American Imperialism Negative Effects

According to sociologist Paula S. Rothenberg, “it is impossible to understand the world that we inhabit . . . without attending to the colonial past that has shaped it” (Rothenberg, pp.76). Beginning roughly in the late fifteenth century, European powers, such as Great Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain, gradually amassed global empires, with colonies and trading posts on multiple continents. Though some colonies were meant for European settlers, the majority were established for their access to natural resources and potential for crop cultivation. While the imperialist efforts of European empires allowed them to thrive politically and economically, this colonization, conversely, had significantly negative impacts on both the previously-colonized
regions and their inhabitants. European colonialism has left behind a legacy of dependency and underdevelopment for former-colonies which has resulted in poverty, famine, environmental destruction, and a significant, terminal gap between affluent and poor countries.
One of the most wide-spread repercussions of colonialism was the destruction of the environment, which led to famine among the colonized. In his article, Jerry Kloby discusses how the establishment of a sole cash crop, also known as “monoculture,” in colonies like French West Africa, India, and Ireland deterred those living in the colonies from growing the variety of crops necessary for sustenance and survival (Rodney, pp.120). This was due to the fact that the crops workers harvested weren’t meant for them, but were instead intended to be sold to foreigners. Additionally, the demand for cash crops resulted in the slow deterioration of the soil. For example, Kloby explains, “If peanuts [in French West Africa] are grown year after year on the same land, the organic material in the soil is sharply diminished, crop output consequently drops, the soil’s ability to grow anything and hold water is reduced, and the region’s susceptibility to drought and desertification increases” (Kloby, pp.102). Through this and the other examples that he gives of cotton in India and potatoes in Ireland, Kloby shows how colonial crop cultivation not only prevented peasants from feeding themselves but also slowly drained the farmlands and soil of their nutrients.
Colonialism has also made numerous former-colonies dependent on their manufacturing, consumerist metropoles. This process, known as “neocolonialism,” is explained as “a situation of formal independence coupled with continued economic exploitation by an external power” (Kloby, pp.100). Due to the fact that colonies had only been able to produce raw materials, they had to rely on their European metropoles for manufactured goods. Walter Rodney asserts, “It was an inescapable feature of colonialism as a whole . . . that the international division of labor aimed at skills in the metropoles and low-level man power in the dependencies” (Rodney, pp.113). Because the work done by those in colonies like Africa was considered simpler and unskilled, those workers earned smaller wages. With their smaller wages, those who did the simpler work often faced poverty, unable to afford basic living necessities or food, much less the manufactured goods that came from their exported materials.
Additionally, Rodney argues that European powers refrained from educating those in their colonies on industrialization in order to prevent potential competition and keep their colonies dependent on them for manufactured goods. He notes, “Whenever internal forces seemed to push in the direction of African industrialization, they were deliberately blocked by the colonial governments acting on behalf of the metropolitan industrialists” (Rodney, pp.112). Consequently, it can be inferred that even if those in the colonies tried to progress and develop industrially, they would’ve been shut down by the overarching, dominant metropoles. Therefore, underdeveloped countries have never been able to industrialize, making their economies solely dependent on their European buyers.
However, Maria Mies argues that colonialism has had a negative impact on the metropole as well, specifically the environment.
Since manufacturing was primarily prohibited in the colonies, European empires processed and produced manufactured goods back in their mother countries. Mies argues that urban centers produced environments detrimental to human health, between the smoke and emissions from factories, the high populations in cities, and increases in homelessness. She claims, “The affluent society which in the midst of plenty of commodities lacks the fundamental necessities of life: clean air, pure water, healthy food, space, time and quiet” (Mies, pp.155). While life in the metropoles often isn’t as focused on as life in the colonies in discussions of colonialism, it is interesting to consider that life in the metropoles wasn’t completely
carefree.
Additionally, Mies claims that other results of colonialism lie in varying treatments of former-colonial societies towards men and women. Mies attributes the inequality and maltreatment of women in former colonies to the long-standing division of labor in patriarchal-capitalist societies. She asserts, “women’s household labor is defined as a non-productive or as non-work and hence not remunerated” (Mies, pp.153). Since the majority of the laborers in colonial crop fields were male, men were seen as the harder workers compared to the women. Mies also suggests that in the aftermath of colonialism, it is important to note the further militarization of men. As a result of new nationalisms and fundamentalisms, Mies concludes that young men in underdeveloped countries militarized to show their manhood after years of oppression and exploitation (Mies, pp.156).
Overall, Mies accurately argues that it is impossible for underdeveloped countries to catch up to first-world countries because the metropoles are unable to stop and wait for the lagging countries to catch up.
Mies states, “This is because just as one colony may, after much effort, attain what was considered the ultimate in ‘development’, the industrial centres themselves have already ‘progressed’ to a yet more ‘modern’ stage of development; ‘development’ here meaning technological progress” (Mies, pp.152). In other words, the lagging countries will never be able to catch up because of the fact that, while they are trying to catch up to the first-world countries, the first-world countries are simultaneously continuing to develop. Therefore, there will always be a widening gap between the two, unless the more advanced country, by some means, halts all progress until the underdeveloped country catches
up.
The legacy of colonialism is one that has cursed third-world countries to existences of dependency and inferiority in the global arena. As a result, these underdeveloped countries are doomed to play a never-ending game of catch-up with the world’s most advanced, wealthy nations. Therefore, Maria Mies correctly asserts that the “catching-up” theory is a myth, with former-colony countries forever two steps behind their former-metropoles.