Yeah, if I remember right, the one of the popular proto-racisms before they settled on pseudo-genetics was that people from warm climates are too passionate and only good for laborers and soldiers, people from cold climate’s are too dispassionate and should be scientists, and only the people from [whoever is writing this shit today’s home latitude] have the even temperament necessary to rule.
Basically, though Owl remembered it backwards - Northeners from colder climates (Germanic tribes, Nords, Scots, etc) are in order to compensate for that more hot in body and thereby more passionate and quick to anger, with somewhat overheated brains but very strong bodies - great warriors and laborers, but poor in intellectual pursuits on average.
It was the opposite for people from Warmer climates, their bodies were ‘colder’ and their brains worked much better but their bodies were weak - great intellectuals and artists, poor warriors and laborers.
The Romans and Greeks, of course, being in the middle of these two poles had the best of both worlds. Or so the thinking went. It’s also worth noting the Romans didn’t see this as hereditary, exactly - it was thought that people moving to different temperature areas would cause them to have the same characteristics as the locals within just a few generations.
There’s something to be said about how different grains impacted the social structures of many societies. Rice really incentivized massive families and communal structures. Wheat was easier to automate with tools and industry. North China and South China have a lot of interesting differences in societal habits as a result.
As a cook and history guy, food history is like…super informative. Who ate what during whatever period or place and how it got to the table is like the most historical materialism you can do. It’s something id really like to study in a formal capacity
Yeah the types of foods that societies relied on are a much stronger influence on culture and development than weather imo. Of course the weather itself plays a role in which foods are available though and this leads to people misattributing the behaviour to the weather instead of correctly recognising that everything we’ve ever done socially revolves around the survival need to eat.
I often ask myself, “why are they like this?”, but “they evolved different” is pseudoscientific. the material conditions that made capitalism started fairly recently. I haven’t finished Black Marxism yet, but I reckon it has something to do with history.
This is just racism IMO.
I’ve seen the Europeans are the superior race because evolution and their environment reasoning before.
Yeah, if I remember right, the one of the popular proto-racisms before they settled on pseudo-genetics was that people from warm climates are too passionate and only good for laborers and soldiers, people from cold climate’s are too dispassionate and should be scientists, and only the people from [whoever is writing this shit today’s home latitude] have the even temperament necessary to rule.
that was the roman idea, yeah.
Basically, though Owl remembered it backwards - Northeners from colder climates (Germanic tribes, Nords, Scots, etc) are in order to compensate for that more hot in body and thereby more passionate and quick to anger, with somewhat overheated brains but very strong bodies - great warriors and laborers, but poor in intellectual pursuits on average.
It was the opposite for people from Warmer climates, their bodies were ‘colder’ and their brains worked much better but their bodies were weak - great intellectuals and artists, poor warriors and laborers.
The Romans and Greeks, of course, being in the middle of these two poles had the best of both worlds. Or so the thinking went. It’s also worth noting the Romans didn’t see this as hereditary, exactly - it was thought that people moving to different temperature areas would cause them to have the same characteristics as the locals within just a few generations.
Europe, famously with a scorching equatorial climate.
China has some brutal winters and they have been continuously been one of the largest civilizations throughout all of history
China has every climate in the world pretty much. except maybe the mediterranean one.
So that’s why China has always been based and didn’t even need a cultural revolution.
Mainly because of rice being absolutely perfect to grow there and incredibly abundant in the correct conditions.
There’s something to be said about how different grains impacted the social structures of many societies. Rice really incentivized massive families and communal structures. Wheat was easier to automate with tools and industry. North China and South China have a lot of interesting differences in societal habits as a result.
As a cook and history guy, food history is like…super informative. Who ate what during whatever period or place and how it got to the table is like the most historical materialism you can do. It’s something id really like to study in a formal capacity
Yeah the types of foods that societies relied on are a much stronger influence on culture and development than weather imo. Of course the weather itself plays a role in which foods are available though and this leads to people misattributing the behaviour to the weather instead of correctly recognising that everything we’ve ever done socially revolves around the survival need to eat.
Rice can have multiple harvests in a year while wheat typically leaves a seasonal labor surplus that tended to be absorbed by military campains.
I often ask myself, “why are they like this?”, but “they evolved different” is pseudoscientific. the material conditions that made capitalism started fairly recently. I haven’t finished Black Marxism yet, but I reckon it has something to do with history.