You did not explain where you got the idea that Lao-zi was black and oily.

Prof Wei Chu-hsien did commit a fatal mistake in extrapolating on the tin decipher for the city of Wuxi ["no tin"] and polarized the Xia-Shang dynastic substitution as a fight between Mongoloid [Negroid to be in Wei's apparently blown-away alternative writing] and Caucasoid, i.e., a fallacy that scholar Luo Xianglin opposed. Do note that Wei was a student of Wang Guowei who fallaciously proposed the notion of linking 'Hua' to the Avars and 'Xia' to the Tu-huo-luo kingdom in Central Asia. Should Wei have adopted 'black fish' of the Yangtze Deta as the god of "dark-skinned" Shang people who moved to the Yellow River with the tin from Wuxi hill, then how could he reconcile the ancient claim that the father of Yu, i.e., Gun of Xia people, was named 'black fish'?

Scholar Luo Xianglin pointed out that Frenchman Terrien Lacouperie was the first to propose the fallacious claim of Babylon as the "Western Origin Of The Early Chinese Civilization" in 1894. Wang Guowei just conveniently appropriated the Frenchman's absurd idea, and his student Wei Juxian carried it on. Ultimately, you, Clyde Winters, picked it up by treating it as a dog chew.