False
2006-12-20 13:05:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ludwig Wittgenstein 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is fact. Please give serious consideration to the source listed below. Might I add that the European Americans that answered your question with the word "fiction" were not here several hundred years ago to tell you exactly what happened. Also, this would not be the first thing that European Americans have had a hard time admitting to or even ignoring; most of them ignore the government of their country today; what would make one think that they know what happened hundreds of years ago? Tell disbelieving scholars to check out George Washington's letter to the Sultan of Morocco in which he addresses the Sultan as "Great and Magnanimous friend", and procedes to ask his forgiveness for not appropiately consulting him on the formation of the newly drafted Constitution. I believe the letter can be found on Yale University's website. There were 8 elected leaders in this country before Washington. In fact, Columbus noted that women on the Hispaniola were wearing Arabian garb; the Nina, Pinto, and Santa Maria were Moroccan ships, thusly North AFRICAN. It is widely known by historians that while the Europeans were suffering the dark ages, the Anduluz had a thriving civilization rich in scientific, cultural, literary and philosophical advances. They had the resources and inclination to sail that region before the Europeans ever did. So it appears to be likely that Columbus was not the first to travel that route. Those that know so little to say that the only Africans present at the time were slaves are surely ignorant of the fact that the first slaves were 100,000 IRISH men and women, yet that the first Africans to come to the continent were NOT slaves. Before institutionalized disenfranchisement, Africans were DOCTORS, LAWYERS, and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. It should not be so surprising that Africans were involved in the pre-constitution government when North Africans were here before Europeans!
Please do not just follow what the masses say. The fact that the masses have allowed someone like George W to govern should be more than sufficient evidence of the need to abstain from following the masses!
If you are interested in further literature and documentation detailing this topic, you can email me at treymjb2@yahoo.com
2006-12-20 13:48:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by trey 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fiction
2006-12-20 13:19:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yah Im gonna go with a big fat false on that one.
Alot of nonsense is said on college campuses.
Have you ever heard a group of high college students discussing the meaning of life? It aint pretty.
2006-12-20 13:06:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Perplexed 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
particular there replaced into the super Samuel Huntington of Connecticut who via the righteousness of the Articles' ratification grew to grow to be the 1st President of the united states in Congress Assembled. He replaced into no longer of African American descent and replaced right into a delegate (1775-80 4) to and president (1779-80 one) of the Continental Congress in the past he served as governor of Connecticut (1786-ninety six).
2016-10-15 08:30:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only African Americans on this continent at that time were slaves....
2006-12-20 13:06:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by cereal_killer034 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Uh.....huh.... in 1785....80 years BEFORE the Emancipation proclamation.....A Black man ran the country.....take a guess if that's correct.....
No.
2006-12-20 13:06:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first man killed in the revolution [Boston massacree] was African descent.
2006-12-20 13:31:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most blacks where slaves back than, even in the north.
2006-12-20 13:11:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
fiction
2006-12-20 13:05:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