Obama Funded Anti-American, Afrocentric, Schools


Stanley Kurtz writes in a new article that Wright was just the tip of the iceberg for Obama. Oh sure, he attended his sermons but he also sent a lot of money to education programs and schools that taught almost exclusively the anti-American, Afrocentric, ideology preached by Wright.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

Stanley Kurtz then goes on to detail his findings from the Annenberg documents. Findings such as the fact that the group funded the “South Shore African Village Collaborative.” A thoroughly “Afrocentric” institution that used teacher-training, curriculum advice, and community involvement to improve academic performance in the schools it worked with.

The South Shore African Village Collaborative was deeply involved in the “rites of passage movement,” which started in the 90’s. They set up whole curriculum’s centered around the the “rites of passage” ceremonies.

What exactly is the “rites of passage movement?” Kurtz:

To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.” According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community,” Warfield-Coppock tells us. The answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed “to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.”

The adolescent rites of passage movement that flowered in the 1990s grew out of the “cultural nationalist” or “Pan-African” thinking popular in radical black circles of the 1960s and 1970s. The attempt to create a virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world began to take hold in the mid-1980s in small private schools, which carefully guarded the contents of their controversial curricula. Gradually, through external partners like CIESS, the movement spread to a few public schools. Supporters view these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to “rites of passage,” but also because SSAVC’s faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the “rites of passage movement.” For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

Google Carruthers and you will find that the guy is a fanatic who believes the true birthplace of our civilization is ancient Kemet in Egypt.

Carruthers’s key writings are collected in his book, Intellectual Warfare. Reading it is a wild, anti-American ride. In his book, we learn that Carruthers and his like-minded colleagues have formed an organization called the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations (ASCAC), which takes as its mission the need to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.” Carruthers includes “African-Americans” within a group he would define as simply “African.” When forced to describe a black person as “American,” Carruthers uses quotation marks, thus indicating that no black person can be American in any authentic sense. According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan.

Even nuttier, Carruthers believes that blacks who have become Americanized were actually raped. They may have been forcibly exposed to American culture but do not need to accept it.

The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Check out the kind of training Carruther’s gave to teachers at his schools:

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey….” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

So now we know the types of schools and teaching that was funded by Annenberg. But how does this tie into Wright and Obama? Well, take a guess who was given the opportunity to speak at the Trinity Church:

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking in the late 1980s and early 1990s (the period when, attracted by Wright’s African themes, Barack Obama first became a church member), many prominent thinkers from Carruthers’s Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included. We hear echoes of Carruthers’s work in Wright’s distinction between “right brained” Africans and “left brained” Europeans, in Wright’s fears of U.S. government-sponsored genocide against American blacks, and in Wright’s embittered attacks on America’s indelibly white-supremacist history. In Wright’s Trumpet Newsmagazine, as in Carruthers’s own writings, blacks are often referred to as “Africans living in the diaspora” rather than as Americans.

When Asa Hillard died, speaker and writer of such books as “Teachings of Ptahhotep: The Oldest Book in the World,” “The Maroon Within Us,” “SBA: The Reawakening of the African Mind,” and “African Power”, Wright delivered the eulogy to a crowd of prominent members of the Carruthers group “Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations.” He put her picture on the front of his Church’s magazine and a picture of Farrakhan on the back.

Perhaps inadvertently, Wright’s eulogy for Hilliard actually established the fringe nature of his favorite African-centered scholars. In his tribute, Wright stressed how intensely “white Egyptologists recoiled at the very notion of everything Asa taught.” As Wright himself made plain, it seems virtually impossible to find respectable scholars of any political stripe who approve of the extremist anti-American version of Afrocentrism promoted by Hilliard and Carruthers.

To top it all off we have Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn planning to release a book in 2009 called the “Race Course Against White Supremacy.” It will be published by Third World Press which was set up by Carruthers and “Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations.”

So now we know that the Annenberg Challenge funded fringe schools that taught blacks to fear the white man, to fear being Americanized, and embrace being anything but an American. We know that these Afrocentric ideas went from Carruthers schools to the lips of Wright at his church attended by Obama AND we know the terrorist pal of Obama, Bill Ayers, is writing a book about race to be published by the nut Carruthers.

