They want to say all bipedal hominids were from East Africa, but primates were from East Asia, both of which have tropical environments that support hairless life without clothing. There are even apes still in Eurasia that don't live in Africa like the orangutan (which also has the same pigmentation spectrum as Aryans), so why does it necessarily follow that all hominids evolved from Africa despite their physical differences induced by Africanisation? Y-DNA already posits that those of R hg go back to P hg and K hg, which were in tropical Asia (Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc), that connects with the Subcontinent. Why shouldn't that be an origin for those of us other than the African subspecies, that obviously evolved to adapt in Africa unlike us?

Yes, I understand this means that negroids would feel entitled to live in primate Urheimat Eurasia, as primates didn't originate in Africa, but why leave Africa depopulated when it was the first example of a hominid colonisation event out of Eurasia? Eurasians likewise should not feel like conquests of the Americas and Australasia don't belong to our ancestors, us and our posterity either. There's enough land for everyone on Earth, without different hominids getting in each other's ways. Is there something wrong with our relatives the neanderthals, denisovans, orangutans or macaques and another thing so much better that we should pine for living with negroids, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and baboons? I remain unconvinced in the supremacy or overriding relevance of the latter. Bah!