I have read it. Geography was not the central theme for the underdevelopment. It was colonialism. Although colonialism plays a role, it always interacts with geography like navigable rivers and so on. It also has to do with colonial settlement patterns. As they settle in the best locations you had more opportunity for favorable institutions taking root. I am convinced geography is at the root of Guyana's underdevelopment. Geography also engenders bad economic returns and therefore political conflict. I did a paper on it and will be glad to email you if you send me an email.

Geography hindered and still hinder development. Africa has inconsistent rainfall...it has no central mountain range acting as reservoirs stabilizing water flow. It also has no reliably navigable rivers and is actually a sort of Mesa type geography with rivers cascading a thousand feet in less that two miles into the sea. Al of this make movement of people and produce to the coast difficult. With no deep sea ports that is also another impediment. The amazon on the other hand does not drop more than five hundred feet in hundreds of miles and can support multi thousand tons ships a thousand miles up stream...The same for the Yangtze. Africa has only the Nile..none of its rivers reliably can support vessels more than 50 to a 100 tons and only for a few months a year.

This limited goods moving to the coast. It produced hundreds of tribes living closes to each other but completely shut off. It also produced distinct cultures and the kind of ethnic parochialism that plagued us ramped up a 100 fold.

I on the other hand...thinks our geography can be our gold mine. We simply have to look at it as such. Our rivers are navigable for hundreds of miles...we have to take a second look at rail also....  I will check in on this thread at least once a day....

How Europe underdeveloped Africa...ie examining the role of its geography...no navigable rivers...coastal deep sea ports and the attendant tribal parochialism, Islamic jihad and slave trade ( they took more slaves than the west) etc as contributory to it as well? Europeans were there less than a century...just want to know...and I think...rehabilitate the understanding that it was only the Europeans that did the place in. I am re reading Rodney as we speak to grasp in clearer sense his thesis. Never actually read it with a truly curious and analytic  eye...only as necessary political reading for a class.

I have read it. Geography was not the central theme for the underdevelopment. It was colonialism. Although colonialism plays a role, it always interacts with geography like navigable rivers and so on. It also has to do with colonial settlement patterns. As they settle in the best locations you had more opportunity for favorable institutions taking root. I am convinced geography is at the root of Guyana's underdevelopment. Geography also engenders bad economic returns and therefore political conflict. I did a paper on it and will be glad to email you if you send me an email.