The biology you describe for race identification is based on phenotypes, interpreted through culture. It has no deeper genetic basis. So yes, the popular views

The biology you describe for race identification is based on phenotypes, interpreted through culture. It has no deeper genetic basis. So yes, the popular views of race are based in biology, as they have for hundreds of years. But the choice for what constitutes a race is arbitrary. It could been on hair type, or eye color, or height, or relative length of the fingers, or blood type or any of many other factors. If you choose a different set of factors, you end up with different races. Is there an Irish Race, as in https://archive.org/details/storyofirishrace00macmrich https://archive.org/details/storyofirishrace00macmrich ? And of course the Aryan race - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race - has long been the favorite of scientific racism. In US history, look at Bhagat Singh Thind. His US citizenship was challenge in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) because, while pure Aryan, and Caucasian, he wasn't white. The laws at the time said only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" could become United States citizens by naturalization. In the Supreme Court decision which stripped Thind of his citizenship (quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_... ; emphasis mine): > Associate Justice George Sutherland said that authorities on the subject of race were in disagreement over which people were included in the scientific definition of the Caucasian race, so Sutherland instead chose to rely on the common understanding of race rather than the scientific understanding of race.[4] Sutherland found that, while Thind may claim to have "purity of Aryan blood" due to being "born in Village Taragarh Talawa near Jandiala Guru, Amritsar, Punjab" and having "high caste" status, he was not Caucasian in the "common understanding", so he could not be included in the "statutory category as white persons".[6] The Court reiterated its holding in [Ozawa v. United States],[citation needed] explaining that the words "free white person" in the naturalization act were "synonymous with the word ‘Caucasian’ only as that word is popularly understood," pointing out that the statutory language was to be interpreted as "words of common speech and not of scientific origin, . . . written in the common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men." So while it's true that biological factors have long been used to assign race, the choice of which factors to use as you yourself say is socially determined. Hence race is socially constructed. There's no useful genetic basis for saying there is a "black" race, other than as an expression of a phenotype. The diversity of people with black skin is entirely too large for that characterization to be useful. Stop using definitions of race that were discredited decades ago.