It's only in the latter half of the 20th century that the field stops presupposing that Europeans are better than everybody else and they start trying to more objectively and holistically evaluate life in other societies and compare them. There's still a large contingent of popular anthropology that hasn't caught up to that memo yet, and the general field of pseudoarchaeology absolutely thrives on it.
There's a reason that people treat the methods of construction of the Pyramids as some unsolved mystery but not, say, the Colosseum. And it's not because we don't have the evidence for the Pyramids--we have the written records that discuss pyramid construction, we have the letters from the Pharoah complaining about his workforce!
Only modern black nationalists believe that the Ancient Egyptians were black.
The Pyramids are thought to have been very difficult to build because they are obviously very difficult to build with the technology available at the time. Remember that they were ancient even to the Romans and the Greeks.
Thinking the Pyramids would be difficult to build has absolutely nothing to do with race or racism.
I personally chalk that sort of stuff up to living where the climate is set to easy mode.
Compare construction that predates building code in wealthy coastal California to poor rural Maine and you'll find the latter is routinely within spitting distance of compliant with modern code because that's just what you need if you want your project to resist nature for a "worth the effort of building it" amount of time.
Ancient civilizations had fairly thin survive or starve margins. Civilizations that sit atop the best agricultural land and build vanity projects instead of armies and practical infrastructure don't tend to sit atop that land for long. While we don't have precise records nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones nor how they mobilized the population, we have many well understood examples of ancient civilizations doing these things. It's largely a question of what other special circumstances let them engage in these projects so prolifically when Baybylon and China built <checks notes> walls.
Plenty of people, including myself, are perplexed about how they moved stones. Specifically, how 60--80 ton stones were moved up.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
Nothing more.
It isn't complicated, it's leverage, ramps, muscles, and patience.
It is likely that the entire construction program was planned around the 10-20 years it took to move the 80-ton weight-relieving stones much like how today I plan engineering and manufacturing efforts around the components with the longest lead times.
There were very few 80t blocks and those only had to go halfway up. Most were 2.5t.
Sacsayhuamán in Peru has 100t+ stones that were quarried 35km from the fortress location and transported up a steep incline. It took 6,000 men to move the stones.
Inca (1438-1570), Wari (600-1100) or Tiwanaku (300-1100)? Or some previous civilization?