Am I to understand that you are unaware that "race" is "skin tone" in much of the Anglosphere? This specific mapping, and the uselessness of the categories, is the core of why "race" is seen as a social construct.
The categorical divisions that translate as "race" are different in other parts of the world, and that they are so varied demonstrates the same point: it's a socially defined categorisation system. These other divisions too are necessarily superficial, though with a language barrier as well as a cultural barrier I cannot compare their usage to the racial categories I grew up with.
I actually find it interesting that skin tone seems to not matter. Being "black" comes in many shades, some lighter than a "white" person, but we know who is black. Being a dark Bangladeshi wont get you confused for an African person, or a pale Japanese person will not be seen as "white". I feel lioe what you've just proposed is a load of huff to avoid having the conversation, not you personally, just the scientific community in general if your first response is genuinely all our best minds have to say on this subject.
The categorical divisions that translate as "race" are different in other parts of the world, and that they are so varied demonstrates the same point: it's a socially defined categorisation system. These other divisions too are necessarily superficial, though with a language barrier as well as a cultural barrier I cannot compare their usage to the racial categories I grew up with.