I'm really struggling with your #2 statement (below). I can find info on the fact that "Libyan princes became Egyptian priests", but nothing to show that Libyan's were rulers prior to the 5th Dynasty. Please show me your evidence. Also, please help me understand how you figure that whites would be wearing "Ostrich feathers"?

2. The Palermo Stone (pre-dynastic record) indicates that there were some fifty Libyan princes ruling those areas, before the advent of the First Dynasty of Egypt. Libyans were white. They are consistently described in hieroglyphs as white. They are the Tehennu and the Djehemu, and the Meshwesh of the oases, the Fayum region and the Delta, white, bearded, distinctly dressed , and wearing ostrich feathers. Historical data.

I would submit to you that as long as you hold the belief that blacks/Africans have made no significant contributions to civilization, you will continue to stumble on artifacts of old and the meaning and source of current African and Black thought and conduct.

If blacks/Africans were so "savage and barbarian", I'm curious how do you explain the fact that black/Africans are present and in positions of authority in European history, including American history. I'm curious as to your speculation on how much time it would take you to teach a monkey to be the Pope? Or what it takes Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice to be trained to be Secretary of State? It's ridiculous to try and represent Africans as being of no significance to the development of civilization.

What about the Moors in Spain?
What about Blacks in Central America?
What about Blacks in ancient Rome and Greece?

Isn't it truly a simple case of prejudice and racism that is at the heart of such claims about African/black people? Isn't it just ridiculous to see the statue of Amenhotep III and claim he's not an African or a significant contributor to world civilization?