Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

inconvenientnews t1_j80u5ui wrote

Reply to comment by ISBN39393242 in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

It's used to mean North America without Mexico, because the definition of the continent of North America includes it

15

ISBN39393242 t1_j813zlu wrote

that’s a vague and arbitrary term. why couldn’t it just be interpreted as meaning canada, since north america means canada, us, and mexico, and canada is northernmost of all 3?

imo it’s not an intuitively understood or previously defined term, so it’s a poor label. it would be better to say “US and canada,” or smth. does canada even grow any? if not, why not just say US?

−2

NotDom26 t1_j81am0r wrote

There is more in north America than those three btw, the Carribbean Islands also had huge sugar plantations if I'm not mistaken.

9

ISBN39393242 t1_j81eroi wrote

i agree, which is also why this label is confusing. why just “north of mexico?” are the plantations in caribbean countries not included, even though they are not at all “north of mexico”? i would imagine they contribute significantly to sugar cane output, possibly even more than mexico or the US.

i only mentioned canada and the US because they are the parts of N.A. north of mexico, but it adds to further confusion about the other regions of N.A

−2

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_j82kd8g wrote

Because for just Canada you can just say Canada and it would be weird af to say nothern america for Canada only considering Alaska exists.

0