But does Obama buy into this Afrocentric way of thinking?

…in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers.

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to “rites of passage” and “Ptahhotep,” dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality.

Kurtz concludes:

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

Obama has dismissed any allegation that he buys into these teachings but we now have evidence that he not only attended the church that centered around this stuff, he helped fund them also.

And this man is just a breath away from the White House…..

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Well the weird thing, Stix, is that either “chattel” or “cattle” would have been appropriate. It was just hard to guess which one you meant, and that Erika repeated. LOL

I meant chattel

Now you like thinkers, lets get along. I’m still here so you have someone to argue with.

I hope you know I am joking.

I think that whatever we say, we are going to come at it at the opposite end. I do get where you are coming from, but I think that it is wrong, and I am assuming vise versa

Not to say we shouldn’t argue or debate, but as some point it is pointless to just say the same things over and over when we are not going to change each others minds.

I think that it is great to know one’s culture and that of our ancestors. I have a vary diverse background, I have blood from all over the world. I have Viking blood in me, I have Mongolian blood in me, I got Scotch, Irish, English, Polish, German, Norwegian blood in me. And they at various times have been at war and done atrocities to each other.

But as I said before, I am an American first and do not want to be hyphenated. It is what is breaking this country apart. The Melting Pot that was America is gone and we are only Balkanizing our country with all the Identity Politics that all politicians use.

Ya know, you’re not that far out of whack with many of us, Erika. You’ve expressed your lukewarm support for Obama by calling him the “lesser of two evils”. Frankly, many of us feel that way about McCain. This makes most of us slightly left or right of center.

You seem to prefer Biden, tho I haven’t a clue why. Your comments about Palin indicate you’re perhaps not as well read on her actual record as a commissioner/mayor/governor.

Leaving these differences aside, this election will be one about taking a serious step into socialism in our government, or not. I’m not getting from you that you are a socialist at heart. When then only leaves whether or not you see Obama’s policies and political philosophy as socialist/Marxist.

There are many Obama supporters that are anti-socialism. They get around this by refusing to admit his policies are just that. Hard to believe they can be blind to this considering:

his history,

his alliances and friends,

his educational philosophy confirmed by both his website pushing social and economic justice, and his CAC alliance with Bill Ayers,

his membership in the DSA/New Party in the early 90s (and continued relationship with them until they disbanded in 1998),

and topped off with his attendance to socialist movement meetings at Cooper’s Union during his college years

Makes it easy to see why the words “spread the wealth” slipped out so easily in response to Joe the plumber. And that also disproves that his socialist mentality has somehow faded with age.

I don’t really have anything to say, just experimenting with the b-quote.

it didn’t work, why is this so hard for me? lets try in again

Makes it easy to see why the words “spread the wealth” slipped out so easily in response to Joe the plumber. And that also disproves that his socialist mentality has somehow faded with age.

I DID IT YEA I am so proud of myself, now I can go back to my weekend with my family. Have a good weekend everybody.

ta daaaa! Congrats, and enjoy your family.

I “corrected” your blockquotes from some of the earlier attempts, to make it easier reading, voter. Looks like you figured out the problem, which is you probably were just hitting the B-Quote key, without highlighting what it is you wanted to quote. Since you have your own blog, I’m sure you can figure out, too, how to just type in the html codes, or move them around where you need ’em placed.

You should be able to edit, as well, if you make a mistake, shouldn’t you?

stix #87:

@Wordsmith: I am talking about what is going on now, not what happened in the past. Why dwell on what happened in the past.

I was merely pointing out what looked to have been missed, which is that voter concedes other countries have committed their fair shares of atrocities; but what she wanted to talk about are the atrocities by our own country; not singling us out. Since you wrote in comment #85:

And you keep on bringing up what the USA did in the past, yes we need to know what the US did to the Iindiand, the Japanese during WWII, and many other bad things that we did as a nation, but ti dwell on it is wrong and destructive.

I thought you might have missed where Erika (voter) covered herself on this; not that you were also making a point of “not dwelling on the past”.

