>>578849
This theory never made sense. Egypt is repeatedly called the land of Ham in the OT. Egypt however wasn't populated with negroes in the earliest times. There are steles depicting Asiatics distinct from Egyptians in Beni Hasan around the twelfth dynasty in Egypt, and in the tomb of Sethos I are found Egyptian and negroid Nubian types together (labelled as such in the heiroglyphics above). The 25th dynasty itself was an invasion of Egypt by those same people from the south. And the Egyptians are consistently shown with a different appearance and facial features from these groups when they are shown, very similar to how they appear today.
With this fact in mind, how much sense does it make to suggest that, within just a few hundred years of Noah's flood, that each of these people groups emerged from his three sons? And furthermore that their immediate offspring kept their bloodlines fully separate while all this happened, despite the further relation that the people remained together until Babel. The only coherent explanation is that these other races being depicted on ancient Egyptian steles, weren't descended from Noah. Now as for whether it's the mark of Cain, that would certainly explain a lot more, considering that Cain was driven into exile back in Genesis 4:14.
>Now I have seen at least one perspective in which every non-European/Semetic race is a "Hamite," but I doubt that's the consensus.
Nowadays, most people don't know what to think. That's why you usually don't hear too much about this subject. There are a few preconceived notions upon which people will usually agree on with some amount of uneasiness toward either the Biblical account, or toward some of the early evidence and questions that necessarily arise from this.