No, he doesn't. GGS explicitly rejects any sort of pseudo-racial theory of civilizational superiority. The entire book is a methodical dissection of why different regions experienced different paces of development in the pre-colonial era, with climate, geography, and endemic food species being the leading factors.
It's still just a theory.
It also begs the question of why African Am. and Latin peoples don't do well when integrated into western society statistically as a whole.
Whereas Asians and Indians appear to do well.
This is probably inappropriate conversation for a place like HN, so I'm bowing out.
;)
I'd rather a fleshed out idea than a off the cuff rough draft. That's actually one of the best parts of digital communication.
Racialized theories of civilization are, on face value, absurd (and, well, racist). GGS goes to significant lengths to debunk them, including thoroughly collapsing the racial categories that colonial and post-colonial Westerners use.
Humans are tribal to the core of our being.
Race matters, culturally, genetically, and is how we typically organized throughout history and even today.
The Irish, French, and British are pretty similar racially but divide pretty significantly on the tiny differences in that race.
To cast aside race as an arbitrary characteristic seems inaccurate view of reality.
Race is one of the most important attributes that makes us human.