I have a question that I've been giving immense thought to as it relates to us and to white people. I couldn't help but to notice that whenever I look at the people that Europeans keep in our face or that they uphold in history, that they all have the same thing in common....BLOODSHED !! In other words, when we look at the people that they promote, there's always bloodshed behind their name even if they didn't do it personally. If you name the person I can show the bloodshed. Even so called Abraham, Moses, Joshua and all the rest have bloodshed behind their names. In other words, they were warriors. Even Ghandi and King have bloodshed behind their names. They even love Ankhnaten, Cleopatra and Meneses...same thing, bloodshed. However, they don't want to teach us about Hannibal, not really. They don't teach Thutmose, who is the only undefeated warrior in history and they don't teach about Queen Amenirenius, Zenobia, Amina, Majaji or about the Mino (all female) warriors of Dahomey. They don't teach about Queen Nehanda, Nzinga, Yaa Asentewa or anyone who was kicking their @sses!!! Now here's my question: I'm curious as to why they uphold Imhotep so much??? We know that he was Ascepius in the Greek civilization...but still, why would they uphold and promote him when he appears to be the only person that goes against the norm of what they promote and uphold? I think that something's going on with him that we may not know yet. I'm thinking that they may have some documents on him that we just haven't seen....because he goes against everyone that they promote. Now what I'm thinking is that; #1. Since they lied to us about the dynasties and the length of the dynasties, that means that they equally lied about the "time scale" of history. We're slowly finding out that our story has to be pushed further back in time which means that the people have to be pushed back further also. #2. I'm equally thinking and in using some common sense, that the time scale that Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop gave us for the white man and the Oriental has to be wrong also. He was the only one who advanced that story about them degenerating from our people during the ice age. I'm having a problem with that. According to him, the white man is 20,000 years old and the oriental is 15,000 years old. #3. My understanding of genetics and dominate and recessive genes is where my conflict lies at. Since white is the lowest on the totem pole in terms of genetics and is inferior on a genetic level to black, brown, red and yellow...how did they get here before the oriental or yellow gene appeared? Do you catch what I'm trying to say? Now maybe this was a subconscious thing going on with him due to his spousal situation, I don't know....I just know that it's not making any sense with me. #4. So in essence I'm saying that they have to be younger than what we've been told. If they are younger than what we've been told and Imhotep is older than what we've been told, then that means some more investigation has to be done. My Queen's vibration on this is that "Imhotep is their father or creator". FEEDBACK BROTHERS...and I wouldn't really need the feedback except for the idea that there's too much literature out there that's basically saying that they were indeed created.