white people don't have to concern themselves with these sort of nuances in general so i don't expect anybody to do the knowledge.

doesn't change the fact that there is no contention with it, even if it's a misnomer, because it's something that seems to unify white americans in general that is not country specific.

the fact that they don't know what caucasian means, or where the origins are, but still don't take issue with it is precisely what is amazing to me about it.

in many ways it is a blanket term in the same way that "African" should be because while yes, we do have images and geographic ideas about it, we are "african" in general because beyond that, we don't know where we are from.

how people perceive africa is the issue.


>How do 'white' people in the US react to being called
>'European', though? (Or European-American?) Do you think they
>would be accepting of that term? It's as historically accurate
>as 'African-American' is, and would be a better comparison
>than 'Caucasian', imo.

no, it's not.

white people tend to know precisely what kind of european they are. they don't need to identify with the continent when they can be irish american or german american or what have you. i doubt very seriously any white person would take issue with being called european american, but they would make the distinction of whatever county(ies) because they can.

we do not have the luxury due to our history here. if i could say i was angolan-american or ghanain-american i could. but i do not know where i am from, so african american will never be a pejorative to me.