That makes more sense. Sorry for calling your initial post stupid, it was just short on info 
I agree that race is often misused and doesn't "fit" with the actual science. Pull a random guy out of Sub-Sahara Africa and another out of the Amazon and they'd both be "black" but they would be more genetically different from each other than I (german/english) would be from the Dali Lama.
A random guy out of the Amazon would be "Native American". And he'd be likely to be the one closest to the Dalai Lama in your sample.
But to get back to race as social construct... considering Obama "Black", as in "of one race with the descendants of West African slaves in the US", would be a prime example of that. The man's father was a Luo* for chrissakes. The bulk of genetic variation within mankind never left Africa (which is exactly why all those texts on human geography based on new genetic research are largely silent on Africa - the situation there is too complex for them to understand as of yet), and Obama's father is just as likely to be close genetically to the Dalai Lama as to 95% of those 95%.
*Yeah, I know. Linguistics and genetic traits are never a perfect match. But Luo is the most widely spoken of the Nilo-Saharanic languages, a sort-of catch-all group of all east and central African languages not related, however remotely, to either the Niger-Kongo languages (of which Bantu are a subgroup) to their south and west, nor to the Afro-Asiatic (ie, Semitic, Berber) languages to the North.
