Cultural identity and solidarity is commonly denoted by the term "ethnicity", distinct from "race" which refers to purely physical characteristics and "nationality" which refers to the passport colour of yourself and your parents. So "Anglo" and "Teutonic" are ethnicities but "White" when properly used should refer to people descending from the ancient native populations of Europe.
"Ethnicity", at least in its generally accepted usage, is
purely cultural identity. What I'm getting at is a more holistic conception of race - that is,
stock - which accounts for the both the generic and moral (that is, customary) element of descent. Broadly, inherited features. Of course, the actual genetic chain of descent - as recorded in variable allele frequencies across populations, which are themselves productive of physiological, intellectual, and moral variation - is the primary element of race. But these products of genetic distinctiveness themselves reciprocally influence patterns of descent, ultimately producing differentiated populations.
However, it is a good check to be reminded that the cladistic grouping of humanity exclusively with reference to genetic variation is scientifically critical and must have its own designation. I do recognize this and prefer just to call these "subspecies" as suits a purely biological system of taxonomy (though to be honest, "White" probably does fit better here, ultimately. The "macrorace" in the sense above is better named "European").
Maybe this is all too much under the sway of Spengler (whom I've rather left behind as speculative and vague) but there does seem to be utility in a concept of descent intermediate between the narrowly biological and the uselessly nebulous anthropological.
The confusion surrounding who's ackshually White began when Jewish lawyers in the early 1900s lobbied to have Ashkenazi immigrants from Russia (whom Russkiys classified as the "Hebrew race") classified as "White" instead of "coloured" in the US Census on the basis of their pale skin and superficially similar external physical appearance, later expanding the "White" designation to any sufficiently pale-skinned immigrant from the Middle East region.
This would actually get at a critical problem with morphological racialism. It wasn't only in the 1900s that Jews had become considered White; assimilated European Jewry was already present in significant numbers in 19th century America, when naturalized citizenship was limited to members of the White race so-considered. The general popular opposition to immigration of foreskin-nibbling sputum-hacking shtetl goblins from the Pale of Settlement that emerged in the 1920s was due as much or more to their alien customs as their limited physical distinctiveness.
Of course, Jews are not White. This is evident in an age where each and every Jew's genome could be mapped polymorphism-by-polymorphism. It is less obvious with a cursory look at one dressed in a suit-and-tie. This is especially true for the untrained, popular mind. What hostility emerged toward Jewry throughout European history,.from their first arrival in the continent all the way to the kvetchlocaust, was held in light of their known alien origins, self-segregation, and distinctly subversive attitudes and actions.
