Palaeoart has actually been associated with suppression of non-white people both indirectly and rather pointedly, and not through obscure works or people, either. Famous historic figures, who are justifiably held in high regard for their scientific and palaeoartistic work, are part of this story.
There's some really interesting/disturbing stuff here. Cuvier worked on academic papers outlining biological divisions within races – i.e. racist pseudoscience – whilst De la Beche (the first palaeoartist in some senses) actively opposed the abolition of slavery, likely because he owned a plantation in Jamaica... Even Charles Knight's mentor, Cope, was outspoken on "white superiority" and believed Black Americans should be deported "back" to Africa.
Henry Fairfield Osborn was a proud eugenicist and Nazi supporter, who is well known to have abused his tenure as president of the American Museum of Natural History to promote a racist agenda. A prime example is his direction on the famous (infamous?) Neanderthal painting that Knight – whose own thoughts are not documented – produced for Osborn's "Hall of Man". It's an incredibly famous image still used frequently today, but ultimately the brutish nature of the people it portrayed were both based on racist themes and deliberately modelled on extant cultures that Osborn considered "primitive".
The symbolism here is as gross as it is obvious, and makes the Osborn/Knight Neanderthals the palaeoartistic equivalent of golliwogs, minstrels and mammy figurines.
Mark also outlines his intentions for acknowledging the racist associations with his field moving forward. These are noble and well-phrased, but I found this particularly pertinent:
I will not be derailing my talks into anti-racist events, but it's nothing to point out that 19th century science had links with slavery and attempted to scientifically prove the inferiority of black people. We shouldn't just let that slide.
