One of the core tenets of Marxism is that people and societies are solely the product of their social and material environments, that there are no innate differences in people otherwise. This is why the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao suppressed research in genetics, both human and agricultural.
You echo the same attitudes when claiming that there are no intrinsic differences between a German immigrant and a Somali immigrant to America.
You are creating a false dichotomy. Recognizing that culture and environment are the primary drivers of civilizational output (like the rise of modern states or the adoption of new technology) is not the same as claiming that biology doesn’t exist.
My argument is that the success of a civilization—such as the rapid modernization of Japan or the dominance of the Comanche as horse-mounted warriors—is evidence that human groups are highly adaptive and capable of immense change when exposed to new tools and institutional systems. You are attributing these outcomes exclusively to an immutable, innate ‘nature,’ which fails to account for why the world’s centers of power and innovation have shifted dramatically throughout history.
If success were purely a matter of fixed, innate racial traits, the power map of the world would have remained static for thousands of years. It hasn’t. The fact that it changes is proof that ‘software’—the cultural institutions, laws, and knowledge a society cultivates—is what allows people to reach their full potential. Ignoring that dynamic in favor of a purely deterministic biological model isn’t just bad history; it’s an intellectual blind spot that prevents you from seeing how civilizations actually function.