Why is racism still an issue in a civilized, globalized world?

[CaptainHook]

"which really just means a genetically isolated population that can interbreed with others of the same species, but becomes distinct due to genetic drift"

Isn't that exactly what a "race" is? Caucasians are genetically distinct from Africans. Doesn't mean they are a different species. And we sure as hell don't call them a sub-species.

Point is, if it wags like a dog.........(you know the rest)

As far as the Aborigines skull being a "hoax", here are some other examples..

Looks pretty much the same as the one you claimed was a "hoax" doesn't it?

Left-Aborigines, Middle-Asian, right-Caucasian. There is a lot of diversity in skull shapes well within the "human" label.

Here is another side by side of aborigines and caucasian

And finally here are 2 actual people. Check out that brow ridge! Are you gonna claim that this was photo shopped as well?

The definition of "human beings" is much broader than some would like to believe.

 

[Robert_J_King]

Racism exists because people choose to promote it: Racism is when Madonna was blasted for using the word "nigga" in a non-derogative manner on Twitter but had she been black nothing would have been said. Racism is when a 16 year old white boy can take a drunken joyride in his parents car leaving four people dead and two others in critical condition. His punishment? 10 years probation. Because he and his family were white and rich. Racism is when a white man shoots at a car full of unarmed black people because they had their music too loud. But that was in Florida where it's almost open season on blacks.

 

[Quinion]

snip

Who said anything about photoshop? Hoax means it isn't what it is purported to be , an aboriginie from the nineteenth century; without knowing where it comes from or how old it actually is, I'm saying I don't accept what joe-blow on the internet says it is if I can't confirm it through a credible source. And just because you can find more than one picture of a skull with google image search doesn't make it any more credible, nor does the fact that you can buy a cast from "Bone Clones"....you realize they have in the past sold (and maybe still do) a cast of Piltdown Man, right?

Nevertheless, the point of this is you are conflating the concept of race with evolution, population dynamics and speciation. I have no problem with the range of variation in modern humans. And Australians and Neanderthals are completely different genetic types, as Australians are derived from the more recent African lineages (along with all modern humans) than the Neanderthals, who were genetically isolated in Europe and the Near East for hundreds of thousands of years, and were the only humans in Europe for most of that time. Their genes were introduced into those same out-of-Africa lineages in Europe well after Australians were in Australia. Trying to to imply that there is some connection is just ignorant.

So tell me, what race does this skull belong to?

How about this one?

Here's a few additional questions:

What "race" are Native Americans? How about people from India? How about the Jomon in Japan?

Answers: First picture, "white"; second picture, who knows, but her descendants would be considered either "Native American" or "Latino", as she's a prehistoric Peruvian.

Race, at least the modern concept of it, is based almost entirely on skin color, and can have very little to do with underlying physical morphology. Of any of the skulls shown, what was their skin color when alive? Cranial morphology has nothing to contribute to the question, without living analogs to compare with, and even then its just an assumption. In example after example, genetic sequencing has shown that so many of the assumptions made about modern populations based on cranial morphoplogy are grossly overstated, if not flat-out wrong. Trying to find a basis for the modern concept of "race" (more a sociological phenomenon than anything else) in the prehistoric past is becoming less and less tenable.

And again, I have no interest in getting into a discussion about "race" on this site.....the discussion quickly turns to sarcasm, factually bereft suppositions and thinly veiled race-baiting. If you want to discuss the sociology of racism, where it come from, whether it still exists, that's fine....just don't try to trot out bad/nonexistent science to support whatever your assertion is.

@Norik , the thing is that virtually no one outside of academia is actually employed as an anthropologist, except maybe a few who work for big gov't agencies like USAID, and maybe some international companies. Kris and I worked together at a firm as archaeologists, basically part of the machine of environmental permitting under state and federal laws and regulations. You're from Miami right? I'm guessing you know about the Tequesta village at the MDM Miami site.....well, pretty much the same thing, although the firm handling that is a non-profit, and we worked for a big for-profit engineering firm/douchebag colony that pursues similar contracts for developers and state/federal agencies.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

Humans are insane by default! =P

It's historically factual that our ancestors hunted down the Neanderthals, seeing as the skeletal remains of them they found had sharp abrasion wounds in their skeletons suggesting stab wounds. And in another, had a fractured skull at a sharp angel, suggesting a hard blow to the head with a blunt object...

That's why Dwarfs and Elves never could co-exist with humans like in the novels and movies.. xD We'd go psychotic and go on some big "cleaning spree" where every small Dwarf tribe would get killed off before they were evolved enough to fight or communicate with us.... Just look what we did to problematic species like the Woolly Mammoth and the Sabre Tooth!

 

[Quinion]

Wow, that's just so........wrong.
First, not even sure what this is doing in a thread about racism (????)

Second, this nonsensical hogwash about Neanderthals, about which we have no "history" (clue: history=writing, hence the term prehistoric); no facts, just data and/or evidence that requires interpretation, and please tell me what remains, and from what site "the skeletal remains of them" were found that lead you to this groundbreaking conclusion. I'm curious to see what evidence you base your "hunted down the Neanderthals" theory on. Oh yeah, that's right, never any sources to back your assertions.

And as for wooly mammoths being a "problematic" species, what "we" did was eat them, along with a bunch of other proboscideans like mastodons, Columbian mammoths, and gompotheres, and now they are all extinct. sabretooths almost certainly went extinct because "we" ate their food....there isn't a single scrap of evidence anywhere that Smilodons were ever directly killed by humans.

Do yourself a favor, try the links I posted previously in this thread, read up on what the evidence actually is and what people who do this for a living think it means, and stop posting horseshit.