You can't donate marrow to someone off the street, no matter what colour their skin is. Siblings only match 1 in 4. If you think siblings are different races 75% of the time, you've got a narrow definition of race even compared to the racists who have a non-biologically supported narrow definition of race.

When it comes to White people, 77% of the donors were the same race. American Indians are 55%, Hispanics 46%, and Blacks are 23%.

https://bethematch.org/transplant-basics/matching-patients-with-donors/how-does-a-patients-ethnic-background-affect-matching/

It seems like there's a pattern. Increasing diversity actually has a negative effect on groups of people who can't receive donations at the same rate as others. In a homogenous or ethnocentric society, this problem is eliminated 100%.

Right. And if Egyptian art was consistent in depicting skin colour, we could be more confident about what that means with respect to the historical skin colour of those peoples. As it is it needs to be

The Ancient Egyptians had a clear understanding of what other races looked like, especially as they drew the same pictures of them defeating their own enemies in war. But this depiction of their own skin color is not considered consistent because....? I can't find any official images of Ramses II where he magically shape shifts in one hieroglyphic to another.

Black people were supportive of the slave trade, and white people considered it immoral and abolished it? Good luck with selling that.

Guess who was selling slaves before Europeans entered the continent? Guess how many traditions and cultures also existed in Africa that highly glorified the idea that slaves where needed to appease nobility?

Meanwhile back in Ancient Egypt, or anywhere pre-15th century, slavery was not related to colour.

I'm not arguing that Egypt exclusively practiced slavery on the basis of color, but rather, they kept Black people enslaved in spite of it.

But once again, I'm more surprised you're willing to defend this system, since slavery in all its forms, is widely condemned after European influence affected the globe.

It's good you've got a name for it. What's the best evidence for your claim that the pharaohs before and after that didn't have "any actual trace of black"?

Other than the obvious in which is looking at all their hieroglyphic art, Scientists have already determined that for 1,300 years, sub-saharan ancestry is a more recent phenomenon that even came way after the Roman time period in Egyptian populations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694#ref10

By directly studying ancient DNA from ancient Egyptians, we can test previous hypotheses drawn from analysing modern Egyptian DNA, such as recent admixture from populations with sub-Saharan16 and non-African ancestries17, attributed to trans-Saharan slave trade and the Islamic expansion, respectively. On a more local scale, we aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community (Fig. 1), since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period (cal. 1388BCE–426CE, Supplementary Data 1). In particular, we seek to determine if the inhabitants of this settlement were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination, especially during the Ptolemaic (332–30BCE) and Roman (30BCE–395CE) Periods. On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples. In both PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses, we did not find significant differences between the three ancient samples, despite two of them having nuclear contamination estimates over 5%, which indicates no larger impact of modern DNA contamination. We used outgroup f3-statistics38 (Fig. 5a,b) for the ancient and modern Egyptians to measure shared genetic drift

It's a giant article, but the answer are all there.