Lecture 6: colonialism, racism and environmental justice Flashcards
What characterized the period of “New Imperialism” in the late 19th to early 20th century?
– Massive land grabs by European powers, the US, and Japan
– Driven by the Second Industrial Revolution
– Aimed to secure resources, cheap labor, and new markets
– Colonies provided raw materials and land at low cost
– Everywhere it occurred, soil erosion followed
What socio-ecological consequences did Holleman associate with cash crop farming under colonialism?
– Starvation due to focus on export crops over local food production
– Decline in dietary diversity and nutrition
– Famines caused by food being exported while local populations starved
– Called a “late Victorian holocaust”
– Shows how environmental crises (soil erosion) and social crises (famine) were interconnected
How did colonial cash crop agriculture contribute to soil erosion, according to Holleman?
– Monocultural farming for export was prioritized over environmental sustainability
– Farmers were incentivized to maximize production quickly, often ignoring local conditions
– Market pressures and colonial policy pushed unsustainable agricultural practices
– Resulted in long-term soil degradation
– Holleman sees this as the first global environmental crisis, closely linked to social disruption
What role did white supremacy play in justifying New Imperialism, according to Holleman?
– White supremacy was a core ideological foundation of New Imperialism
– Claimed white “superiority” gave moral obligation to “civilize” others
– Framed colonial domination as ethically justified and necessary
– Backward societies and ways of relating to nature were to be modernized by white intervention
– Racism authorized and demanded colonization
How did “The White Man’s Burden” frame colonial responsibility for environmental harm?
– Soil erosion and famine were recognized consequences of colonialism
– Yet, solving these crises was framed as another duty of the colonizers
– Instead of being seen as a failure of empire, it was presented as a challenge for imperial innovation
– Reinforced the idea that only the white colonizers could fix the problems they caused
– Colonial harm became a justification for continued colonial control
How was soil erosion viewed in relation to colonialism during the imperial period?
– Soil erosion was seen as a direct result of colonial conquest and agricultural practices
– Described as a “disease” of European-style civilizations expanding beyond Europe
– Interpreted as Nature’s revolt against the imposition of European systems on local environments
– Acknowledged by colonial officials and media at the time as an environmental and social consequence of empire
How were capitalism and white supremacy linked in environmental colonialism, according to Holleman?
– Environmental colonialism shaped by:
Material need for capital accumulation
Ideological force of white supremacy
– Racist belief in white supremacy enabled the “divine white right” to steal
– Capitalist expansion took colonial form in large part due to racism
What was the significance of the Dawes Act (1887) for Native American lands?
– Authorized US gov to privatize communal tribal lands
– Senator Dawes argued communal property was too socialist
– Land privatization meant to instill selfishness, considered foundation of civilization
– Led to violent dispossession: 75% of indigenous land was declared “unassigned” and opened to settlers and corporations
How did settler colonialism in the US function as a political-economic “release valve”?
– Poor white Americans and European immigrants relocated West
– Dispossessed classes were enlisted in the mission to “civilize” through westward expansion
– Seizing indigenous land allowed neutralizing class conflict at home
– Expansion served white supremacy while absorbing economic pressure
What does the 1930s US Dust Bowl reveal about the link between empire, capitalism, and racism?
– Dust Bowl in Southern Plains was a result of unsustainable cash crop farming, despite warnings
– Showed how empire, capitalism, and white supremacy intersected to produce environmental disaster
– Severe dust storms and drought devastated ecology and livelihoods
– Not just a regional crisis, but part of the first global environmental crisis (soil erosion)
– Reflective of global pattern of colonial expansion + environmental degradation
What is Holleman’s critique of the standard Dust Bowl narrative?
– Standard lesson: disaster caused by poor farming knowledge & fixed by better tech/policy
– Holleman: this overlooks structural causes — namely imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism
– Soil erosion wasn’t just a tech problem then, and won’t be now
– Without systemic change, tech alone won’t stop climate-driven land degradation
How does Holleman link climate change to future soil erosion?
– Climate change likely to bring back harsher, more enduring dust bowls
– Misreading past causes leads to repeating mistakes
– Today’s farming still socially/ecologically destructive
– Capitalist-driven agriculture remains central to soil degradation
– Tech can help, but without broader structural change, ecological harm will persist
What does Holleman mean by ‘coloniality’ in climate politics?
