I know this maybe hard for some of you, but here is the truth. Its funny how evidence is even not enough for some of you, thats when you need to check
....the so called African receives very little when it comes to 'certain' versions of history. I deal with facts and facts only so. Here are some
FACTS that will allow people to come to their own understanding
Fact : Egypt was a sister empire established by Western African Civilizations. Check out "black genesis" by Robert Bauval.
Fact : The so called "Negro" is not a description of someone that is native to a particular region or land mass.
For example the original autochthon of asia was so called "Negro". There is even additional evidence to suggest that the remains were completely
indigenous to the landmass we know today as Asia.
Fact : While the people of Africa are viewed by most of you as 'primitives' because most of them do not use "instruments that are a complete
disgrace to science and the planet what so ever", like cell-phones etc.......The are know for using a system of communication that required the use
of drums and they were able to send message literally for miles.
Okay last one, I just want to get your mind out of the box.
Fact : There is an underplay of history, including the fact, ethiopia(nubia/kush/(currently unnamed empire) had trade with various people. The main
fact I would like to include, the established trade route and contact found in ancient Japan.
For those that assume history is linear, you know where the primitive, stone-using, non-evolved man existed, wandering around aimlessly. Even with
this ignorant 'scenario' one can still manage to make it around the world by the way of the 'world winds'. But we all know it takes more than
that, Columbus even knew that. Research and you find that every ship has a navigator, and he just happen to be of African descent!?!!?! They were even
certain where they landed not based on landmass, but based on identifying people with what they were used to seeing. You mean to tell me, he thought
he was in India????Considering ancient american culture of anykind is unlike Hindustani culture of anykind!!?!?!
What does Indian mean considering the native people call it Hindustani??????? Why did the people of anglo-european descent call the native people of
Hindustani that word and they didn't call themselves that...well now they do
. Indi, Indian-Ink, Indus Kush, Indigo, Indigenous(synonyms are
autochthon, native, aboriginal).
So with that being said, and we know Asians crossed the bering strait, but was it the modern day asian that is a mixture of different peoples that
have adapted to different climates or was it the autochthon of Asia!?!
Lets consider the fact, the people of the land mass we know today as Africa never referred to the land mass that. The name was given by the way of
conquest. So yes, the Olmec were not African, but this does not rule out the possibility that they 'descend' or are actual negro people.
The sphinx has water erosion and the sahara hasn't seen water in over 8,000 years. Dr. Hawass is an idiot to think otherwise
. Think of what people
had to endure to perfect the knowledge required to build that archaic monument. So, to the very notion of everyone around playing hop-scotch is
primitive in itself. Lets open our mind please.
sry for typos