[himno hero]

GREAT summary, great hand.

My point is - in a nutshell - during all those years, with all that real estate and all those people , we can talk of maybe 2 civilizations. Thus it is I believe them to be a naturally uncivilized lot. Its also reflected in their advancements and developments.

I see them today still boughing down to their chiefs in their near feudal systems. I see the chiefs and their agents promoting and practicing PHD a crabs in a bucket. Voo- doo is very much alive.

In comparison and relative to the western europeans, the meditarraneans, mesopetaneans etc etc etc they have never progressed. Their prosepcts for the future? I see regression in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Kenya. Violent regression.

[Cronos]

My point is - in a nutshell - during all those years, with all that real estate and all those people , we can talk of maybe 2 civilizations. Thus it is I believe them to be a naturally uncivilized lot. Its also reflected in their advancements and developments.

you misunderstood me -- I meant to say that you can't say "Africans" like it is a generic culture or race. North Africans from Morocco to Egypt were / are Berbers and Semites with some Indo-European blood (Persians, Greeks, Vandals, Romans etc)

Ethiopians too are, I dare say, closer to us genetically than to sub-saharan Africans.

In your statement about 2 civilisations, you need to specify the people you're classifying -- if you mean purely peoples from the Congo southwards, then yes, your statement is correct -- Great Zimbabwe and maybe Zanzibar.

If you mean "Africans" as people from the entire continent, your statement is wrong.

If you mean sub-saharan Africans, that statement is still wrong -- see the history of Gambia and the kingdoms and emirates there.

History, like any science, needs to be exact.