this whole debate is a nothing. no particular ethnicity is pure to the "racial" category. as far as whites go, you'll find almost no sub-saharan dna in places like finland, but a fair amount of asian dna. if you go to ireland, you won't find much african dna, but since there is significant iberian, a small amount of black goes with it. since modern man propagated out of africa about 80k years ago, there's elements in all humanity of african dna, but in europe, those original africans are not very significant as they were replaced by a later migration out of africa. probably the closest you'll find to racial purity is in africa itself, as most of the ancient migrations went the other way, but since we have colonialist migrations into africa, we can expect that to only become mixed from now on. long story short, race is abstractly a non-issue anymore. you could come up with psychological definitions, but you'd get the same results. while we have borders, we have far too much travel nowadays. the factors that created race in the past are a hindrance to future evolution. pale skin or dark skin is more of a class distinction than a race distinction. class is most likely a liability to evolution but you can always try to convince me that you can create a class structure where the ruling class does not consider lower classes disposable and where the lower classes can go on evolving with an autonomous strategy rather than just breeding and hoping that some of the kids survive long enough to breed some more. either way, you'd end up with two species and that is no longer about race. while your question sound enlightened, i'm fairly sure that you're here to do something that's nasty in bigotry. it's always that "i'm sorry i hate n***rs" thing with white liberals. you pretend it's science, but it is really about being in charge..always.
United States