So I thought chapter 5 was interesting despite my disagreement with his understanding of Native American Indians(which I think could have probably been left out and his point would have still made sense). He is trying to explain how location plays a role in history. History can only really take place on a continuous level, or at least is more likely to, when the climate is such that it will allow for the focus of humans to shift away from nature. If humans are in a climate that is always concerned with the freezing cold or the heat and lack of water then the whole of human intent will remain focused on trying to alleviate these problems rather than moving towards freedom. Thus in these places the creation of a world-historical-person or even a steady progress of what Hegel considers to be history is much harder if not impossible. He tries to explain this by looking at the Americas and showing why North America is the future, though in the end says he is unconcerned with the future. He just wanted to point out the role that land and space plays on development and how the climate and the personality of the people play a role as well. He then argues for the Mediterranean being the center of history because it is what unites the great places of history together.