>

European would be caucasoid, sub Saharan is negroid and American Indian is Mongoloid. That’s why they are using those peoples as examples to begin with - they are separate identifiable groups.
This is an examination of the natural world and humanity as it exist - theres nothing about “white supremacy” here at all
You're sort of correct in that "race" isn't a well constructed categorization. It's neither consistent across societies nor does it actually break down humanity into discrete little boxes.
That said, it certainly exists and skin color certainly determines one's race in certain societies. It was socially constructed. We don't so much as choose the categories as the categories were chosen centuries ago and we're stuck with them until we're able to eliminate disparities along racial lines (read, likely never). 
E.g. in America at least white people have white skin. Black people have black skin. We call the racial category white people belong to "white" regardless of their ethnic origins or culture. We call the racial category black people belong to "black" regardless of their ethnic origins or culture.
Is it useful to do so? Only insofar as race has been and still is a source of disparity, disenfranchisement, and tool of oppression. Resolve those, dissolve race. >

Eh I guess. Imo "race" is only a word used by racists. The rest of us use words like ethnicity to describe a person's ethnic background. >

"Race" as a term gets used in academics, but it isn't equivalent to ethnicity.
Ethnicity is self-identified. Members of an ethnic group consider themselves and others of that ethnic group members of it, usually due to shared culture, ancestry, language, religion, or some combination thereof.
Race is a category applied by a culture to categorize people in general (not just themselves), and which might or might not actually line up with anyone's identity or ancestry. For example, a Japanese person and a Chinese person are both "Asian" in American racial categorization, but they're different ethnic groups that have, at times, really hated one another. >


Therefore, race, at least in humans, doesn't exist.

​

but in humans, the concept of race is meaningless.  

Something being meaningless is not the same as not existing. And certain humans have put emphasis on race, so how could it be meaningless? >

Anthropologist can easily determine the racial origins of skeletal remains.. there are certain diseases which affect more races than others.. etc
this seems more like a post declaring how you wish it were and not how it actually is. >

I am of the Human Race, Homo Sapien.
Tell me, which Race is a black man of? >

This is an extremely outdated racial classification from like the late 1800s. Modern usages of those terms are pretty much limited to white supremacists, not actual scientists. >

In what way is the classification “extremely” outdated? 
We use it today in forensics and anthropology for a number of different reasons.. macro scale variations exist, groups of different peoples exist throughout the world - so I am not sure that I follow what you are saying.. >


We use it today in forensics and anthropology

Uh, citation extremely fucking needed.

macro scale variations exist, groups of different peoples exist throughout the world

They do, but those variations are mostly along continuous-ish spectrums, not neat sharp divisions into precisely three groups based on social-darwinists from 1895. >

The terms and categories you're using are nowhere in that link. Because, again, they're old school white supremacist categories from a century-plus ago.