There's a great deal of research on colour expression and perception in different languages - some of it summarized very well in Guy Deutscher's very accessible

There's a great deal of research on colour expression and perception in different languages - some of it summarized very well in Guy Deutscher's very accessible pop-sci book "Through the Language Glass". Nobody (edit: apparently except this historian cited in TFA - well, he's a historian, not a psycholinguist) seriously doubts (anymore) that humans fundamentally perceive the same colours (barring specific disabilities), but we do carve up the colour space in different ways, although usually along a predictable path: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Color-term_hierarchy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Color-term_hierar... The whole idea that the Ancient Greeks were maybe colour blind came up due to Homer's epics containing descriptions such as "the wine-dark sea" while never really using a specific term for blue (that would be found in later Greek). Nowadays we understand this to mean that colour description in Homeric times was more focused on light vs. dark than on exact hues. There have been at least some studies showing measurable, though small, effects of this on processing speed, e.g. Russians being slightly faster at distinguishing different shades of blue than English speakers: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701644104 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0701644104 In my opinion this is consistent with the general idea that the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bunk, but some weak effects of language patterns influencing habitual thought can be found. When you write > But claims like that are made as part of the everything-is-relative-and-culturally-determined movement. it sounds like you're trying to engage in some cultural war thing that I will stay out of, but in general it's probably better to look at the actual data instead of dealing in sweeping generalisations.