@Wordsmith: must have been the hang over. I was not thinking straight.

I get over zealous at times also. I am getting sick and tired of everyone talking down about the USA.

It was not to long ago, that women in the USA couldn’t even have a credit card or vote, let alone, the right for equal pay, that YOUR candidate voted AGAINST

And Mata wonders why she’s earned the reputation “resident fact-checker”….I didn’t know all of that, Mata.

Liberal hypocrisy? – “With McCain Women Make More” The Trib-Review:

Rogers points to Senate Records showing that women working in Sen. Obama’s senate office were paid an average of $9,000 less than men.

It appears that in the McCain senate office, the women on average are paid more than the men.

Also, something that Dennis Prager says, comes to mind:

The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions. This is what propels the left to advocate laws that would force employers to pay women the same wages they pay men not only for the same job but for “comparable” jobs (as if that is objectively ascertainable). The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality.

And what of the “76 cent myth”?

The 76-cent myth
Do women make less than men? The wage-gap ratio isn’t the best gauge for pay discrimination, and overemphasizing it can undermine an important issue.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 21, 2006: 5:51 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – When you have a legitimate point to make, it can undercut your argument to rely heavily on a sound-bite statistic that easily can be misinterpreted.

When it comes to pay discrimination, the one statistic you hear over and over is that women make only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.

To the average person, that ratio gives the false impression that any woman working is at risk of being paid 24 cents less per dollar than a man in the same position.

But all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That’s it.

It doesn’t compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked.

The wage gap, in short, “is a good measure of inequality, not necessarily a measure of discrimination,” said Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Unequal doesn’t always mean unfair. Much depends on the reasons for disparity. And, Hartmann notes, “parsing out (the reasons for the gap) is difficult to do.”

Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.

Why that’s the case may have to do in part with the fact that women are still society’s primary caregivers, that some higher-paying professions require either too much time away from home or are still less hospitable to women than they should be.

However, while those factors account for a good portion of the wage gap, actual pay discrimination likely accounts for the balance, experts say.

Hartmann believes discrimination accounts for between 25 percent and 33 percent of the wage gap. Compensation specialist Gary Thornton, a principal in the HR management consulting firm Thornton & Associates, figures at least 10 percent to 15 percent does.

Whatever the breakout, there certainly are numerous studies that show discrimination — however unconscious — still exists. For instance:

* A recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers.

* A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.

Then there’s the phenomenon of wages going down when more women move into a field.

Take human resources, now a female-dominated profession. I asked Thornton if he thinks female human-resource managers today are paid as well as he and his male colleagues were 15 years ago. “Not at all,” he said. He estimates that in inflation-adjusted terms they’re paid about 20 percent less.

Why? “That’s the million-dollar question,” he said. “There are many things at play. But we still have a long way to go to change unintentional discrimination.”

A few years back, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that its women scientists were routinely given less pay, space, funding and rewards than their male colleagues.

“Did anyone intentionally give them smaller offices and labs? Probably not. It’s just one of those things (that) accumulate and add up to barriers and institutional discrimination,” Hartmann said.

Even though discrimination may not be intentional, Hartmann said, companies should be intentional about regularly reviewing their compensation structures and promotion records to correct for patterns of discrimination.

But maybe there can never be absolute parity because often there are many non-discriminatory variables that cause a differential in pay. What determines someone’s pay isn’t just a title and job description, but also performance, tenure and market forces — e.g., what it takes to get a desirable job candidate to accept a position.

And then there are situations in which a company may do well by a female employee but still be vulnerable to charges of discrimination and reverse discrimination.

In an article, Warren Farrell, author of “Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It,” tells of a company that promoted good women employees faster than men. But consequently the women moving into the higher positions often were paid less than men in the same position because the men had greater tenure at the company.

Or, Thornton noted, a man’s request for pay equity is more likely to fall on deaf ears if he finds out a newly hired female colleague is paid more. But if a woman made the same request, it’s more likely to be treated seriously, due to fear of a lawsuit.

If anything is clear cut, it’s that pay equity can be a complex issue. And it’s one that a single, overly generalized statistic does little to elucidate.

