Okay. I dunno if you think I’m saying any group “superior” because I I’m very much not . I thought I was very much exploring saying that their advantage was much more based on incidental environmental conditions than any kind of genetic superiority or anything even remotely close to that. Just brainstorming explanations for history that cut that exact “superiority” bullshit out of the picture
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 months ago
Romans literally thought they were the best because the people north of them were too emotional due to cold weather and people south of them weren’t hard enough due to hot weather.
And I also brought up that the most developed part of the world shifted over time, something that you’ve talked past rather than addressing to how it affects your theory of vitamin D.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I really don’t understand the source of conflict here. You seem like you agree that Europeans did happen to have the conditions amenable to development, but what’s your alternative? That the cause wasn’t just a coincidence? I’m really confused what your disagreement is.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 months ago
I also mentioned India and China. You probably could have included parts of the Middle East as well if they weren’t as wrecked by the Mongol invasions as they were.
The vitamin D hypothesis doesn’t play out when looking at those areas.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Nothing I said conflicts with any of that? Han, Mongol, Turkic, Persian, and many other “ethnicities” across the continent play out just fine when taking light skin tone into consideration. Again, explicitly not race. I am talking about “white” as a skin tone, potentially correlated with harsher comes.