Europe had practical seafaring since antiquity. European naval technology during the discovery of the Americas was on par with other Eastern Hemisphere naval powers.
The naval technology empowered the discovery, but it isn't like Europe was special at the time.
Also, it still took a while to bypass the Silk Road. Even when Europe did, it still ran into an issue that China wouldn't trade for any European manufactured goods, just gold and silver.
A lot of working class people create favor networks as a way to collectively perform tasks while still benefitting from the division of labor. This activity is seen going back to prehistoric times.
Money has become a means of exchange to denote those exchanges, but division of labor has been a hallmark of humanity.
A lot of union jobs work at the casinos. You also have a higher than average performance sector.
I think that a lot of the arguments regarding why Europeans did better compared to near peers goes to variations in social differences between Europeans and other near peer civilizations.
It also includes the destruction of extended clan networks, independent universities, and higher wages for Europeans compared to others parts of the world.
Vikings were colonizers, though. England was somewhat colonized under the Danelaw and Dublin was founded as a Viking colonizer's stronghold. It just happened to be that Viking colonies in the New World were in Northern Canada, a place where large settlements still don't exist.
That's just a normal day in Alaska.
South Park isn't broadcast and the FCC has far reduced powers on non-broadcast television.
They would have liked that.
The history of white skin in Korea is still kind weird though right?
Not as weird as other cultures where lighter skin is preferable. I wouldn't even blame is as a capitalism thing as a lot of cultures have skin whitening/bleaching for centuries.
And this is going to suck for the American economy.
A large part of the economy is built on providing goods and services to all members of the economy. The economy is going to suck when half of it can't afford to spend.
We've seen it in a lot of cases of stochastic terrorism. People end up attacking a symbol that causes them distress. It can be a post office, a school, a politician, or a gay nightclub.
The problem for conservatives now is that acceptable targets have changed to senior executives and conservative commentators. What used to either be an acceptable loss or a tool of fear is now a potential existential threat that they can't quite get back control of.
It is more identifying where the threat is going to come than anything else.