A Family Tree in Every Gene--the title itself contradicts the article

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: A Family Tree in Every Gene

The principal error made in this article is that genes group together in populations because race is real, when in fact genes group together in populations because people believe in races and behave accordingly. Mr. Leroi suggests that "race" is somehow not a social construct, but a scientific reality, when it is far less defined than the scientific concept of species, which itself is easily demonstrated to be a social construct. It is a nomenclatural formalism. That it is useful for parsing populations is not argued against. That people can practically evaluate others with this social construct is happily granted. That these points justify the statement that "race" is a scientifically real and inescapable quality is hokum. I am at a loss to determine what could even motivate a desire to return race to a concrete popular usage when it is pointed out even in the text of the article that it has a vicious history. What if it weren't resurrected, but allowed to remain sidelined in the population like so many other shorthand concepts that are counterfactual or based on erroneous science? What loss? Newtonian mechanics remains the tool of the people, but no one is suggesting that it should be restored to scientific "fact."

I can see nothing in this article but a celebration of difference, of a person happy that he can define his race, like an American who can trace his ancestry back to English royalty in the 1600's crowing about his "blood."

More later. Feel free to help.