Clearly, we have different understandings of terms that are causing miscommunication. When I use the term “race,” I do so only out of convenience. There are no actual “races” - there is one human race. But we have a convention, at least here in the U.S., of using the term to refer to the major divisions of ethnic origin that were once referred to as “Caucasian,” “Negroid,” and “Mongoloid.” None of these terms is actually valid (although the first is still in common usage, at least in the States). The other shorthand way of referring to these groups has traditionally been by color: “white,” “black,” “yellow.” This is in spite of the fact that (1) not all members of each group are necessarily of the “corresponding” color, (2) it leaves out many people-groups that don’t fit any of those classifications very well, and (3) it just leads to more confusion, frustration, arguments, etc. Incidentally, in the U.S. the term black is still in limited usage, but for political reasons often is discarded in favor of “African-American,” which in itself is inaccurate. In addition, the term yellow was long ago replaced by Oriental, and has again been replaced by Asian. Again - more confusion - not every people group that originated on the Asian continent has been agreed to belong to the same major division of ethnic groups.
But, again - I use shorthand for convenience that I know most Americans (oh please, let’s not get into a semantic debate on my use of that term) will understand when I say “race” or “bi-racial” or “multi-racial.” If you don’t understand them, I will tell you what my parents told me when I asked them for word definitions: “go look it up.” I doubt that I’m using the terms in an unconventional manner.
As to being neither multi-racial nor white but still European - again this is more understandable in American common usage than to someone outside the U.S. Backlash about the changing of ethnic terms for what were once “Negroids” and “Mongoloids” has led many white Americans to refer to themselves (often tongue-in-cheek) as “European-American.” It’s every bit as inaccurate in many cases as “African-American” or “Asian-American,” but at least it’s as consistent. If I tell you that I’m “European-American” (or short it to “European”), I’m not claiming to reside in or be a citizen of Europe. I’m using a shorthand that tells others that the ethnic origin of all of my ancestors is the European continent; specifically, I could refer to myself as “Nordic,” if I chose to be more accurate.
When you refer to someone who is not multi-racial or bi-racial or white but is a European, do you mean that they live in Europe, that they were born in Europe (even first-generation), that they have citizenship in a European country - or do you mean that the ethnic origin of all of their ancestors is traceable to people-groups that are geographically identified with a region of Europe? And if the last, then I’m again racking my brain for a region of Europe that produced a non-white ethnic group. Because now you’re specifically throwing out the “Caucasian” designation in favor of the “European” one, I can’t include the Semitic peoples, the Indians, etc. I’ll do some research to see if there’s a group I’m forgetting.
I’m not trying to have a bad attitude, but I must say that I sense that you were offended by my earlier posts - or that you were trying to insult me. I hope I’m wrong on both counts.
