Guatama Siddhartha was born in Nepal. His ears were stretched due to wearing jewelry while he was a prince. Buddhism was established in India, not the middle-east (as the blog claims). The blog also claims Gautama, Shakyamuni, and Siddhartha are different people. This person doesn't know much about Buddhism at all but wants to claim the Buddha for purposes of furthering their agenda. Lame...

This kind of Afrocentric history is generally considered to be discredited. Unless it is the opinion of the scholars who study the history of Buddhism that Siddhartha was black, then you should take such claims with an enormous pinch of salt. Something worth noting as a general observation is that simply because a statue or bas-relief or painting 'looks Negroid' (when is this, 1860?) doesn't tell you anything about the race of the depicter or depictee. The reason for this is that all art needs to be interpreted in the context of its culture of production; we have no idea if it is intended as a realistic depiction or if the artist chose to exaggerate certain features. To come to an informed conclusion, in other words, you need to ask a specialist in the study of the culture in question, rather than just going 'well, er, he looks a bit like a black guy'.

This paper refutes a similar theory regarding a theorized African pre-Columbian contact with the Americas. This might be useful in helping you spot what is nonsense and what isn't, especially when it comes to this very controversial topic.

The features are not strictly African as the author claims. Indians can have facial features as decribed, and the so-called kinky hair is a stylization of curly ringlets.

I certainly can't make any determination about the racial identity of the Buddha, but I can tell you that the reasoning used in that blog is pretty bad and at best loosely tethered to reality. It seems as though they did some cherry-picking with photos and used that to claim that there are no 'aryan' depictions of the Buddha. There are a few problems with this. Most of these statues were created looonng after the death of the Buddha. As time passed and the concept of Buddhism spread from India to the rest of Asia there were quite a few changes that happened. We can see this fairly early in statues that were obviously influenced by western classical styles of sculpture. A couple examples that are easy to pick out is the shape of fabric being depicted as folds rather than simple ridges or ripples, and obviously the very 'aryan' looking nose. This is in no small part thanks to cultural intermingling that happened as as result of extensive trade from the Silk Road. So it's safe to say that blog is quite wrong on that count. As Buddhism spread ever further not only did the iconography change according to the tastes/culture of the local artists/patrons, but often the religion itself changed. In some parts of the world the Buddha was even considered to be a woman.

Speaking of iconography, it's impossible to talk about artistic depictions of the Buddha without talking about the huge amount of symbolism. The lump on the head, the shape of his (her?) ears, these and many other things are there because they represent a spiritual aspect of the Buddha rather than being intended as an accurate physical representation of the person.

As for the truth of whether or not he was black, we would need to know what the racial makeup of northeastern India was roughly two and a half millenia ago, which is beyond me. Though even that would not be definitive. There is no known written record from his lifetime and so far none has been shown to be from any earlier than ~400 years after his death.