Received: from localhost (gimenez@localhost) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with SMTP id OAA22308 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:40:10 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:40:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: ppn@csf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Re: P: help me learn about about imperialism (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Imperialism is one way of referring to the relationship between the advanced capitalist economies and the rest of the world. Dependency theory, World-Systems theory, Unequal exchange , structures of accumulation are other ways to analyze the same phenomenon: the economic growth and well being of some nations is predicated upon the poverty of others, with a few in between that achieve a modicum of unstable well being. To learn about this you need to do a great deal of reading - my suggestion is that you look into Immanuel Wallerstein's work on the World System. Also, Giovanni Arrighi's work is very clear and useful - The Long Twentieth Century comes to mind. Whatever theory you choose, the essential issue they all intend to explain is the intricate connection between the wealth of some nations and the poverty of others and just writing this reminded of a great book, William Murdoch, THE POVERTY OF NATIONS (john Hopkins U. Press) which examines this issue bringin in its implications for population very clearly. I used that text when I taught Population Control and Family Planning years ago. If this connection between economic growth in, to use World-systems concepts, the core countries and poverty in the periphery or poor countries is taken into account, then the problems that McKibben identified are compounded. To the extent that the connection between poverty and high fertility continues and world poverty remains systemically grounded and ineradicable, then it will be impossible to lower world population growth to levels that will make it possible to avoid ecological disasters. This is a hasty response to a complex question - it would be nice to hear and learn from others in PPN. Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology Campus Box 327 University of Colorado at Boulder Boulder, Colorado 80309 Voice: 303-492-7080 Fax: 303-492-5105 *********************************** On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Nan Hildreth wrote: > I need a hand here. The list I brainstorm and email with avoid this topic, > deny it. I'm helping them look at it. But I don't know my topic. > > I bought Noam Chomsky's The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1994). > Entranced, I read when I should have slept. > > Chomsky says we are being conquered like the Third World. "There's no > doubt that imperial rule was a disaster. Take India. When the British > first moved into Bengal, it was one of the richest places in the world. > The first British merchant warriors described it as a paradise. That area > is now Bangaldesh and Calcutta - the very symbols of despair and > hopelessness." (p 54) > > "Japan fended it [European conquest a century ago] off almost entirely. > That's why Japan is the one area of the Third World that developed. ... To > strengthen the point, you need only look at the parts of Europe that were > colonialized. Those parts - like Ireland - are much like the Third World." > (p 60) > > I didn't realize that imperialism sucked the blood and life out of people. > Why? Their culture being sat on smashes everything fine about it that's > developed over many, many generations? ?Being systematically robbed > takes the heart out of them? Loss of control and power over their lives? > Lots more shit rolling downhill? And then the wonders of the conquerers > coupled with their arrogance, their belief that they have the One Right Way > to Live makes them question themselves? ?Domination leads to corruption of > their traditional leaders? Which robs their culture of its integrity and > balance? Of it's justice? > > Do the dominators hate the subsistence farmers for their independence? The > wage earners in the city are more subservient? Do they hate us for the > same reason? > > One Right Way to Live is Daniel Quinn talk (great stuff, his bestseller > Ishmael has a gorilla describing human culture, good for a new student, > clear, short and profound). It means that the top dogs have justified > themselves by saying they are the only People. 10,000 years ago it was > farmers. Later it was Eqyptians, Romans, Christians, scientists. The > other cultures have no value. They are no better than animals. > > Do I sound on target? > > > > Nan Hildreth Nan.Hildreth@MciOne.com > > In the acclaimed Footprint of Nations Report, > Wackenagel and Rees show us that we are the country > with the largest ecological footprint. Not India > with three times our population. Singapore, Hong Kong, > the Netherlands, and Belgium equal or exceed us in excessive > per person footprint above resources. But ours is > the highest TOTAL footprint in excess of resources. > That is, the excess per person times the number of people. > We are 23% of the global impact although we are less than 5% of the > globe's people. > http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm >