Good working theory and a good start but niggers and abos are further apart than whites and abos genetically. Humanity started around the Mediterranean sea, we kept migrating away in different directions over a long period of time likely due to relative overcrowding for resources and territory, the major genetic divides are a product of which ancestor groups sent full flight or full fight and the geographical hazards which divided them. Niggers moved from what was likely the most aggressive and likely genetically diverse span in what is now the near east from turkey to egypt crossing past the red sea likely congregating around the nile and eventually being forced south. Niggers are the product of generations of losers in the geographic losers bracket being forced south past the sahara. East asians are the product of many different expeditions across asia one or two tribes at a time leading to massive inbreeding which selected for their current features but enough of these expeditions has stabilized their genetics. It's essentially true for every race from japan to jakarta, and even over to the americas but just like northern and central asia have Indo-Aryan root populations central/south america has echoes of the two pacific seafarer races (or perhaps 1) and this is where the intersection of abos and coconut niggers is. Abos and coconut niggers(pacific islanders) are the product of a sea faring ethnic group which realized the only competitor for resources in remote islands was nature and so rather than trek up to asia and face having to settle with more peoples wgo might be hostile they braved the seas in simple vessels, its entirely likel that multiple groups had this idea a very l9ng time apart or perhaps as they hopped islands and left some behind each time they l9st s bit 8f knowledge and genetic diversity and began looping nack in in themselves as each islands populace had a few attempts at doing as their ancestors had and settling new areas. Easter island, the olmecs in central/south america and abos are likely the same people in a sense, island breeding becomes deeply incestuous and can be quite regressive socially (think lord of the flies). Olmecs were likely wiped out by a mix of amerindian, incest diseases, and coconut nigger migrations behind them. Easter islanders were probably the proto olmces or their leavings in the journey across the pacific they hunted and chopped the island barren but the lack of wood found indicates a few fled, I'd bet they either got wiped out or added back to australia, australia was likely highly underpopulated by disaster struck sea migrations which lead to the worst inbreeding and social collapses on earth. The indo-aryan line is a product of multiple migrations north west and east from the Mediterranean hotzone(conflict) the western migrations getting squeezed back east and south due to the ice age, and going into mountain living from forest living. Neanderthals being possibly the earliest northern migration and then due to ice age being forced south east where their people likely collapsed into surrounding tribes and gradually their genetics spread across eurasia the fact that we don't see these genes in the sub saharan population says that africans ancestors got trapped down their likely almost as long ago as the first neanderthals were making contact with subsequent waves of human migration which means there has been a warrior tribe (likely many)in controll of the nile river valley continuously for untold millennia, but they either stopped forcing the conquered south or the niggers didn't fuck the exiled. Our most ancient ancestors lived in massive forests around the Mediterranean, these are mostly gone now likely due to ages of cutting down trees for tools and housing and weaponized arson. The middle east/near east, palestine to iran, was a great forrest, this was likely the cradle of civilization considering the oldest known civilizations are all proximal to it, humans created this desert terrain by incompetence and ignorance. My point is our ancestors had an abundance of shade and followed the shade it's likely that a fair skin tone was always the default for our ancient ancestors who climbed trees and walked these great forests this evidenced I believe by the proximal skintones of east asians, central asians and europeans, if humans were plains dwellers from the start we would have all been browner, but even the pre islamic conquest near east/middle east was fair skinned as evidenced by descriptions of david, jesus, the babylonians, the beduins, ancient ancestors of the saudis, muhammed, and others, it's likely the common people's skin tone was probably somewhere between the typical israeli jew of today and the typical iranian, obviously they would have a tan on top of this. It was the conscription of niggers into mohammed's armies that led to the Browning of what became islamic lands as evidenced by his armies dividing, where his niggers went became brown, where they didn't remained fair skinned.