LOL! Another case of “do as I say, and not as I do”, don’t you think, Word “da man”?

It is always weird that a candidate campaigns on something, and his campaign staff performs exactly the opposite.

Then again, isn’t this a case of “judgment”???

It is always weird that a candidate campaigns on something, and his campaign staff performs exactly the opposite.

Al Franken comes to mind, since he’s now campaigning. He’d criticize corporations for not hiring more minority workers; and yet he himself, after conducting hundreds of interviews, ended up hiring 14 people, all white.

Just stfu, already, you angry little man.

stix #111:

I am getting sick and tired of everyone talking down about the USA.

It’s amazing how people- even non-Americans (like they’ve received their knowledge of American history from Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky text books, as well) will blast away at America’s past, as if we hold a unique place in the annals of racism and slavery; and without ever crediting us and Britain in our “uniqueness” at fighting against the institution of slavery and bringing the slave trade to an end.

@MataHarley: Okay, so I’m back. I just wanted to respond to your post, when you said McCain was a no vote. McCain said in the last debate, a no vote is a vote against. And, he has spoken out against the bill.
also here, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-equal-pay-_n_98342.html

Just to let you know where I got my thoughts, or should I say “facts”.

OMG, Erika! You’re becoming a community addict, girl! LOL

BTW, the “links” work just like the b-quote. You can type the text you want to read… in other words, it doesn’t have to be the URL… then highlight those words and click on the “ext link”.

Now.. I know you got your facts from HuffPo or other liberal tabloid site. Only they can pass off a “no vote” as “a vote. (In fact, I have your “think progress” link archived under my research on this “old” subject on McCain)

But, if you’ll notice what I specifically said in my post on this legislation

It was referred to the Senate Judicial Committee (Leahy chair), but Reid tried force a premature end to the debate (cloture) about amending the bill and force a vote. McCain wasn’t present for this cloture/procedural vote. But, if present, would have voted no to ending the debate.

Remember that this is a NO to more debate… not to the bill. And yes, as the bill was structured with infinite potential class action suits and without amendment, he would have voted nay. It’s nothing but a trial attorney’s dream otherwise.

There’s your “voted no against equal pay for women” claim…. Not much substance to it, eh? First fact, he wasn’t there to vote.

So you see, I already covered your response in advance. But I love that you are not only playing with the formatting, but back checking your own opinions. *very* good sign.



Even worse is the fact CNN-International makes the US version of CNN look non-partisan and actually interested in facts. CNN-I was the one who made up a story about my death 2 blocks from me in Iraq. Plain as day and with a smile on their faces. Most of their “reporting” read frighteningly close to “1984”s ‘Ministry of Truth’.

Unfortunately, that is what the world gets to see about the US: Far left education/indoctrination, re-enforced by far left propaganda and outright lies. This adds to the anti-US sentiment of an “upstart” nation that dares to think itself worthy of its ‘betters’. But if they do not get their foreign aid, food, and US Military aid…. all hell breaks loose.

Not surprisingly, nations which were enslaved under the USSR think differently. And to some others who read this and mis-understand, No, I do not think the US is better than everyone else… we ARE everyone else demographically. But Yes, having been around the world, I think the USA, overall, is better than many others and much better than all of our foes.

voter #84:

we are so arrogant that we don’t respect other ways of life.

Erika, I do see some of the arrogance you speak of. And Chris and Erika, I also believe in the veracity of your statement that “America is the greatest nation” (a sentiment expressed by both of you).

Some might read that as arrogance. What I read it as, is an expression of love and patriotism for one’s country (set aside for a moment, the fact that, by any objective criteria and scientific standard of measurement, is also true 😉 ).

If a Canadian or a Frenchman, a Brit, a Brazilian expressed the same sentiment about their home, where they come from, I really wouldn’t expect any less and can have admiration for a person who shows love, pride, and loyalty to the place that nurtured him. It’s empathy. It’s like someone saying to me, “I have the greatest family on earth”, or “I have the best mom”. There’s nothing to argue against. Just accept the statement and smile, knowing that we each feel the same way about our families (unless you belong to a dysfunctional one…in which case you wouldn’t be saying it, now would you?).

