: Phil Bellfy
: U.P. Colony The Story of Resource Exploitation in Upper Michigan -- Focus on Sault Sainte Marie Industries
: Modern History Press
: 9781615996070
: 1
: CHF 3.10
:
: Geschichte
: English
: 80
: DRM
: PC/MAC/eReader/Tablet
: ePUB

In the 1980s, Phil Bellfy pondered the question: Why does Sault, Ontario, appear to be so prosperous, while the 'Sault' on the American side has fallen into such a deplorable state? Could the answer be that the 'American side' was little more than a 'resource colony'-or to use the academic jargon of 'Conflict and Change' Sociology-an 'Internal Colony.' In UP Colony, Bellfy revisits his graduate research to update us the state of the Sault.
The ultimate question: why has the U.P.'s vast wealth, nearly unrivaled in the whole of the United States, left the area with poverty nearly unrivaled in the whole of the United States? None of the conventional explanations from 'distance to markets,' to 'too many people,' to 'disadvantageous production costs,' have any credibility. Simply put: 'Where did the $1.5 billion earned from copper mining, $1 billion from logging, and nearly $4 billion in iron ore go?'
To get to the bottom of these thorny questions, Bellfy looks at the possible economic pressures imposed by 'external colonial powers.' The pressure-points examined in this book include presence of a complimentary economy, lopsided investment in one sector, monopoly style management, disparity of living standards, a repressive conflict-resolution system, and the progressive growth of inequality over time.
InUP Colony, Dr. Bellfy has revisited his MA Thesis and brought this analysis up-to-date in conjunction with the Sault's Semisepticentennial-the 350th anniversary of its French founding in 1668.

INTRODUCTION

The fact that Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP) is an area of serious and persistent poverty is unquestioned (Haber, 1935);(KISS, 1976). The reasons given to explain this poverty sound very much like the answer the old man gave when asked about the secret of his longevity. He replied, “Living a long time.” When asked why the UP is poor, the standard answer is “lack of money.” The answer is representative of the miasma that a critical social scientist is confronted with while studying UP poverty. The “explanations” of UP poverty run the gamut from “distance from markets” (Garrison, 1966) and “too many people” (Haber, 1935) to “disadvantageous production costs” (Strassmann, 1958). But “lack of resources” is never given as an explanation for UP poverty for the simple reason that the UP, during its 350-year history of exploitation, gave up a number of fortunes in fur, lumber, copper, and iron ore.

The ultimate question: why has the UP’s vast wealth, nearly unrivaled in the whole of the United States, left the area with poverty nearly unrivaled in the whole of the United States? In order to answer this question, it may be wise to abandon traditional economics and sociology. The answer may lie in an analysis of the UP’s historical and ongoing role as a colony of the moneyed interests of the eastern and lake states.

The outward signs of the UP’s colonial pattern are evident: persistent poverty, tremendous exploitation of natural resources, political impotence, lack of an integrated economy, etc. The problem, of course, is whether such a colonial appellation would be upheld by a detailed analysis of the UP’s underdevelopment. Al Gedicks speaks of the upper Great Lakes region (UGLR) as an internal resource colony. He presents a picture of exploitation in the mining sector, which convincingly points to a colonial pattern (CALA, 1974; Gedicks, 1973, 1976a, 1976b). The evidence he marshals is informative but apparently he has yet to publish a detailed analysis of the colonial patterns that existed (and continue to exist) in the upper Great Lakes region. This paper is an attempt to present that detailed analysis with respect to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula played a central role in the upper Great Lakes resource exploitation of which Al Gedicks speaks. Historically the Upper Peninsula was exploited for fur, copper, lumber, and iron ore. But the reader should keep in mind that (1) the fur exploitation covered an area much greater than the UP; (2) the lumber exploitation, while devastating the Upper Peninsula, had harsher effects on the northern half of Michigan’s lower peninsula and spread to northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin as well; and (3) the Upper Peninsula supplied the majority of the iron ore exports of the UGLR until nearly the turn of the century when Minnesota became the dominant source of Lake Superior iron ore. Copper exploitation was essentially an Upper Peninsula phenomenon.

The Colony Concept

The concept of “colony” is an emotional one, steeped in the five-hundred-year history of European expansion and exploitation. Yet, due t