Animals don't walk around covered in mud an faeces.
They do. When hunting, running, escaping from predators, they fall and snuggle with dirt all the time. Those dirt and mud eventually come off, but the bacterias remain until they wash themselves in the river.
Why would humans be the only species doing that? There are still some tribes in Africa and South America that have been largely left alone by "civilisation", and none of them run around covered in dirt.
When hunting, you're dealing with dirt and nature. It is temporary, but it is crucial to be recognized so that humans can avoid bacterias which could lead to infection and death. White people hunted and got dirty too, but other people can easily see the dirt on them and avoid them like the plague until they clean themselves in the river. Dirt on black people however is harder to spot, making babies and injured people prone to infection since they can't see the complexities as clearly as a white person's skin.
For example, a black man and a white man just got back from hunting. Both of them are dirty. When a kid sees them, he could easily avoid the white man because the dirt on him is visible. Therefore the kid interacts normally with the black man who is just as dirty as the white man because they just got back from hunting. If the kid has an open cut, the kid will be infected by not avoiding the black man just like he does with the white man. Therefore, as natural selection progresses, the ones with the inherent trait of fear of dark-colored objects are the ones who are left inhabiting the world to this day. Of course we have become smarter as modern humans, but the early cavemen developed the bias of dark-colored objects in order to survive.
And again I'd like to mention that within my very own German culture, including and even especially to older people, pale skin is considered a sign of illness. Features like a tan or rosy cheeks are considered signs of good health. That's why people get a tan or why women use makeup to get rosy cheeks. To get more colour, because that's apparently more desirable.
Back in the medieval times Europeans fancy being pale. You can read it from a lot of books. The tanning trend started in the modern age by 'woke' Americans.
You're right in that this is pure speculation not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.
Yeah, i did mention that it was my hypothesis based in the fact that humans have a bias of dark-colored objects. You don't have to agree if you think this is illogical, but i'd like to hear your reasons other than we don't have enough evidences. Research is expensive and i doubt we will be getting any official answer on this topic, since there is no profit for the government to invest in this research.
We haven't, so there's no way to tell.
But there are ways to speculate based on our current known facts. We have to consider every possible option no matter how hurtful it is, i know the dark-skin bias is unjust, but again nature doesn't care about anything.
. Not worth it, i don't care. It's just a hypothesis and if it's true or wrong it won't change anything.
