New Paper – The Development of Agriculture in Africa

New paper uploaded to academia.edu. Takes apart a racist lie against Black people that says that pre-contact Africans were hunter gatherers with no agriculture. In fact, agriculture in Africa was developed very early, possibly one of the earliest instances of agriculture on Earth. Also discusses the evolution of modern Negroids (Blacks) in terms of primitive agriculturalism.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

20 thoughts on “New Paper – The Development of Agriculture in Africa”

  1. If this were true then why is it that eastern Europeans and their descendants, as well as the Celtic peoples of the British Isles are the majority of the competitors in strength competitions- not people of African descent. This also includes the Estonians -Fins,and Swedes. As a strength competitor myself I have never seen any Africans finish in the top 10 finalists nor in the top 20. Steroidal supplementation isn’t even a factor because of random testing all year long done on participants. Your hypothesis seems to want to favor Africans for athletic ability and lower those of Caucasians and Asians. At the same time you blame testosterone for diminished intelligence. I have been tested for testosterone levels over a 6 month period to prove I wasn’t supplementing. My levels were consistently 3-5 times above the norm. Incidentally my USN I.Q. tests rated me between 160-180 at the age of 25. If testosterone is detrimental to I.Q. apparently someone forgot to mention that particular factor during my fetal development. Presently at the age of 50 my testosterone levels are still well above average,( still 2 to 3.5 times higher than normal) perhaps you need to change the variables that brought you to this conclusion..

    1. Interesting comment about Africans not being represented in “strength” competitions (assuming you mean weightlifting, wrestling, or object manipulating like a caber toss).
      You’re not not using your 180 IQ here, are you? Correct me where I’m wrong…
      It is cultural, that’s why. Blacks in Africa don’t go in for weightlifting, in general, or for any other “sheer strength” displays. (or dressing in kilts and grappling boulders).
      Also, its a resources thing. Sports like weightlifting require costly, heavy equipment, trainers, medicine and indoor training facilities, etc.
      If you’ll notice the only (Olympic) sports that Africans dominate are the track/field sports. No equipment required – no facilities, nothing that costs money and can’t be done outdoors.
      Africans (Blacks in general) don’t do the Winter sports, either, for pretty obvious cultural and climate reasons.
      As we’ve seen with tennis and golf, though, once a sport is broken into by blacks, they seem to have an advantage.
      Also, testosterone level alone doesn’t equal sheer strength, I might add.

      1. So you’re saying blacks have genetically less upper body strength because they don’t have equipment? Kind of a silly assumption. Northern Europeans have some of the highest T in the world. And I guess you could make the theory that “large, barrel chested” men were better able to survive the harsher climates. The hell would I know.
        There’s a reason why blacks dominate certain sports and whites others – since supplements, willpower and equipment are typically the same for both in an athletic event, its genetics that wins in the end. There are no black powerlifters for the same reason why there are no well known white runners.

        1. Thank you Ishmael for a voice of sane reasoning. It is my belief that the vast majority of the European strength competitors have an advantage because of their probable DNA ( Although miniscule as it is) inherited from Neanderthal ancestors. This is apparent in the isolated pop. of the Balkan peoples and to a large extent of those descended from early Celtic migration in the British Isles. Physical characteristic sameness abounds in these communities. Most bear a resemblance to that particular branch of sapient that has been dubbed Homo Neanderthalis-Heavy bone structure, massive chests and shorter albeit powerful lower extremities are the norm. Even those participants who are above average height still have these proportionant ratios. These athletes may not win the track events but field events( Shot-put, discus, and hammer throw) are all white European dominated.

  2. It amazes me that you’ve submitted a paper on the concept of race and racial differences to an .edu site of everything. Aren’t you concerned about being labeled a scientific quack? 😉
    On the subject of the development of civilization, it is worth noting that these African developments (agriculture, architecture etc.) cannot be conclusive of a races overall ability by any measurable means. Likewise, not all whites were at the same level throughout history. For example, some parts of Europe were still like a feudal agricultural state even after the Industrial Revolution occurred in central Europe. Similarly, those Africans living in the jungle couldn’t utilize any agriculture due to the piss poor quality of tropical soil, and if they could, it probably could not be used in macro scale for lots of people. Granted, there were some temperate areas in South Africa far away from the equator, but for a reason unbeknownst to me were never largely populated (at least not until the Dutch came).
    Otherwise it’s a pretty good research paper. “Afrocentric silliness” sounds a bit unprofessional in my opinion, however. But I am not here to criticize you out on miniscule quirks, eh?

    1. Not really, most of my information comes from a fairly prominent anthropology professor who also has an online blog. He is a liberal, too. A lot of people already think I am a quack or a nut anyway.
      The paper doesn’t exactly attack Blacks for having a low level of development. Quite the opposite.
      The paper doesn’t focus much on race or racial differences. Actually, the tone is quite antiracist, so it should be ok.
      I have 750 downloads already on academia.edu and I have ~30 followers, including professors, grad students and students. I communicate with a couple of them back and forth. I show them my stuff, and they critique it and whatnot. I also do that with some professors not on Academia.edu. I can’t give you their names, but they do have Wikipedia entries and they are rather famous. One of them said I am quite an extraordinary independent scholar. He sends my stuff out to others too. But I give him linguistic stuff only.
      I could not really think of a better way to phrase “Afrocentric silliness” without getting my point across.
      All of the articles were originally posts on this site, and they all required major rewrites to turn them into academic type papers suitable for that site.
      You need to watch your tone. You are verging on a “hostile tone” violation. Be careful.

