I'm saying race is based on historical and social circumstances. This notion is further supported because races are scientifically (genetically) difficult to distinguish. Hence "race is a social construct" is in fact based in science, directly arguing against the parent comment.

>race is a social construct is based in science

This is especially silly and misleading. Race is considered a "social construct" under the theory of Social Constructionism. For people who don't subscribe to the theory of Social constructionism, race is not a "social construct". Social constructionism itself is not based on biological and evolutionary fact. It is a philosophical approach to the world that conveniently disregards biology, genetics, behavioral ecology, and enormous scale (n=millions) of statistical studies. When you remove Social Constructionism from your thesis, your entire argument falls apart.

Most people do not believe in discredited theories like social constructionism. The other posters in this thread are asking you to rework your argument without appeals to Social Constructionism, and you show you are unable to do so.

Races are not difficult to distinguish, in fact determining self-identified race from genetic data is trivial, and genetic data is clustered in ways that reflect the common usage of racial categories. For example see http://www.gettinggeneticsdone.com/2011/10/new-dimension-to-...

>I'm saying race is based on historical and social circumstances.

This is patently untrue, though.