How about “Rasta(far)ian” ?
Here in Panama a good percentage of the population is tri-racial (European, African, and Amerindian in various proportions), and a lot also have some Chinese, Middle Eastern, or South Asian ancestry, so there’s less tendency to put people into arbitrary categories. However, people of mostly African background are often referred to as moreno (brown). Negro (black) is OK to use for objects, but I believe is considered somewhat offensive when used for a person. Moreno is almost never used for objects or animals; instead they say chocolate (chocolate colored) or pardo (dark).
People of mostly Amerindian appearance are called cholo, which is not generally regarded as offensive.
The elite, which tends to be lighter-skinned than the poorer classes, are called rabiblancos (“white-tails,” or “white-rumps”). This refers both to a local kind of pigeon that struts around pompously with its chest puffed out, and to having a white butt.
Hijack: Several have asked what whites are called in France, Germany, etc, as if this is a silly question. This is not at all the case. Considering the large immigrant populations from Turkey and Africa, there must arise a need to refer specifically to Europeans of local ancestry, in contrast to minority groups. What do they call “whites” in various European countries?
Colibri: Is use of rabiblancos considered an insult, a good-natured jibe, or simply accepted use? And, is this term limited to Panama, or is it also used in Colombia or other parts of Central America?
I can’t claim to be an expert on Russian slang, but I believe that ethnic Russians would call him “black” - certainly that is a reference to Chechens, although I don’t know whether it would be considered pejoritive or offensive.
It’s a tangled web!
One of the residents where I work was talking about this, and he calls himself french. Evidently, he has some distant Tunisian ancestors, but his family has been in France for generations. He’s not American (he’s here on a student visa), and he doesn’t like being referred to as an African American…which he’s not, but everyone assumes he is. Understandable.
I believe the Germans do use the term “white” (well, “weiss”), but I suspect that that they rarely need to even in the situation you describe. Until German immigration and naturalization laws changed a couple of years ago it was a rather lengthy and difficult process for anyone who was not an ethnic German to gain German citizenship, and it’s still not easy for anyone who wasn’t born in Germany. So while there is a large resident alien population in Germany most actual German citizens are white. As a result, I suspect that “German” (“Deutschlander/in”) usually suffices to indicate local whites, although any Germans or German residents should feel free to correct me here.
It may interest you to know that some foreigners apparently consider “American” synonymous with “white American”; I have often used the term used that way by exchange students at my school.
In the UK, to avoid saying white or black, someone might refer to a white guy as “Sam? He’s English (or Welsh, or Irish or Scottish)”. Or someone might say “Sam? he’s Asian, or Jamacian, or Chinese.” Or they might say he’s white or black.
Because (large scale) immigration has been a fairly recent thing in Europe, nobody refers to whites as whites, they are just French or German or Belgian, others are just refered to by their ethnic roots, even if they were born there.
In the UK, Asian refers to ethnic Indians or Pakistanis. In the US, Asian usually refers to anyone but Indians. Indians are refered to as Indians, or Indian Indians as opposed to Native Americans.
I don’t think that in the US the term “black” is solely used to distinguish people of African descent. I think it is used for dark skinned people in general. At least that is how I’ve always known it to be used, but I’ve only lived here for 30 years, what do I know? hehe. I don’t use the term “African American” because I think it is ridiculous and contrived.
Sure it may be preferable to refer to someone as “Jamaican” or whatever, but what if you don’t know? Say I want to point out the tshirt on a guy over there. There is a group of guys. “the guy to the left of the black guy” may be the easiest way to describe which one I mean, if it is the most obvious distinguishing feature in the group. Another group may have a really tall man, so that is the “landmark” you would choose. I think it is sort of silly that people are so afraid to refer to race. Skin color is no scarier than hair color. Pretending it doesn’t exist makes no sense. JUDGING someone based on it is bad, but acknowledging it? What is the big deal? I guess I just don’t “get” those people with the “why do you need to refer to their race at all” attitude.
I think that the intent behind whatever term is used is what counts, not the term itself. Some people use the word “coloured people” because in the era they grew up, it was offensive to say “black.” “Coloured” is often now considered offensive. But if the speaker has no ill or racist intent, and is using the politest term they are aware of, where’s the problem?
As mentioned above, many Australian aboriginal people are called “blackfellas” - amongst themselves and by white Australians. I have heard white Australians use this term both in a positive and a derogatory way.
It’s the speaker that is the problem, not the word. That’s why oversensitivity and political correctness is a crock of damaging shit. Done politely, I couldn’t care less if a non-white person referred to me as “colourless” “pale” “pink” or “white.”
I totally agree with OpalCat about the paranoia about mentioning skin colour. Once we start to see it as just another varying indentifying feature like hair colour (artificial or natural) or hair style, then the loaded “race” thing starts to go away.
Have you really ever heard a person not of African descent refered to as black? I’ve known several very dark-skinned Indians and Sri Lankans, and it would never occur to me to call them “black”. I can’t imagine any other American doing so, except by mistake.
This is why I like the term “African-American”, as it more clearly indicates what I have found to be the standard meaning of “black” in the US. Although “black” seems to be a reference to skin color, it is used even for very light-skinned African-Americans, and in my experience is never used even for very dark-skinned people who are not of African descent.
I would say it’s a semi-derogatory term used by lower class Panamanians about the elite. (Maybe a bit more insulting than say “white bread” in the US.) A rabiblanco would probably not use the term in reference to him/herself. I don’t know if it extends beyond Panama, although I have never heard it anywhere else.
