You'll be interested in the concept of African Time (here's Wiki) vs European Time. Also, the movie Empire of Dust is highly recommended.

The contrast between the two concepts, roughly, is the following:

The Europeans say that time is an independent entity that flows and passes on its own accord. It can be measured but not influenced. In fact it is speculated that the ability to measure time since the ancient Greeks (or even earlier, see Stonehenge etc) gave rise to the European concept. Northern Europe's harsh climate makes this a necessity in the Darwinian sense, if you don't build stock for the winter during the warm season you simply die.

The African concept of time sees time as a consequence of human action, that no time passes if and as long man doesn't make it happen - nothing's happening means no time passes. The consequence is that present and future are largely irrelevant, they're a small share of our existence, of history if you will. Quite the contrary, almost everything is in the past; notably this past is one unstructured heap due to the the absence of time passing. Seasons are largely inexistent in subsahara Africa, stuff grows basicall all year round so there was no need to build stock in order to prepare for the inevitable harsh times i.e. no need to plan for the future. As a consquence the culture sees no need for maintenance and replacements, repairs are a nuisance, and development of new stuff like building roads is futile.

The movie is on a Chinese development company's engineer in the DRC where he's to build a road and the issues he faces. The DRC gained independence from Beldium in 1960, the road is a replacement for a road built by the Belgians that has been very badly maintained and is now in complete disrepair. The concept of African Time helps explain the movie, it demonstrates its effect on real life. Enjoy!

I think this is one of those pernicious types of analysis that feels like it explains everything, but actually just applies to everything.

Sure, if you look back at human history you can divide it in two:

You can divide it into "northern" and "southern".

You can divide it into "civilized" and "primitive".

You can divide it into "active" and "passive".

You can divide it into "hot" and "cold".

Your approach, like most of these kinds of approaches, runs into major problems:

1. It's VERY highly subjective

Few if any society-level groups believe that "reality is subservient to my ideology". People describe ideologies as believing that because they think (rightly or wrongly) that the members of the ideology are biased by their beliefs. A scientist will say that a religious cult is subservient to their ideas because they reject the reality of science. A cult will say scientists are subservient to their beliefs because they don't accept the reality of Beelzebub the Great.

This doesn't mean those two are equally true, but it means that to use your framework we need to decide the truth of these things ourselves. That means the way we have to separate societies into these two groups is by our own analysis of what "reality" is, which is much harder when the comparisons or examples are less obvious. This leads me to my core point:

1. It relies largely on logic without empirical analysis

Logic alone is a bad tool to analyze history. A very bad tool. Pure logic, the kind that can prove mathematical statements, can say basically nothing about history. History is too complex to fit into formal logic. This isn't a criticism of formal logic, but rather a statement that logic alone is not the appropriate tool for this. No amount of examples can prove a rule in pure logic, so data-based analysis can't really be done with logic alone.

The other more common kind of "logic" is just "does my argument feel like it makes sense or does it have obvious holes?". That's also a bad tool for analyzing history, because contradictory things about history can both make sense at the same time. The statements you make in your examples are basically all of this type.

The solution to this is to complement this logic with objective empirical tests that can say limited but (probably) true things about the world. These kinds of binary frameworks never do this, mostly because empirical analysis of history is really hard.

The reason the framework feels like it works so well is because of my third point:

(cont)

two remarkably stable “clusters” emerge: the Northern and the Southern. Geography matters only at the very beginning (Greece–Rome versus Egypt and Near Eastern cults);

Considering the difference in available technology, Ancient Egypt's engineering feats was every bit as impressive as that of Rome, perhaps even more so.

The Greeks literally learned mathematics from Egypt (and Babylon).

Ironically, while the "Southern" Egyptians used mathematics for practical engineering, it was the "Northern" Greeks who considered mathematics to be sacred and mystical -- and for a double dose of irony, it was that irrational belief in the sacredness of mathematics that encouraged the Greeks to develop elegant mathematical proofs rather than being satisfied with practical "good enough for engineering" like the Egyptians.

after that, it’s pure logic.

So this "North/South" divide is irrelevant. If it is primarily about logic, why the racist "North/South" terminology when by your own admission the geography doesn't matter?

Do you think that the northern barbarians of Scandinavia were more analytical and rational than the Southern European Greeks?

Where do the Sumerians and Babylonians and other middle eastern countries fall in you dichotomy? They invented agriculture while north Europeans were hunter-gatherers. They invented writing. And they did so while believing an awful lot of superstitious nonsense.

How about China, the longest-lasting, most successful culture of all time? They independently invented agriculture and writing too.

Rome is the perfect example. A Northern core polishes institutions to perfection.

Ah, let's have a look at that "Northern core":

The Roman national myth is based on the fantasy that the two founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus, were raised by wolves. The Romans believed in a pantheon of hundreds of gods and goddesses, not a single one of which actually existed. That's your reality-based culture.

These myths were not false beliefs that only entered Rome at the end, causing it to collapse. They were part of Roman culture from the very beginning.

The Romans excelled at four things:

• Engineering, much of which they adapted from others.
• Cruelty.
• Warfare.
• And delusional beliefs about their national origins.

Where are these institutions that were polished to perfection?

Their mathematics was almost non-existent, aside from what little arithmetic was needed for trade. Roman numerals held European mathematics back for hundreds of years, until Arabic numerals eventually arrived and displaced the Roman way of doing arithmetic.

The printing press lifts Europe faster than all the monastic schools of a thousand years combined.

Yes, technology matters. Being able to print dozens or hundreds of copies of a book in the time it would take to hand-copy one book makes a big difference to the ability to spread knowledge. This has nothing to do with "Northern" and "Southern" ways of thinking. The printing press was used to print pure nonsense just as much, if not more often, than it was used to print truth.

The return to Aristotle transforms entire regions faster than conquests do.

And yet if there is anything more divorced from reality and science than Aristotelian philosophy, I cannot think what it is.

You would realize your post doesn't make sense if you bother to study history, not only humans (and the societies they build) aren't so simplistic but all the examples you made are objectively wrong.

Take socialism (which you consider southern aka evil), it was made by a German (northern) philosopher inspired by a classical greek philosopher, Plato (which according to your own reasoning would also be a northerner)