There is, of course, no such thing as a "white/White" person (and if you disagree, put your hand down on a piece of computer paper), unless that person is an albino. Likewise, there are no "black/Black" people, although there are some African residents/groups/tribes who have little or no brown in their skin color and might be best described as very very dark grey. Regardless of a person's skin color, nobody can absolutely guarantee that their ancestry is 100% anything, and the less important that becomes to people, IMO, the better off we are all going to be. There are those who disagree and, as long as their opinion does not come down to the detriment of someone else, they are certainly entitled to it.

"Hispanic" is another interesting descriptor. I can't put my finger on the exact date, but sometime in the '60s a small group of Federal employees were called together to come up with a term that would bring together the various Chicano(a)/Latino(a)/Hispano(a) terminology. What they came up with was "Hispanic," and defined it to include Spain and the Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas...and omitted Portugal and Brazil and the other non-Spanish speaking countries next door. Oddly enough, these individuals all had ancestry deriving from Spanish-speaking Central and South America. As an acquaintance, who is a Spanish teacher and professor of Spanish linguistics, reminded me recently, "Hispanic" describes a cultural group, not a ethnic or racial one. The King of Spain, President Chavez of Venezuela (who claims to be 100% Indio) and Alberto Fujimori, former President of Peru, are all Hispanic.

As a former Federal personnal person, I can remember when all racial/gender descriptors were taken off of government application forms, only to be restored (on a separate form) a few years later in the name of affirmative action and diversity. Too bad, and a step in the wrong direction, IMHO.