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.
XiELEd@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Also you’re too focused on trying to defend yourself from any potential accusation? What about that point someone made that in some points of history, regions of relatively high cultural development change over time?
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
All I’m saying is that regions with harsher winters experienced early consistent pressures to develop specific technologies: agriculture, food storage, preservation, textiles, and weatherproof shelters. Early development of those technologies helped push them toward industrialization earlier. Not that they’re the only regions that were ever developed, especially after the establishment of wider trade routes. I don’t understand the enthusiasm of everyone to turn this into a race thing.
XiELEd@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I mean, not many people would call Eastern Asians “white people”
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Okay. I am, in the context of skin tone, witch is the only thing relevant to my point. I don’t subscribe to racist ideology. “White” isn’t even a coherent race.