So, yes. I think it might just happen that buying banana from somewhere keeps them poor. These are so well known cases that I somewhat suspect you asked the question as a softball.
Then they don’t get masacred to force others to labour on the banana plantations, and their democraticaly elected leaders don’t get overthrown by the CIA.
Maybe they find other ways to thrive, maybe not. Banan is not the only thing they could grow, and growing things is not the only way to make an economy work.
This is not an abstract economy problem from a econ 101 textbook. History cannot be rolled like that back and “what-if” is not a question we can answer.
What we know is that violence has been commited with the direct goal of securing said banana supply.
It depends. In ideal conditions it wouldnt, but there's all sorts of ways that a large country like the USA (or its corporations) can keep a smaller country (and/or its poorer citizens) in poverty while trading with them, to their own advantage. e.g. Banana Replublics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic), third world debt in the 80s/90s, poor people being pushed into growing cash crops instead of food ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behind-africas-famin...)