Replies

Again with the "caucasian" BS. Outside of the US, NOBODY uses the term caucasian anymore (rooted in 19th century junk science), unless they are referring to Georgians (and I don't mean Atlantans either).

What is wrong with using the term "white" or "European American?" Why not categorize Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, to say nothing of Obama, as mulattos?

My fellow Americans are generally very smart in most relevant areas, but STUPID when it comes to "race." We like it simple and incorrect.

I only used the word to designate the color of a Caucasian person's skin, which is not white but pinkish beige. And that was in response to another poster who quibbled about the fact that black people are not really black but brown. Personally, I don't like the term "white." Given the huge range of skin shades that this term includes, and given the equally great range of skin shades included in the term "black," the only real difference is that on average, "white" skin is a little lighter than "black" skin.

I just think it's insulting and demeaning to designate someone as "white" or "black." What purpose does it serve? If it's for descriptive identification, such as eye color or height, then wouldn't it make more sense to designate someone's actual color? Instead of "white," we could use "bisque" or "tan" or "beige" or "peach." Instead of "black," one could be "bronze" or "walnut" or "coffee" or "nutmeg." In fact, to eliminate any word associations, instead of color names, hexadecimal RGB values could be used. So tan would be D2B48C. Nutmeg would be 81422C.

Race distinctions are pointless. Race is a concept that in reality does not exist. Why do we keep humoring the opportunists who make their living from it?