>>464905You have only professed disagreement.
This line of thinking begins with empires that try to find scientific validation for their believes that their power originates from their inherent superiority. They want to believe it's something internal like biology that makes them dominant, because if it's not internal that means they might fall from power.
That's where the ideas for civilizations changing human biology comes from. And it never sticks. All the civilized human versus the savage human from the 18 century empires is now looked upon as an embarrassment to science. Today nobody really believes anymore that some imperial knob from the 18 century British or Spanish empire was right about having been bread/evolved to rule shit, but for a time it was possible to manufacture consent for this. Bear in mind that today power might still be fucking with science to some degree. So be extra critical as soon as something sounds scienncy while flattering rulers.
Credibly attributing genes to something like a civilizational structure isn't really happening on a scientific level that would satisfy rigorous standards. There are a few cases of humans somewhat believably affecting their genes in that way for example enzymes for breaking down ethanol or lactose, but that predates civilization by many millennia.
The french having an unfathomably based tendency to strike and revolt likely isn't genetic, it's a very complex behavior, it would take a very long time to evolve it. Unless your intentions are to troll a bunch of rulers that are still seeking to biologically engineer obedient slaves, and make them waste a bunch of time searching for the revolutionary genes ?