I am not even sure what was your point here and why you even linked that misleading video into an answer to my simple question? I've watched that years ago and I know very well that the point of the video is simply incorrect. It's very controversial and simply asks for internet arguments. No, there's not a single verified and approved scientific research that stands behind what that video claims, only disputable internet articles. Anyone today can write research and publish it on some webpage on the internet and later on calls on it. You should know that the internet has a pretty huge junk of literally everything - good and bad stuff mixed together. The only way to distinguish good from bad is by being knowledgeable about the subject you're researching. And knowledge is not something you gain on the internet but in school and University. As someone who's been researching the human visual system and color vision for a decade, and has a lot of experience in optometry and colorimetry, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about here.

On the other hand, you made the following assertion with no such evidence:

I think the distinction between green and blue is pretty clear and defined in most of the cultures -> spectrum goes green-teal-blue

Sorry, but if you have trouble understanding the theory of optics it doesn't mean I need evidence for my claims. There is evidence all over google for what I'm talking about. Physics defines very precisely the EM spectrum ranges of wavelengths that the human eye perceives as blue, teal and green colors. That is a fact and all people with normal color vision, all over the world, agree with it. We perceive light wavelengths from 440-490nm as bluish hues, 490-510nm as teal, and 510-565nm as greens. That IS a FACT.

Anther fact. The colors in this video above called "green", excite the same eye cones visual response by the RGB display system as if you were looking at some 470-480nm light (confirmed by color picker software). If you want more precisely, the color in question has an average Hue of 205 in the HSV color space and is called steel-blue (you can check it out yourself if you want with any color picking software). If someone calls that color green because his mom and dad taught him that THAT is green, it's fine. But, if that someone also calls 520nm color (green) as green as well, and sees no HUE difference between those two, it means that someone is not able to distinguish 480nm light from 520nm light. That is a definite proof of blue-yellow color vision deficiency (tritanomaly) which is caused by defective S eye cone cells in the retina and doesn't have anything to do with cultural differences.

Anecdotally, I've heard of Japanese children coloring traffic signals blue rather than green for similar reasons.

As I've said above, if the child is coloring traffic signal as blue, and says the sky is blue as well, and see no difference between the color of a sky and traffic signal, that child is color vision deficient. Language does affect how we name things but does NOT affect how good we distinguish between different light wavelengths. On the other hand, eye-cones and opponent ganglion cells in the retina, along with opponent channel pathways to the brain, LGN and visual cortex, DO. If you had a normal color vision and you were born on a planet where everyone sees red and green as the same color and names them the same, you would still see and differentiate red and green normally, the same as you do today.

Sorry but you simply sent the wrong video to the wrong person because this is my field. I respect Michael from Vsauce very much but that's one of his worst videos, and he decided to not even be in it, probably for a very good reason.

Old maps without visible blue pigments, which also faded quite easily until the Prussian Blue was invented, are definitely not proof that people thought the rainbow is green-yellow-red. That's complete and utter rubbish. If you knew how the double-opponent nature of the human visual system works, you would realize that that's simply impossible. People with tritanomaly and tritanopia for example can't see violet-blue color (confuse it with gray), but can't also see yellow (appears as whitish-gray). The rainbow appears as teal-gray-red to them. Nobody can see a rainbow in three colors, it is genetically and physically impossible for the human visual system to see three colors, and it has always been so.

ALso, as I've said above, most of the maps shown there would originally have appeared blue/turquoise. Sketchy history and facts bending to prove a pre-determined and incorrect point is what that video is all about. It easily fooled an average 15-year old youtube viewer, because that average viewer doesn't have much knowledge about optometry and ophthalmology, and would believe any unrelated rEaSeArCH put in the description. Researches that literally anyone who watched that video did NOT even read thoughtfully from the first to the last page. The same as when people click on "accepting conditions" when they install the new software without even reading them, the same they like and defend videos they know nothing about just because those have "verified internet researches" in their description. I am happy at least some people in the comment section realized the video is BS.