I also love following the human origin story (it's probably the scientific topic outside my field of study I read up on the most), and I have to admit I really don't like the way you framed your comment. You are following the pattern of many other anti-academics who paint a strawman of simple-minded scientists who miss obvious conclusions for some ulterior purpose. I'm sure you're not purposefully doing it, but you have to understand that 1000s of people have devoted their life to studying this topic, and there isn't some conspiracy to hide the truth.
It's been known for years that modern humans have bred with other hominid species, and the theories have been changing to reflect this. A lot of evidence of early human settlements are 20 feet under water today, so it's a surprisingly tough study of topic. You're right that genetic testing has been changing our understanding of things, but this is a recent development. No one is trying to hide anything or avoid topics of study; everything is widely written about, including in pop-literature like this excellent book (which has a very candid chapter on variations in human intelligence, btw): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014303832X
No man, or woman, on this planet, is free from ideological bias.
They led a life with prevalent poverty and lack of food, and almost any kind of living supplies. They all need to work hard. I am not surprised that an older generation Chinese call most US people lazy.
As for whether there is a racism judgement, I dont know. You are most close to your dad. :)
I'm sorry but that sounds mighty dangerous. Human equality was never grounded in genetic similarity; you do not need to know that your salad mix of ancestors are different to others to understand that every human today deserves equality. Sure groups of people may be different - like culture - but once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority. It's not as if it doesn't exist today at varying degrees but careful that it doesn't gain mass momentum. It's a slippery slope and one we've gone down far too often.
As with so many sociological effects caused by technology and knowledge, there's a tradition of science fiction that deals with this concept. Is a human level AI intelligence human, or something else? If it's something else, does it deserve the same rights as a human? If we uplift a species, do we expand the classification of "human" to cover that as well? What does it mean to be human? We can inch along and slowly change our laws based on the understandings we have right now, or we can attempt to leap-frog that thinking and provide a framework for protecting intelligent species (to whatever degree) and try to take a more holistic approach to this before it becomes a mess. This is a problem we will have to deal with eventually, should we be so lucky to survive that long.
Here's a less extreme (but still wild) scenario: A tribe of neanderthals is discovered. Do they deserve human rights? I could see some not very good things happening in the short time before consensus formed around that answer, but what, really makes neanderthals more deserving than Gorillas, dolphins, cows, or cats and dogs? We, as a species and as nations (mostly, there are exceptions) have been able to punt on this question because it may upset the way we currently function, but we owe it to ourselves to answer why we should care more about a neanderthal than a cow (if we should).
How is this the top comment?
The call is coming from inside the house.
Out of Africa is true, but on a different timescale than more recent adaptations like skin color. You can walk back from eastern Asia to South Africa in well under a year. Assuming migration was completely in one direction is a laymen misunderstanding of long standing theory's. It's a density argument where you need populations in an area before there is any trace over these timescales.
Consider some early hominid decides to follow the rising sun and ends up in Beijing. Great, well unless he finds someone else there he is going to live out his life and die without children. Even a small group does the same, without sufficient genetic diversity or immigrants they die out fairly quickly or are simply overwhelmed by the next wave.
Also, 'humans' tend to make it safer for other humans in the area by killing off large predators, finding edible plants etc.
PS: 70,000bce - 1,600,000bce is a very long time period. But, 1.6 million years ago South East Asia already had human ancestors and fire use is ~1.5 million years old.
I think there is a history of contorting facts about world to work well with moral or political goals, often well meaning. There’s the connection between homogenous Out Of Africa humanity to promote egality and fraternity, directly opposite nazi race theories. The Nazi race and culture theories were themselves contortions to support nazi political and moral agendas.
Feminism did it, with the nature-nurture stuff. To some extent, gay rights did it with the “born like this slogan.”
The effects on our theories of the world, popular or scientific, can outlast the political need by generations.
The Out-of-Africa narrative has to be understood in this context, that it is a very positive narrative, that humans-as-humans developed just once in this tiny spot in Africa and then spread out around the world very recently, never interbred with other hominid species so they're all gone, and therefore we're all pretty much exactly the same.
What has been emerging especially now that genetic sequencing is becoming rapidly cheaper and more advanced at picking human genomes out of the genetic diaspora found in old fossils, is a much more complicated picture. The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness, so they're beginning to push the evidence that Asian hominid genes contributed to the emergence of modern humans/civilization.
The emerging picture to me is one of multiple waves of hominin advances spreading in a varied way and admixing with existing local populations. So there's pretty clearly an ancient Out-of-Africa wave of homo erectus(who were far more advanced than previously acknowledged), a possible evolution of "homo erectus+" and wave out of Asia, and likely an "Out of Arabia" mix of neanderthals and AMHs in the Levant, all of which intermixed imperfectly. The Neanderthals themselves look plausibly responsible for some advances in human civilization (Mousterians)
What you wind up with is a far more complex picture of human evolution and far more significant and long-standing difference between human populations, which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity.