The Great Divide

Imperialism is defined as the use of military force, foreign policy, and diplomacy to extend the power of a particular country beyond its borders. While imperialism can, in the case of the British empire, take the form of one nation state amassing a collection of colonies, it can also take the form of one nation, like the United States, exerting control over foreign governments without directly invading their countries. The impact of imperialism on Panama and various other nations in the Caribbean and Central America is one of this novel’s most overt themes. Cristina Henríquez’s roots are in Panama, and she depicts the way that both European and North American imperialism have shaped her country’s history. This novel engages with imperialism directly through the context that it provides for the canal project and through the way that it depicts exploitive labor practices and the displacement of Panamanian citizens to make way for the canal.

The novel begins with an introduction to Francisco, a Panamanian fisherman who staunchly opposes the canal project. This grounds the novel not only within the story of a working-class Panamanian character but also within an anti-imperialist ideological framework. As the narrative progresses, more of the backstory of outside involvement in Panamanian politics and government is revealed, and much of this information comes from Francisco. It is explained that the United States government supported Panamanian independence from Colombia primarily to safeguard its own interests in the region and to ensure the construction of the canal. The United States government understood that, having “saved” Panama from Colombia, it would surely allow the construction of a US-funded canal through its territory. Francisco understands the foothold that this gives the United States in his country and the power that its government now wields over his own. When he heads to the capital to find Omar, he is struck by “all of the united states flags that were suddenly flying everywhere” (141). It is not just the canal itself that the US controls, but many of Panama’s other affairs as well. The flags represent imperialism, suggesting that the US is taking land ideologically instead of literally colonizing Panama.

Although the French and Spanish also had imperialist projects in the region, the novel focuses primarily on the United States. This is in part because of the role that the US played in the canal construction, but also in part because of the outsized role that imperialism has historically played in US foreign policy in the region. There was an attitude that “[i]t was the destiny of the United States to build the canal” (42). The novel then casts doubt on US assertions that its interest in Panama was altruistic in part by showing that the US was willing to displace countless Panamanians for the construction of the canal. The novel suggests that a government with the goal of growth and development would not so easily disenfranchise entire communities of people. Henríquez’s depiction of the proposal to move the town of Gatún, although fictionalized for the novel, is rooted in history. The village of Gatún was indeed moved to make way for one of the necessary dams of the canal project, and all of its citizens were forced to relocate. She suggests that the United States approached Panama with an eye toward enrichment rather than human rights.

The negative impacts of US imperialism are also evident in the labor relations depicted in The Great Divide. The outsiders who moved in to oversee various aspects of the canal’s construction as well as other infrastructural projects were largely white and in many cases affluent. Multiple instances of racism are depicted in the novel, including the foreman Miller and the chatter that is observed amongst various white foreigners in Panama who treat Black workers with great prejudice. White foreigners are in the country in order to extract as much value from it as possible and they have little regard for the locals. That Miller works one of his construction workers to death over a cruel bet is further evidence that when outside interests get involved in Panamanian affairs, Panamanians lose. At one point, a worker observes: “We part of the scenery, like so much else” (45).