For many of these early European explorers, the Bible was not only regarded as infallible, it was also their primary reference tool and those looking for answers to explain differences in ethnicity, culture, and slavery, found them in Genesis 9: 24-27, which appeared to suggest that it was all a result of 'sin'.
That is part truth, in that they referenced it to deceive little Black African Children they stoled and enslaved. YOU SAID:
"In the Genesis passage, Africans were said to be the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah, who was cursed by his father after looking at his naked form "
Now even today, White publications say that was a deliberate fabrication, so you are believing in this false belief and not comprehending the script. Then you said:
"Moreover, in Genesis 10, the 'Table of Nations' describes the origins of the different 'races' and reveals that one of the descendants of Ham is 'Cush' - Cush and the 'Cushites' were people associated with the Nile region of North Africa."
Again, you are conditioned to NOT comprehend the script and into believing the European statements. Then you write a lot about Ghana and how the slave trade occurred in West Africa and how the Africans were a part of it, and yes, this is so true! However, you fuse in that aspect and do as 'we' have been conditioned to do, and blame Christianity and not Europeans exploiting everything.
The Europeans said that only Ham was the origin of Africans and this is a streamlined definition and we as descendants of slave children have been taught. But the script clearly states that NOAH was PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS and that means that all of his descedants TODAY, the Original SETH are defined by terms like AFRICANS, KEMET, and etc.
The script clearly states that the SON OF HAM, that is CANAAN HAM was cursed, not HAM. So yes, the Cushites are defined to be Nilotic but that is another streamlined definition of Cush Ham, because even secular history places a lot of them in their early civilization of GREATER BABYLON, present day Iraq.