>>12148627Because 'black' is not a good indication of a person's DNA or ancestry. It's an inaccurate and unproductive way to describe human biological variation.
People in the US for example, get the race assigned to them of the least desirable trait from their parents. A person with a purely homogenous European father and a half African-half European mother will be classified as 'Black' despite the fact that they are, in fact, 3/4 white.
There are no identifiable clusters to which we can sub-classify humans according to race leaving researchers to arbitrarily choose where to cutoff groups of people according to their skin tone or facial features which, if I must explain, is hardly scientific. It doesn't matter whether you're examining bone structure or color, or whatever other markers you desperately use to identify a person's 'race'.
The only way to tell a person's ancestry is to do a DNA test, and I shouldn't have to explain why that's a problem but it's obvious you've never looked into the problem. Humans have migrated and interbred so much over the tens of thousands of years since we left Africa that even using DNA markers does not allow researchers to subdivide humans. For example, saying "I have German ancestors" according to a DNA test is pure fantasy. It's a marketing stunt by Ancestry companies and has no basis in reality. At best we can tell where a person came from by continent but even that's muddied, because again, humans have migrated and interbred for eons.