– Colonialism is over, but coloniality endures in how power & responsibility are distributed
– Global North acknowledges harm to Global South but takes little action
– This reflects a colonial mindset: sacrificing faraway peoples to avoid change at home
– Climate inaction framed by enduring colonial logic — valuing some lives and environments over others
What is environmental racism and how was it first studied in the 1970s?
– 1970s scholars found environmental degradation tracked race
– Black and Latino communities lived and worked in more degraded environments
– Polluting industries, weak regulations, and land use policies all disproportionately affected non-white populations
– Environmental benefits (clean air, green space) were more likely in white areas
– This pattern went beyond income — race itself was key
How is environmental racism linked to sacrifice and colonial logic?
– Environmental racism: sacrificing communities of color to protect white communities
– Racially segregated areas become “sacrifice zones”
– Follows same logic of sacrifice Holleman describes in colonial climate inaction
– Bullard: Southern U.S. seen as “third world”, marked by colonial mentality
– Shows how colonialism and racism intersect in environmental harm
How did later scholars expand on environmental racism theories?
– Later work argued racism isn’t just individual — it’s structural
– Environmental racism embedded in systems and policies
– Doesn’t require overt malice — can happen through institutional neglect or biased policy
– Structural racism affects how environmental harm is distributed and addressed
How does white privilege relate to environmental racism?
– White privilege = unearned advantages in racialized societies simply due to whiteness
– It can operate without intent, making racism structural rather than personal
– Even without overt racism, maintaining the status quo can reproduce racial inequality
– In environmental terms, this means white communities benefit while communities of color are sacrificed
– Environmental racism can result from invisible privileges, not just deliberate harm
What is environmental injustice and how does it relate to ecologically unequal exchange (EUE)?
– Environmental injustice occurs when the environmental benefits enjoyed by some come at the material expense of others
– Ecologically Unequal Exchange (EUE): structural relationships allow powerful groups to claim more resources and shift environmental harm onto less powerful groups
– Happens both globally (e.g., Global North exploiting Global South) and domestically (within countries)
– Leads to an unequal, unfair distribution of environmental goods (like clean air, water) and bads (like pollution, waste)
How does Givens explain environmental injustice through ecologically unequal exchange (EUE)?
– Global North extracts more resources (“tap”) and dumps more waste (“sink”) into the Global South
– The South is structurally positioned to bear the environmental costs of Northern wealth
– Environmental load displacement:
Spatial: harms like waste and dirty industries are relocated to the South
Temporal: future generations (especially in the South) will bear harms they didn’t create
– These injustices may be overlooked without a global lens (e.g., Netherlands Fallacy)
– EUE connects local and global environmental justice struggles by highlighting structural inequality
What is Givens’ concept of ecological debt and how could the Global North begin to repay it?
– Ecological debt = the unjust cost the Global South has paid for the North’s development (via EUE as tap & sink)
– The North’s material growth depended on exploiting the South’s environment
– Repayment options:
Mitigate emissions → reduce future environmental harm
Support Southern development → enable equitable, less harmful development pathways
How do Fraser and Holleman connect ecologically unequal exchange to colonialism and environmental injustice?
– Ecologically unequal exchange is rooted in colonialism/coloniality → taking from the South to benefit the North
– Fraser:
– North fixed metabolic rift (e.g., soil depletion) using Southern resources (e.g., guano, nitrates)
– Soil repair in North = environmental harm in South
– Holleman:
– Capital growth in North historically relied on colonizing the South for labor/resources
– Today: North continues the logic → offloads climate inaction costs onto Global South
– Coloniality lives on in unequal climate burden-sharing
What is distributive environmental justice, and what are two key critiques of it?
Distributive EJ:
– Justice = fair distribution of environmental goods (e.g., clean air) and bads (e.g., pollution)
– Injustice = uneven, unfair distribution
– Informed by histories of ecological inequality, colonialism, and racism
– Example: Everyone produces waste, but not everyone lives near the dump → unfair distribution
Critique 1 – Ontological Assumption:
– Assumes Western view of nature as stuff to be divided
– Not universal: many Indigenous ontologies see nature as a living entity or force
– Forcing distributive logic may erase other worldviews → a new kind of injustice
Critique 2 – Doesn’t go deep enough:
– Assumes environmental bads are inevitable, focuses on dividing them fairly
– But: Why are there so many bads to begin with?
– EJ should also mean changing systems of production/consumption to reduce bads in the first place
