So a variety of different haplogroups (look at Hungary, Greece, both of which I am sure you will agree are tiny bit players in history), genetic isolation leading to fairly easy methods of delineating local ancestry, traits common within countries as opposed to continents, if you fancy going back into the ancient world (said world providing the basis for a lot of philosophy today, and foundational member of its history) you get to include various things on the African side of the med and what is now known as the middle east (and a whole bunch of DNA to boot).
Even if you do decide to paint with a broad brush there you are combining masses quite disparate technology, philosophy, language, religions, folklores, geographies, biomes and histories of all of those (collectively that would be culture). Burning books and banning teaching is one way to get rid of history, culture and such (one I will gladly bring my considerable capabilities to bear so as to prevent) but smooshing stuff together into a diluted melange is another rather effective method too, one with some nice historical examples.
How is being against miscegenation but also for freedom to choose a partner not logically dissonant? Is there some harm I am not considering to such a course of action?
Alternatively maybe that is not a concern of yours and in fact you are plumping for a rather modern abstraction based upon said amalgamation of very distinct things (amusingly given you would probably be one to be wary of the perils of globalism it is a goal such a crowd openly espouses). If you can create a modern abstraction then why not two? You are then left with the same problem as those we likely both have no affection for, which is to say you never stop drawing increasingly unhelpful lines.
