The Climatic Theory of the Plantation
A Critique
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4489588 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Leo Waibel (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1942 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 307 |
| Publication date | 1942-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Geographical Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0016-7428 • E-ISSN: 1931-0846 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/210279 |
| OpenAlex | W2325749797 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
IN a paper entitled Climatic Theory of the Plantation appearing in the January, I94I, number of Agriculttural History,' Edgar T. Thompson presents a discussion that deserves the attention of geographers, especially from a methodological point of view. The first explicit statement of the so-called theory of the is attributed to Keller's thesis that in matters of agricultural production one should distinguish between the tropical, or plantation, colony and the temperate, or farm, colony.2 In the chapters of Colonization that deal with particular colonies Keller makes little actual use of his proposed classification, and inasmuch as it has been largely disregarded by other scholars, one wonders why Thompson has made such a point of it. However, Thompson does introduce good reasons for rejecting the climatic concept of the plantation system, and he concludes with the following words: A theory which makes the plantation depend upon something outside the processes of human interaction, that is, a theory which makes the plantation depend upon a fixed and static something like climate, is a theory which operates to justify an existing social order and the vested interests connected with that order. Under such a conception the problems of a plantation society can be looked upon as concerning only God who alone can control the climate, and the climatic theory turns out to be really a sort of divine-right theory of the plantation. Actually, however, the theory, like other sentiments, beliefs, and attitudes connected with the plantation system, must be understood as a product of forces working within the system itself, as an important part of that system but not as an explanation of it.3 This delightful condemnation of environmentalism recalls many similar statements made by geographers. Although one may agree with the point of view, one is compelled to regard more critically Thompson's concept of the work done by geographers on the plantation system. He writes: Historians and geographers have given us most of our facts, but they have not concerned themselves with the formulation of any theory to explain the facts.4 Thompson is of the opinion that not the geographical but the sociological point of view leads inevitably to comparison, classification, the formation of class names or concepts, and eventually to the formulation of law.5 Clearly he cannot be familiar with geographical literature in general or with that relating to the plantation system in particular. The first geographer to be concerned with the plantation system was Karl Ritter, the founder of comparative geography. In I 840 he explained6 that the origin of the plantation
| Citations per year | 0.06 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1949 - 2016 (68) |
| Highly cited | No |