similarly inuits and more northern American
Here I meant natives, to be clear.
similarly inuits and more northern American
I have had a larger theory about difference in certain ethnicities' behaviours and the environment they evolved in being linked but specifically relevant to this discussion is caucasians and travelling as well as passivity.If you evolved in colder (actually straight up icy for a large enough period) environment, you very quickly had to gang up on violent people or push them away to perish alone in the cold (thus die off, not run off and fuck many women or meet a beastly man at random). This means that over time, it is likely that caucasians and similarly inuits and more northern American (as in Canada and very north part of US) had ensured that the most impulsively violent amongst themselves were minimised over time whereas other cultures probably had them spread the furthest and widest because it's not as instinctive or straightforward in the earlier stages of evolution to justify ganging up on a particularly strong and violent individual if it's open-plain and you don't naturally have the weapons (the weapons used to hunt mammoths etc were perfect for handling gang-up sitations vs a beastly violent individual).Due to the sheer cold, 'sticking together' was forced, not optional, to maintain good body temperature and stay alive as well as defend the young. This is probably also why white people developed the high 'political intelligence' that is prevalent even today, since you just had to force that to be a trait that was important and selected for when living in close quarters.This isn't just about literal heat though. There is more to it. It's about the way that colder climates make you feel you need to huddle together. In climates where it was easy to roam alone or in pairs for a long while, a very violent individual would likely, when ambushed or 'exiled' just accept it after defeated and walk off and survive and then meet and rape others, passing on genes.Of course, I can be talking total nonsense, perhaps what I said is true for caucasians in colder climates ended up a common reason humans were sociable and the most capable species of teamwork but I have a feeling it may explain the headstart they had, the climate forced them to not only work better together but led to those that couldn't 'keep the peace' to perish, as in their bloodline dying out not just themselves.
If you look at what caucasian cultures are so ridiculously strong at that keeps them 'running the world' it is not 'intelligence', the Asians in particular equal them if not surpass them in this. It is collaborative political maneuvring. I am talking about trends, it also does backfire since people like Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Mussolini and other such dictators end up capable of far more severe damage than tyrants of other ethnicities in other cultures due to the fact caucasians are as a society more open to just socialise and get by with a new maniac in charge, rather than instantly jump to fight them out of power from within they sooner go to war for them on scale/extend that is nationwide in the breadth of obedience and fear that is not quite the same for other tyrants.
Time period is any stage where natural selection was still occurring.
Putin is also impossible to criticise and mock in Russia. Asians, as in East Asians, were historically the most truly vicious ethnicity-group of those prevalent today. The extent of pillaging, rape and psychopathic slavery actually outs what happened in US to shame in terms of breadth and duration of the evil. Search how Japanese Shogun or Mongol Empire ruled and conquered.
I will however drop this tyrant angle, it is clear what I am referring to is easily misunderstood as referring to tendency towards tyranny instead of nationwide embracing vs opposing of tyranny when tyranny occurs.
The time period, to be clear, was even happening past ice age. There is, consequently, a reason why Scandinavia has the most left wing liberal hippy dippy populace today, in the whole world. The key is NOT solely cold or eastern Europe would be it too. It is something deeper that my theory has not cracked yet.
I cannot pinpoint why Russia and Eastern Europe seemed to backfire and be very prone to aggression and impulsive brutality. There must be something more to it. It is a working theory, not a complete solved conclusion.