I noticed this amusing passage in a news article describing how the Tsarnaev brothers befriended a white supremacist conspiracy theorist.
Whatever the general merits of using “Caucasian” as a euphemism for “White”, it just doesn’t work here for some reason.
Well, Chechnian is about as Caucasian as one can get. Did the writer mean they were seeing someone with Chechnian ancestry?
I don’t get it. Did they (or their lawyer) not know the difference between “Caucasians” (white folk) and Caucasians (from the Caucasus)? :dubious: 
No. He was using Caucasian to mean white, as opposed to Chechnyan.
Chechnians aren’t white? :dubious:
Mind you, my daughter used to attend high school with a lot of Armenian (i.e. Armenian American) kids, and she told me that they insist vehemently that they are not Caucasians.:rolleyes:
Njtt, either I’m being whooshed, or you are unaware that Armenia is very much in the Caucasus region – the part of Asia dominated by the Caucasus Mountains and their foothills to the north and south – and that this thread is about the confusion which can occur when a speaker is using the term “Caucasion” to mean one thing but the listener understands it to mean something else. Both definitions are valid, but they are very different (though have the same original etymology – and, IIRC, are linked through some Victorian-era scholar’s long-since-debunked idea that “white people” began as a group in that part of Asia).
ETA: Now I see the smiley face. Never mind! That’s funny.