris 2006p34). Another reason why Portuguese had an interest in Brazil was because they were hoping to get minerals that they could use for their industries in Portugal or sell them in the European market. Though initially no minerals were found, some deposits of gold and later diamonds were found in the 18th century in the interior of Brazil by the bandeirantes. The area where gold deposits were found is known as the Minas Gerais mines. Deposits of diamond were found in 1729 in a village known as the Tujico village- the present day Diamantina. The French had expressed an interest n the land of Brazil as it was attracted to the Brazilwood and the prospect of mining some minerals from the land. This forced Portuguese to take up the land for establishing colonial rule in it before the French powers could take it over. Even though Portuguese had already possessed the land of Brazil, the heavy presence of the French military along the cost of Brazil forced the Portuguese to set the colonial powers and use military power to evacuate the French from the Brazilian coast (Leftwich 1999p156). Effects of Portuguese colonialism in Brazil The presence of the Portuguese colonial power in Brazil affected a number of the native life of the people in Brazil. Colonialism led to the widespread and adoption of the catholic faith in worship. This was a result of the coming of the Jesuits, who were led by the first governor, Tome de Sousa. The Jesuits made a great representation of the religious enterprise, setting missions within Brazil and actively converting the natives into the catholic faith. Another consequence of the Portuguese colonial powers in Brazil is the death of a great number of people due to wars that pervaded the colony. The natives were opposed to the colonial powers and therefore staged resistances that led to the death of many natives. An example of the native revolts is the Guarani war of the year 1756 where the native were fighting the Portuguese authorities as a protest against slave trade. The native guaranis were assisted by the Jesuits who also opposed slave trade and labor (Chasteen 2001 p251). The colonial era in Brazil also played a great role in the proliferation of the people of the African origin in Brazil. Since Brazil drew a lot of slaves from the West African region to work within the plantations in Brazil, a very large number of Africans settled within the Brazilian land after the slave trade was abolished since they had no way of going back to Africa even when they were set free (Freyre 2008 p458). There was a proliferation of infectious diseases that were brought by the colonialist from Europe to Brazil. The natives had no natural immunity against these diseases and this led to the death of a great number of natives from these foreign diseases. The colonial powers also led to the embrace of the sugar cane growing in agricultural sector for export. Since sugar cane had such a high demand within the European market, the expansion of the sugar cane sector drew great profits. This sector however received a blow and fell once the Dutch and the French started cultivating and exporting sugarcane to the European market. Since Antilles- the area where Dutch and the French produced the sugar was much closer to Europe, the sugar prices fell drastically towards the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century during which time the sugar industry on Brazil fell. The colonial powers within Brazil also led to the founding of the Rio de Janeiro city in the year 1565 by the governor general Estacio de Sa’. He established Rio de Janeiro as the capital of Brazil in the year 1763 from Salvador. At the same time, a number of changes took place with the cities in Brazil. The estados – states- in Brazil had been divided and separated so that they were headed by the city council prior to the year 1763. The city councils were composed of top figures within the Brazilian land including the merchants, land owners and business men. Since Brazil was to big to be administered by the royal government, there arose a need to divide this area into smaller estates. The states of Brasil, Maranhao, and Grao-para were unified into Brazilian viceroyalty in the year 1763 and Rio de Janeiro was set as the capital of these cities. This helped to destroy the divisions that were created in the early days of the colonial invasion (Freyre 2008 p457). There was the creation of a number of towns in south Brazil. Some of the towns created include Colonia de Sacramento, Alores islands, and Porto Alegre among other towns. As essay shows, there are a number of major changes that took place with the expansion of the Portuguese power in Brazil. The native Brazilians abandoned their cultural way of life and adopted the life that the Portuguese were living in terms of dress code, food eaten, and the religion adopted (Keller 2006p517). Conclusion Expansion of the European powers into the rest of the world during the colonial era led to major changes and experiences into the areas that these countries set their colonial power. In the case of Brazil, changes that took place were experienced over the whole range of the living including their social living, political life and religion among other areas. The effect of the colonial powers is still felt in Brazil to the present day. References Chasteen J (2001) Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America, Norton p251 Freyre G (2008) The masters and the slaves (Casa-grande & senzala) Brazilian civilization, University of Texas p457, 458 Keller (2006) Colonization study, founding of new societies. Ginn & Company p517 Leftwich A (1999) Redefining politics; populace, property, and power, Taylor & Francis p156 Morris H (2006) History of Colonialism from the Earliest Times Present Day, University of Michigan p34 Sweet W (2007) A history of Latin America. The Abingdon Press p233