Erika #84:

To the genocide on the American Natives,


What happened to Native Americans with the arrival of Europeans to the New World, was horrible. (I wonder who they themselves might have possibly displaced?) But I would hesitate labeling what occurred as “genocide”.

for hundreds of years majority of the countries economy and progress was on the backs of an enslaved race. Yes before you jump down my throat and say we made that all better by fighting to free the slaves, remember not all of America fought to free them. It was a civil war, there were a fair number of Americans that did not want to have freedom for all.

The Indian population by the end of the 19th century amounted to about a quarter million. What decimated their population- about 75 to 90%- wasn’t violence at the hands of white imperialists, but contagious diseases for which they had no immunity. In some cases, entire tribes were wiped out. Were white Europeans responsible for bringing most of these diseases? Yes. Was it their intent to slaughter the Native American Indians through contagious diseases? No. So “genocide”, I feel, is an inappropriate and inaccurate description, just as it would be true to charge white settlers and colonialists with waging “biological wafare”.

I also reject the romanticizing of Native Americans as a whole, as somehow being eco-friendly environmentalists and peacenik “noble savages” who never engaged in warfare, brutality, and atrocities, unprovoked. Torturing prisoners was a regular practice in Indian cultures. (But lets not judge, but remain respectful).

Did we also engage in torture? Yes. Neither side is exempt of the moral high ground. Did Indians have legitimate grievances to do what they did to white settlers? Yes, of course. But their savagery is also independent from what was done unto them. On a moral scale, I don’t see them as being any more noble than us; they just happened to be on the losing side of history’s momentum. Even back then, we had a conscience (good people like yourself), and there were outcries and shame regarding our conduct and what was happening to the Indians.

Shameful acts of brutality and warfare? Yes. Genocide carried out as official policy of the U.S. government (or colonial government)? No.

I know you are focusing only on American history, and only brought this up in passing, but delivered in the context of world history- and not to excuse it nor minimize the travesty, but to contextualize it against the framework of human history- what happened to Native Americans happened on 6 other continents from the beginning of man’s history: Shifting populations, displacements, cruelty, invasion and conquests. Not unique to American history.

I think the overall nobility of our American ancestors speaks for itself. Otherwise, we would not be who we are today, if our compassion and civility didn’t mature from our past. It had to begin somewhere.

for hundreds of years majority of the countries economy and progress was on the backs of an enslaved race.

Well….I’ve risked coming across as an apologist for atrocities against Native Americans…..why stop there?

Slavery in any shape or form: Wrong. Bad. Despicable. Evil. That said….

The institution of slave labor did not make us a wealthy nation. The states that enjoyed the greatest prosperity were those that were among the first to free their slaves.

it’s amazing. We teach leaders of business to read chinese Art of war, or to to take a japanese approach in employee engagement, but that is not anti-american. We teach black kids history that honestly reflects them and their american history and it’s anti-american.

What these kids are learning is the true history of america which is both beautiful and horrific. they are learning that they are americans just as any if not more than in one else in this coutry. they are also learning how to see america auhtenically.

Let’s be honest, intergration was never about the people it was about the economics. whites could and would frequent black establishments. taking their funds up to harlem. While blacks could only spend their money in their own neighborhoods. The segragated trade balance was off. Intergration did more to destablize the black community in the US, then Jim Crow. If blacks could of had fairness under the law and right to vote and right not to be terrorized , have equal education funding we would be segergrated today.. which was a pro-american stance 40 years ago.

Just because a black child is taught africans built the pyriamids and the greeks were educted by africans from the university of Alexandria in egypt doesn’t make them radical, it realy makes the authentic.

@datdude92: Autentic???? How can it be authentic if it is false history. The Greeks were never taught by Egyptians. That is a false statement and if any historian say that, they shouldnot be allowed to teach. the Jews and Christians were the ones that taught at the University of Alexandria, and the Egyptian Muslims were the ones that burnt it to the gound.

And some Nubians may have helped with the beginnings oft he Pyramids, and they built them before the Egyptians, but the Egyptians were the ones that perfected the Pyramids.