      1. My apologizes first for any tone I may have presented, for I was typing in a neutral, albeit light hearted manner, or at least that’s what I was aiming for.
        I knew the paper was anti-racist in structure, but like my post above, I believe that sometimes the “race” topic, even when limited, could be wrongly associated with… well you know. Darn WNs mixing culture and biological race, when the two need to be distinct as possible.
        Anyway thank you for the clarification, I am unfamiliar with most educational sites and many organizations save my old college, which was so anti-racist it would of made the antifa look like racists. Heh.

        1. Almost everyone on the Net thinks I am a racist anyway. A friend said 90% of the people on the Net say I am a racist, and only 10% say I am not. I and even links to my site are actually banned on a number of liberal and Leftist sites on the grounds of “no linking to racists” or “no linking to fascists.”
          I am actually not a particularly racist person. I don’t think too much of Nigerians and Gypsies, but I guess there are good people in both groups.
          I am a typical liberal to Leftist who tries to be as nonracist as possible.
          The tone on academia.edu is extremely antiracist as you might imagine.

  3. Indeed, there is not too many places to have a civil discussion on race, culture, evolution, etc. I have been reading this site for a while now, and I am impressed on the amount of work you have done to convey such a wide range of topics, many of which I was ignorant on before.
    I don’t see myself as particularly political, but I have aligned myself with modern liberalism (and not the washed up American kind).
    Anyway, in your opinion, do (any?) you believe that the agrarian communities in parts of central and western Africa could of been attributed to the higher testosterone levels in modern American blacks (and thus prominence in athletic fields, etc.) Particularly if slaves were descended from these agrarian communities? It’s just something I was thinking up while reading that paper and some of the links that it sent me.

    1. Yes that is what I am thinking. All modern Negroids or Bantuid types apparently have large size, robust bodies and high testosterone. The Khoisan and Pygmies are hunter gatherers and have small size, child like features, low strength and low testosterone. Hunter gatherers everywhere tend to have low testosterone or lower testosterone than agricultural peoples.
      Primitive agriculturalists in New Guinea also evolved high testosterone.

      1. Exactly. I happen to have fairly low testosterone, and I am fairly childlike myself, remarkably like the Khoisan (yet I am white and Polish-American). I believe that low testosterone might also be related to high intelligence, although cultural factors could play in that as well.
        Could low testosterone be the product of infantilization (or neoteny)? Could specific groups that have low testosterone might also relate with advanced civilizations? Or is it the opposite? Food for thought.

    2. The reason is that in hunter gatherers, there is little competiton for males as every female needs a man to surive (to hunt for them). So everyone just grabs a husband or wife at age 18 or 19, and everyone tends to get married. You don’t end up with a chief and his pals who monopolize all the women.
      In Africa and New Guinea, you ended up with a system where the chief and his buddies monopolized most to all of the women via harems and a lot of the rest of the guys had little access to women. The chief and his buddies were the biggest, baddest, strongest, most psycho, most sociopathic guys around (high testosterone, large size, and robust body) so they beat out all the weaker guys. The females mated with these guys en masse as in these type of societies, a female does not really need a man to survive. So the females can be choosy. Choosy females is bad for society since when allowed to choose, females pick big bad psycho type guys (bad boys) probably with large size, robust bodies, high testosterone, high aggression and maybe sociopathic traits.

      1. That’s very interesting. The system in Africa/New Guinea seems to be like some sort of capitalist or aristocratic state where a small group of people horde the wealth (in this case, women). A monopoly on women is then created, leaving the weaker guys in submission to be loyal to the machos since it’s the only way they might survive and might be able to get a spouse. Interesting how it relates to modern society…

  4. Yes, Mr. (Dr.?) Lindsay I also sympathize with the accusations of racism, it’s not easy holding unPC comments. Modern society puts its head in the ground with racism, abortion, guns even. In fact one might make parallels with the PC culture of America with the puritan values of old (though that’s for another topic.) Anyway I think it’s great to explore the Nature side of Nature vs Nurture, particularly when concern groups of people, cultures, etc. It helps balance the mass of Leftists who believe every single thing is the result of poor upbringing, which is a fallacy in itself.
    (Sorry for doublepost, can’t edit.)

    1. I am actually not a doctor. I have a Masters, not a doctorate.
      I agree with everything you say though. The problem is that hard naturists are a bunch of fanatical reactionary jerks. And almost all of them are very racist. They’re pretty much the worst people in the whole world.

  5. Consistent IQ and testosterone testing done simultaneously by the military has shown a direct correlation between the two . In their findings, special ops personnel ,combat pilots, and any other high risk ratings personnel all had the common denominator of high IQ, and high testosterone levels. Incidentally all had psychological evals. and none came up socio-pathic. Why the placation of the lesser males, their contribution according to history is minimal at best. I enjoy your blog but your article almost sounds a bit racist to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.