#euginics

Yeah, the earliest “historians” from Herodotus onwards were mostly interesting in answering the question of “Why people from this region different from the people from this reason” or to put it in other terms “Why are the Hellenes (Greeks) the best people ever omg”.  So the answer they mostly came too was geography, people from a hot climate are going to be more foul tempered, people from a cold climate are going to be tougher ect.  In fact, as much as early historical theory existed for millennia, it was basically a competition between early political history and geographical history.  Interestingly enough, in China early historians, presumably not influenced by Greeks, also are going into geographical history, so it seems to be the default view of early historians.  Geographical historical theory is basically one of the basic assumptions as the history and it changes over time in response to circumstances.  It really has a resurgence in the 18th century with the Enlightenment and that is when the movement split.   

On one end, you basically get the early start of what we now call Materialist history (the term is coined by Marx but not all Materialist history is Marxist) which is a field of history that still exists to this day.   Its very controversial among historians, Jered Diamonds “Guns Germs and Steel” is a very classical example of Geographical History (though Diamond is not a historian) that borders on historical predetermination which is a huge debate.  But it is a totally valid version of history that exists to this day, often overlapping with strongly the newly emerging fields of Environmental History/Climate History.  

The other branch was....well it eventually became Eugenics.  Enlightenment thinkers got really into being like “Oh these people are like this because of this climate” which was basically the stage of race classification that predated the Eugenics movement of the 19th century.  So for that reason, Geographical history has a bit of a taboo associated with it today among historians, but it isn’t inherently racist, just be super careful if you meet somebody who is super into Geographical history, just check to see what their ideology is first.  

Also rhetorically Geographical history stays around for awhile, for example just as the secession crisis was starting in the US in 1860, the Governor (and basically Founder) of Texas Sam Huston tried to warn his people to not secede against the North, said this 

“Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South."

I voice my opinion on abortions and I get scorned by feminist and pro-choice people who scream male privilege at me. It is sad. I've noticed that it is always white america who has something to say, but never my own people who are really the clueless ones. 

I said abortion is genocide for a reason but people fail to see my point of view. Abortion is the leading cause of death for the african american race, more than the klan has ever done and disease combined. 

Don't believe me look it up, do your research. Make sure you look into sterilization as well. People we need to wake up.