Re: CHAT: US ancestry [was Re: FWD [OT but interesting] Arctic

Thomas R. Wier scripsit:

> Right.  I should have been clearer about specifying "biological
> meaning".  My question was why the ancestries seemed to be
> grouped in terms of inclusion in one or another race, since
> the ancestries listed there were not all European, but were for
> the most part all Caucasians (e.g., both English and Iranian,
> but not Han Chinese).
There probably aren't enough people who list themselves as both
African-American and of Danish ancestry (say) to show up as even
a blip.  Both are a matter of self-labeling.

--
John Cowan                                <jcowan@...>
http://www.reutershealth.com              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog.  Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.  Chumble spuzz.
    -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"

Reply