There is no scientific definition of race. Modern people are differing mixtures of multiple separate SPECIES of archaic humans. In other words, humans are all mongrels. Different traits vary more or less independently instead of clustering. There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined. Up to about a century ago, everyone in the United States and Britain who wrote about "race" assumed that the Irish were clearly a separate and inferior "race," as distinct from the obviously superior English. Today everyone who deals with "race" assumes that Irish and English are the same "race." Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word itself becoming even more problematic. It's a common fallacy for people to think "race" is synonymous with human variation/diversity, when it isnt whatsoever. The whole Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid schemes is rooted in typology. The typological framework of delineating races in humans has no scientific or anthropological validity whatsoever and involves folk taxonomies based on perceived traits.
First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense, starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by observable characteristics. However, scientists now consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits. People who believe that we should treat "race" as subspecies fail to recognize, that if that were the case, there would be very large blocks of empty spaces in PCA and MDS Plots signifying the variation. We do not observe this, instead every single population on the planet, clusters closely in an uninterrupted fashion.
We humans belong to the same species and same subspecies, i.e. the same race. The reason why we belong to the same race, is because there's not a sufficient amount of genetic differentiation between human populations to proper structure them into racial groups. EVERY HUMAN is 0.1% or less different from EVERY HUMAN in ANY population. The genes that account for racial differences (skin, hair, eye color, etc.) number only a few. That's less than a dozen out of the thousands of genes that can vary between one human and the next. That means that, while two people can both have the same color of skin, hair, and eyes, and look very similar, that similarity is only superficial. They may actually be more genetically different from each other than they are from a person of a different race. This is especially true in Africa, where human populations sport a much higher genetic diversity than anywhere else in the world. This means, for example, an Italian and an Eskimo can be more genetically similar than two people in Africa living only a few hundred miles away. And, for example, a person from the Bantu ethnic group is actually more closely related to and more genetically similar to Eurasians than to someone from the Khoisan or Hadza ethnic groups, even though the Bantu, Khoisan, and Hadzabe are all sub-Saharan Africans.
Variation is clinal not fixated, anthropologists and geneticists recognize that the selective pressures responsible for human phenotypic variation, occurs in gradients, incrementally over long periods of time over geographical region(s). In fact, there is more within (intra-genetic) differences than there are between (inter-genetic) differences between humans. In other words, a person's physical features are fluid, not fixated. Even the early anthropologists of the 19th Century knew this at some subconscious level, and that's why kept creating more and more arbitrary subraces.
While some researchers sometimes still use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.
So what are you?
What we always recommend is that if you insist on labeling people by groups then do by national/geographical means."That Kenyan guy over there" makes a lot more sense then saying "that black guy over there". Not to mention the latter would be a subjective and inaccurate label. Especially considering being "black/white" etc is completely relative to the nation and culture one lives in. Being "white" 100 years ago meant something completely different then that it means today.
Today (outside of a few small circles) race is used in a social/political manner by the masses and not biological. The question of what race you belong to is a spurious one, since in Genetics, Taxonomy and Zoology, a race is the lowest taxon ranking any organism can achieve. If you want to learn more about genetic ancestry, I highly recommend you order a DNA test from 23andMe or AncestryDNA. You can harmonize your ethno-cultural identity with what your genetic ancestry is and then categorize yourself in accordance to that. There may be no races, but we can still pinpoint people's ancestry in accordance to their geographical area(s) of origin.