Imperialism's Global Effects Practice Test

Secondary source excerpt (c. 100 words): Recent histories of anti-imperialism argue that colonized peoples did not merely react to European domination; they adapted global ideas—liberalism, socialism, and nationalism—to local grievances. Print culture, overseas study, and wartime service helped create networks that could coordinate strikes, petitions, and mass protests. European repression sometimes radicalized these movements, while imperial promises of “reform” raised expectations that could not be met. By the mid-twentieth century, anticolonial leaders increasingly framed self-determination as a universal right rather than a privilege granted by empire.

Which factor best explains the growth of the movements described?

Secondary source excerpt (c. 105 words): Environmental historians contend that imperial expansion often transformed landscapes as forests were cleared for plantations, mines expanded, and rivers were redirected to serve colonial cities and export agriculture. These projects could increase short-term output, but they also displaced communities and made local ecologies more fragile. In some colonies, dependence on a narrow range of cash crops reduced biodiversity and heightened vulnerability to pests and drought. Such ecological changes, scholars argue, were not accidental: they followed imperial priorities that valued metropolitan consumption and revenue over long-term sustainability.

Which consequence best matches this interpretation?