On the whole skin pigmentation category of humans.
Arguably you couldn't pick a less useful way of categorising for human similarity.
Africa is the most genetically diverse continental population (which supports the out of Africa premise for human kind)
There are a number isolated geographic areas where populations (due to environment probably) have retained similar skin pigmentation/features, yet now have the greatest distance (genetically) from the African population.
Skin pigmentation is likely one of the most quickly adaptive phenotypes that we know of.
Researchers suggest that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa as they migrated to different UV zones,[5] and that such major changes in pigmentation may have happened in as little as 100 generations (≈2,500 years) through selective sweeps.[5][6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
Obviously some of the factual points about skin colour are as controversial to dark skinned people as lighter skinned people.
My big take away from reading about our understanding of genetic distance is simply similar appearances do not really imply genetic closeness.
As for the idea that racism is somehow natural.
1. Show some evidence beyond, "I think like this, so I believe everybody does".
2. Natural to what/who:
Some big cats males eat/kill the young of competitive males.
Sterile Ants work to protect and serve the colony.
Making points about distant "cousins" or unrelated organism seem to entirely ignore the obvious differences human evolution appears to display. Humans pass generational information on, in ways that none of those organisms appear to. I'm unaware of ant/chimp/tiger production of memes.
