the people saying "there is no such thing as biological race", with reference to the historic definition of race, are.... technically right, depending on how the terms are defined.

Absolutely. When sociologist like Etzioni - for example, say things along the lines of "race is a social construct," it has more to do with the history of categorizing peoples based on pseudo-science. Because, historically, there are dark implications behind the pursuit to divide people into - literally, something akin to sub-species if we go back to the scientific use of the word "race" - that were meant to deprive & subjugate. Not as a result of scientific discovery, because data pointed to a difference in biochemistry & the grouping became essential to create more effective medicines for those in need (to use an example from above by /u/Drooperdoo).

Either way, the social scientist would not say these discoveries regarding our genetics & ancestry aren't "real" because it is a completely new definition of race with a completely different function, etc. Further, she would posit that although the common definitions of race are more a social construct than biological, it does not change the fact that it is a [political] reality that must be studied, analyzed throughout the inevitably changes in definition. Going back to the Etzioni article, "The rapid growth in the number, visibility, and power of Hispanics will largely determine the future of race in America" and "they do not fit into the old racial categories [...]" and reject the black-white dichotomy. In short, just because it's "not real" doesn't mean it's not important. It's been awhile since I've read the Etzioni article but if I recall it did a wonderful job addressing the nuances of race (in America).

But, yeah. Absolutely - this is an interesting topic that has become even moreso after the completion of the seminal Human Genome Project. Like... for sure. Thanks for the maps & information on haplogroups!