The problem is graphs like that are used to misleadingly portray lactose tolerance as a “racial” trait, using an out-of-context bit of science to propagate the

The problem is graphs like that are used to misleadingly portray lactose tolerance as a “racial” trait, using an out-of-context bit of science to propagate the falsehood of racial differences between Africans and Europeans. The (real) biological difference in skin color ignited a ridiculous false belief that Africans and Europeans constitute different “races,” and scientists have a duty to push back on racist propaganda asserting a “racial difference” where none exists, even on the racists’ own flawed terms. The high genotypic frequency of lactose persistence in Northern Europe and Saudi Arabia is an interesting and incomplete story about human adaptation to geography and climate (perhaps droughts and harsh winters meant that people were not be able to wait for cheese or yogurt and need to consume large amounts of raw milk?) Another crucial part of the mix is that there is much less genetic diversity in Europe and the Middle East than in Africa. Regardless, if you read the linked NYT article, it’s clear that a bunch of racist weirdos are stumbling across graphs like the ones you presented and are treating “the ability to drink milk without getting queasy” as another paper bag test. Although it’s ridiculous and abhorrent, such ideas wouldn’t be sustainable if people weren’t convinced pseudoscience was the real thing.