Salnax said:
|
Its thesis is that civilization developed in Eurasia fastest for ecological not cultural or racial reasons. Eurasia's size and eco-diversity gave it more species of domesticable plants and animals than other continents, certain favorable climates and landforms, a long human presence, and east-west trade routes.
So it's not only white people, but Eurasia as a whole. Basically he dismisses down everything that could be equaled to personal or ethnical accomplishment from Earth's three core civilizations - Europe, India and China. A piece of determinism who promptly ignores not only the shortcomings of the eurasian axis but also the myriad of regions who remained underdeveloped when they had every reason to succeed according to his studies.
In an era where it's pleasing to believe the lie everybody's the same so we can supposedly enjoy the same chances in our little hedonistic lives, it's obvious his theory will ressonate with some, specially in the lower side of personal accomplishment and social hierarchy. The old childhood tactic of shifting the blame or claiming unfairness, in a nutshell.
