This is why I can’t understand how you could take the above quote—and blog post—for a well-funded, ready-to-be-taught-in-school theory. It’s a very simplistic way of explaining some general traits that are characteristic to europeans. It’s fun and well written, but it does not have more truth in it than a talk with a smart friend over beer.

And most importantly, you seem not to have payed attention to the title—the part I added, about the mixed blood. No one in the world (except a few isolated tribes) can pretend to be “pure blood”. You took the time to write all the historic evidence, yet you forgot to mention one little word: migration. And its benefits—on “blood”, if you’re so fast to jump to the term.

Too bad you didn’t leave your name. Debating is always a pleasure—as long as one respects and listens the other.

Was this outline, of lizardly-logical northerns and leisure-oriented southerns, true during the Roman period? If you think so, then you should read some of the ethnographic writings Romans did on the northern tribes.

And after Roman decline, there was a long period when the Caliphates were a far more advanced civilization than Europe. How does this possibly fit into your “Sun People vs Ice People” concept?

China, India, and the United States have had historical differentiations to varying degrees between geographical areas (with the northern parts having, very roughly speaking, greater influence), but in these cases any attempt to assert these differences to “types” would be very mistaken.

In China, between Khan and the Manchus and until European/Japanese interference, China’s experience with imperialism was mostly from the north. India was influenced by the Greek and then Muslim empires from the north. In the United States, industry established in the north due to early settlement patterns (northern cities being closer to the UK). In the Chinese and American example, the weather differential between the northern half and southern half was markedly different, but this is not the case for India, where the weather patterns are not as substantially different, and are surely not different enough to give any credence to the “sun/ice” nonsense.

More obvious counter-examples:

The larger pre-Colombian empires of the Americas were formed in in the warmer climates. If this “theory” you seemed to have endorsed had merit, the Mayan empire would have developed around what is now called Chicago, not the Yucatán.

And if you want to go all the way back to the beginning of history, the first civilizations…you get the point.

The common thread: economics, culture, politics, militarism, and historical momentum, not strange notions of race “types” (except when “race” is forcefully tied to economic opportunity).

If you had stuck to talking about the weather, I wouldn’t have felt the need to comment on this (yes it makes a difference, but not as much as is claimed here). But when you start talking about “blood”, you are entertaining echos of ideas that caused Europe to implode in the 20th century. Ideas that are so obviously false, as has been outlined here. Ideas that the rest of the world has a right to hope do not regain their power in the European discourse.

And why would you give implicit endorsement to the general “theory” of Farrakhan, if not to his specifics–a man who has adopted one of the most hideous hate-traditions of the European continent?

So disappointing.