Typically, the East Asians were considered sons of Japheth and not all Africans were looked at as sons of Ham. There were some who were considered Semmites, and some who where of Japhteth.
Remember Rwanda? That was between two groups, one who was NOT considered from the Hammite line. Can’t remember which side though.
But if there is no hard and fast separation between races based on the three sons, the whole notion of there being three races because they are descended from Noah’s three sons goes out the window.
I do agree that this separation is specifically disproven by the Bible. For instance, one of the sons of Ham was Canaan, and the Canaanites were physically indistinguishable from the Israelites.
In East Africa, the people fall into two general categories.
One is what are sometimes called the Bantu or Negroid. These appear to have spread out from somewhere in West Africa, and are the group from which most American blacks are descended, for fairly obvious geographical reasons. They are relatively short and heavy, and have the classical “African” or Negroid features.
The other used to sometimes be called “Hamitic” and includes the Tutsi, Masai, many Ethiopians and Somalis, etc. They are in general much taller and more slender, and have features we would consider more “European” or Caucasian, with more narrow noses, less prominent brows, etc.
The Tutsi are classic “Hamites,” which is now considered pejorative, and the Hutu classic Bantu or Negroid. They’ve apparently lived in proximity for at least a thousand years and there’s been a lot of mixing, so the distinction in appearance isn’t absolute.
But the physical difference in appearance was distinct enough the Hutu killers generally had little difficulty determining which people to kill.