Alright, time to refute your points:

Let me just start off by saying that one of the many glaring flaws of biological realism implies that the way things are is the way they must be.

Genetics

So, the people making that claim have no idea how to read that paper. It doesn't claim that "black africans are genetically closer to bonobos than to white humans". The paper isn't an easy read, because I'm not a doctorate in evolutionary biology. The summary seems to be this though...
The authors are interested in connecting behavior and genetics in bonobos, humans, and chimps (since they're closely related I assume they think that is a good place to start). They start by saying something along the lines that genetic differences don't seem to fully account for behavioral changes. So, they are trying to further examine possible explanations. The figure of interest doesn't say anything along the lines of what people are claiming it does. The figure of interest essentially says that Africans have (or had) closer gender ratios to those of Bonobo populations than to Europeans. That is, for example, if you took the percent females in European Humans, African Humans, and Bonobos; the percent in African Humans and Bonobos would be more similar - clearly this is not how bigoted people are trying to make it seem. Also, the authors aren't making those claims, its people twisting what the authors are saying beyond the point of recognition.
It is possible that my interpretation is flawed (I don't have the time to thoroughly read the whole article), but I can guarantee that the authors are not making the claim that people are putting in their mouths.
EDIT: IN FACT, the authors include a phylogeny showing humans grouped as one leaf (meaning they're essentially the same genetically) that diverged from a shared ancestor with bonobos at some time in past (approx 4.5mya); which is read as, all humans (regardless of race, ethnicity, etc) are equally related to bonobos. Figure: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/fig_tab/nature11128_F3.html
TLDR: The authors don't claim that Africans are genetically closer to Bonobos than Europeans. Their figure shows that Africans are more similar to Bonobos in one demographic (which they are trying to link to social/behavorial traits among humans, chimps, and bonobos) - no racist claim attempted. One could just as easily say that Africans are more similar to Bonobos in the percent that wear earmuffs than Europeans.

“The researchers are trying to extrapolate the population history of the Pan ancestor (common ancestor of humans and chimps-bonobos). They do that by estimating the effective population size (individuals of the population that contribute to the next generation) of the Pan ancestor. In order to evaluate the female and male population history (how many females and males reproduce within one population) they calculate the X/A ratio (X chromosome effective population size divided by the autosomal effective population size).
The figure shows that the Pan ancestors' X/A ratio is similar to the bonobo and the African one, which practically means that two females reproduce for each male. The European ratio being lower than the rest can be explained by demographic effects of dispersion (migration out of Africa). Those are just evaluations of the population trends and social structures (e.g. female bonobos are observed to move to other groups after maturation, while male bonobos tend to stay to their original group which is reflected in the 2:1 ratio).”

THEREFORE, ALL HUMANS, REGARDLESS OF RACE OR GENDER, ARE THE SAME GENETIC DISTANCE FROM BONOBOS, AND CHIMPANZEES.

Caucasians (which were defined as Middle Easterners, North African and North Indians) Mongoloids (East Asians) Negroids (Sub Saharan Africans) each maintain a genetic distance of 1.60 from Chimpanzees. That is to say, no specific group of humanity is more akin to chimpanzees.

The chart displayed above was a sample of 1 European and 1 African. There is more genetic variation in Africa than the rest of the world combined. Every human being shares 99.9% of their genome with eachother.

‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations. (A) The old concept of the “five races:” African, Asian, European, Native American, and Oceanian. According to this view, variation between the races is large, and thus, the each race is a separate category. Additionally, individual races are thought to have a relatively uniform genetic identity. (B) Actual genetic variation in humans. Human populations do roughly cluster into geographical regions. However, variation between different regions is small, thus blurring the lines between populations. Furthermore, variation within a single region is large, and there is no uniform identity.

species;
noun

BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.