U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2015, 10:52 AM
 
873 posts, read 814,552 times
Reputation: 554

Advertisements

It's tough to answer this as a Canadian because I never lived anywhere else besides Canada. I grew up thinking this climate is the norm so I have nothing to compare it against. Canada's climate feels normal to me despite it being colder than everywhere else. Kinda like if you were born blind, you wouldn't know there's a better life if you can see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2015, 11:22 AM
 
1,376 posts, read 1,007,742 times
Reputation: 1453
Canada's climate was actually probably beneficial in terms of it's future development in some ways. If Canada's location with a sub-tropical or tropical climate it would've possibly ended up with a colonial plantation economy--which would've also possibly included slavery and all the potential issues that go with dealing with a history of slavery(while parts of Canada had some slaves at various points in history the numbers were very small).

But cold Canada basically grew up around fur-trapping and other parts of the frontier economy--and the vast expanses of most of the land were too cold for mass settlement further north. So the population ended up very spread-out in a handful of urban clusters, but also the issue of overpopulation will never really be an issue. As well, Canada is maybe one of the only countries in the Western Hemisphere to never have a larger country-wide civil war or violent revolution(though there was the rebellion in 1837).

In general temperate and colder countries tend to be more stable and have better economies in the long-run, one can theorize why, but it holds true for both Europe and Asia in a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 11:38 AM
 
Location: In transition
10,131 posts, read 11,878,817 times
Reputation: 4428
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland View Post
Canada's climate was actually probably beneficial in terms of it's future development in some ways. If Canada's location with a sub-tropical or tropical climate it would've possibly ended up with a colonial plantation economy--which would've also possibly included slavery and all the potential issues that go with dealing with a history of slavery(while parts of Canada had some slaves at various points in history the numbers were very small).

But cold Canada basically grew up around fur-trapping and other parts of the frontier economy--and the vast expanses of most of the land were too cold for mass settlement further north. So the population ended up very spread-out in a handful of urban clusters, but also the issue of overpopulation will never really be an issue. As well, Canada is maybe one of the only countries in the Western Hemisphere to never have a larger country-wide civil war or violent revolution(though there was the rebellion in 1837).

In general temperate and colder countries tend to be more stable and have better economies in the long-run, one can theorize why, but it holds true for both Europe and Asia in a way.
Not necessarily true... Australia is warm temperate to tropical and I don't think slavery played a large part in its early history at least not like in the US south. It probably has to do with the fact that Australia is mostly too dry for cash crops...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 11:58 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,260,811 times
Reputation: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
You're right on the one hand, but I think a point you are missing is that you can do more diferent stuff over the four seasons in a given year without going anywhere than you can in a place with a year-round tropical climate.

A year-round tropical climate, or a temperate climate like Paris or DC might be the preference of a lot of people, but that's not really the point if we are talking about climate diversity.

Likewise, if you are nuts about skiing and want to be able to do it year-round then a place like Tignes in France might be ideal... There are people like that too.
Paris or DC are cities. Of course they don't have climate diversity because they have one climate. However, France or the US have great climate diversity, which means in their respective country, one has the option to live in places where the climate suite their needs.

Canada simply doesn't.

Nobody is saying tropical weather is good. I don't like it - but sometimes, maybe for a few days a year, people might want it, yet Canada doesn't have such a place whatsoever.

Trust me I like four seasons too, but Canada isn't really about "four seasons" people regularly talk about. My hometown, a city with 1.5 million people for example, has four seasons, with highest temperature of 3C, 12C, and 33C in Jan, March and July, respectively and 3,000 hours of sunshine every year, more or less evenly distribution rainfall (18-50mm depending on which month). Spring 25%, summer 29%, fall 24%, winter 22% (by Meteorological definition). That's called "four seasons".

When it is freezing from December to March, snows even in late March or early/mid April, when winter is disproportionately long and spring unnoticeably short, that's not "four seasons". And of course lower BC doesn't have 4 seasons either, it is dry and rain season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 12:03 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,260,811 times
Reputation: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by deneb78 View Post
Not necessarily true... Australia is warm temperate to tropical and I don't think slavery played a large part in its early history at least not like in the US south. It probably has to do with the fact that Australia is mostly too dry for cash crops...
Or China or Japan for that matter. These countries have large subtropical areas and thousands of years of history yet never had a history of slavery.

I thought that argument is too flimsy to worth argue against.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 12:07 PM
 
1,376 posts, read 1,007,742 times
Reputation: 1453
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Or China or Japan for that matter. These countries have large subtropical areas and thousands of years of history yet never had a history of slavery.

I thought that argument is too flimsy to worth argue against.
China and Japan weren't colonial societies settled in the last several hundred years obviously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 12:11 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,260,811 times
Reputation: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland View Post
China and Japan weren't colonial societies settled in the last several hundred years obviously.
Or it is simply because those countries don't like to ship people from the other side of the world to be used as slaves as part of the culture. Japan colonized some islands (such as Taiwan) too, but didn't really enslave anyone. China discovered many Asian islands way earlier than Columbus but didn't enslave anyone.

It is more about culture than geography.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 12:11 PM
 
1,376 posts, read 1,007,742 times
Reputation: 1453
Quote:
Originally Posted by deneb78 View Post
Not necessarily true... Australia is warm temperate to tropical and I don't think slavery played a large part in its early history at least not like in the US south. It probably has to do with the fact that Australia is mostly too dry for cash crops...
They used convict labor early on(slavery was banned in the British Empire by the time Australia was settled in larger numbers), but they did have a system that was close to slavery with Pacific Islanders on sugar plantations and also with aboriginals. But the numbers and impact weren't as high as places in Latin America or the American South so the end result was marginal.

Australia needs to own up to its slave history

Australia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,685 posts, read 8,750,439 times
Reputation: 7299
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Or China or Japan for that matter. These countries have large subtropical areas and thousands of years of history yet never had a history of slavery.

I thought that argument is too flimsy to worth argue against.
Really? In China:

https://slaveryinjustice.wordpress.c...ancient-china/


In Japan,the history is much murkier for some reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 12:16 PM
 
1,376 posts, read 1,007,742 times
Reputation: 1453
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Or it is simply because those countries don't like to ship people from the other side of the world to be used as slaves as part of the culture. Japan colonized some islands (such as Taiwan) too, but didn't really enslave anyone. China discovered many Asian islands way earlier than Columbus but didn't enslave anyone.

It is more about culture than geography.
Well, it's mostly because they didn't have a shortage of labor. In fact historically China and Japan usually had an excess of labor(hence why people left to other parts of the world to settle somewhere else). The Japanese ruled over the Taiwanese and Koreans, which was basically colonialism, though they didn't need to ship anyone else there, because they had all the laborers they would need already there. According the some Koreans, the Japanese occupation was fairly close to slavery at times.

China set up trading colonies and communities, they didn't conquer Asian islands for the most part.

Anyhow, I was comparing colonial founded societies in the Western Hemisphere, I wasn't discussing an apples to oranges comparison of every civilization on Earth. Canada wouldn't be Canada if it was in a warmer region--the location and climate of Canada is what drove how Canada turned out, for better or worse. The history would be so different if Canada had Brazil or Jamaica-like climatic regions, that it wouldn't be close to what Canada is today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top