Ok so you two @Chevdove and @Pioneer1 are breaking down the history in very comprehensive ways, with lots of details. There seem to be a lot of sticking points about dates/time periods and nomenclature. But otherwise there's some agreement here.
I admit I'm more of a recent history guy (1600-present) versus ancient like you two. I do consider myself a Biblical scholar, but as Pioneer alluded to, its not 100% factual. But from what I'm reading, the both of you seem to agree in the existence of "Black Dravidian Asians." Is that fair to say? If so then I need to read up some on this subject matter before I can comment further. The words black and Asian combined is weird in and of itself. I assume these people had kinky/nappy hair?
The second preliminary conclusion I'm getting, based on both of your comments, is that the Black Dravidians did in fact play a role in creating today's "Caucasians" aka white people? If not, correct me. Again I'll contribute more to this discussion once I learn more about our Dravidian cousins.
They are not original, meaning they didn't come into existence naturally. Is that what you're saying?
This is/was my position from the beginning. I always felt white people (Europeans) usurped the term "Caucasian" from the people of Georgia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, etc. But this whole discussion even calls that into question. I believe Pioneer's position is that Arabs and Europeans are Caucasian. Make sense. Just more to wrap our heads around.