Unlike parts of Mexico, gringo is pretty much regarded as a simple descriptive rather than derogatory. For example, once when I left my car at a garage for repairs I found my keys had been labeled “Jeep Rojo/Gringo” when I returned to pick it up.
Expounding on the European answers so far I would add…
‘Race’ is used less and less as a descriptive while origin is the norm across at least the majority of Western Europe. The largest population of dark skinned people live in England and France. In Europe north of The Alps there is a larger portion of recent Middle Eastern and Balkan immigrants than North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa. The former Eastern Block has its specifics in itself that are historically more complicated and frequently focused on more immediate and local ethnic issues (I take but Bosnia, Serbia and Yugoslavia as an all too blatant example).
Hence one should look at these areas somewhat differently. I’ll try to expand on a little on Germany;
In Germany the ‘dark skinned’ population is relatively small (then again some of the so called ‘white’ Germans aren’t that white), a large portion of ‘black’ people you meet here will incidentally be American, although the immigration from sub-Sahara has increased in the last ten years. The term ‘schwarz’ (black) would be considered the most polite descriptive, while ‘ein schwarze’ (a black) would be considered derogatory and ‘neger’ absolutely unacceptable. There is also a very large and alive Hip Hop and R&B culture amongst native and emigrant Germans that uses the English ‘black’ as an appreciative for anything that is ‘black’ American culture.
More importantly colloquial German makes a distinction along bloodline and origin for reasons pointed out in an earlier post by Lamia. Hence we ‘non-Germans’ are often clumped together, independent of skin color as ‘auslaender’ (foreigners), even when being the second generation that lives here. This is however increasingly frowned upon and country of origin is becoming more frequent, which we in our turn aren’t too pleased with – ’what does it matter we live here now, right?’ given my somewhat convoluted cultural background the most correct answer for me would be European, but more and more I just can’t be bothered and go ‘Sweden’ or ‘France’ or ‘America’ depending on my mood and what language I happen to be speaking when asked. Many Germans are rather extra sensitive about these issues due to certain well-publicized events in the past and sometimes it is rather comical to watch a PC German trying to navigate around the issue verbally without coming across as a racist or xenophobe.
Incidentally Sweden is simple; ‘svart’ (black) as a descriptive is all that is used and anything else including origin in relation to skin color or other phenotype would be considered racist and not PC.
Personally I’m all stumped by this stuff, I mean what’s the point? Good friends of mine had kids a good couple of years ago, he’s pretty dark skinned recently being of somewhat African origins while she has lily white, almost porcelain skin. Racist logic of phenotyping would give brown kids right? Wrong! Both daughters have whiter skin than me and I’m pretty darned white skinned… (well OK yucky pink then but still) while they got papas dark brown hair color. Angelic little girls, but what are they? ‘Race’ is nonsense and in any case has no biological basis.
Sparc
Maybe. But I think I speak for most Cherokee (at least nearly all the ones I know) when I say that we much prefer to be called Indian over that salt-in-the-wound monicker, “Native American”. The latter reminds us of our conqueror’s ultimate victory, while the former reminds us of his original clutziness. But it looks like NA is here to stay despite anyone’s wishes to the contrary.
That is not quite correct. There are sufficient differences among the three primary races that estimation of height from tibia length, for example, takes them into account. Sex matters as well. See PBS Scientific American Dead Men’s Tales There are also important medical differentiations. And other things. The differences imply nothing about intelligence or culture, but they cannot be summarily ignored.
Libertarian, hmm I believe that I’d be taking off on somewhat of a lengthy hijack by replying properly. IMHO you’re not completely wrong, but you’re off by a millimeter… You’re talking of geographically isolated population groups, there is no evidence for any distinctions that follow the popular notion of ‘race’. I could give you cites, but come on how many times has this issue been pulled through GD. On that note I don’t think this is quite the forum, and I surmise by reading the archives that most folks are tired of it popping up again and again in GD.
But if you wish…
I’ll tango 
Sparc
Expounding on the European answers so far I would add…
‘Race’ is used less and less as a descriptive while origin is the norm across at least the majority of Western Europe. The largest population of dark skinned people live in England and France. In Europe north of The Alps there is a larger portion of recent Middle Eastern and Balkan immigrants than North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa. The former Eastern Block has its specifics in itself that are historically more complicated and frequently focused on more immediate and local ethnic issues (I take but Bosnia, Serbia and Yugoslavia as an all too blatant example).
Hence one should look at these areas somewhat differently. I’ll try to expand on a little on Germany;
In Germany the ‘dark skinned’ population is relatively small (then again some of the so called ‘white’ Germans aren’t that white), a large portion of ‘black’ people you meet here will incidentally be American, although the immigration from sub-Sahara has increased in the last ten years. The term ‘schwarz’ (black) would be considered the most polite descriptive, while ‘ein schwarze’ (a black) would be considered derogatory and ‘neger’ absolutely unacceptable. There is also a very large and alive Hip Hop and R&B culture amongst native and emigrant Germans that uses the English ‘black’ as an appreciative for anything that is ‘black’ American culture.
More importantly colloquial German makes a distinction along bloodline and origin for reasons pointed out in an earlier post by Lamia. Hence we ‘non-Germans’ are often clumped together, independent of skin color as ‘auslaender’ (foreigners), even when being the second generation that lives here. This is however increasingly frowned upon and country of origin is becoming more frequent, which we in our turn aren’t too pleased with – ’what does it matter we live here now, right?’ given my somewhat convoluted cultural background the most correct answer for me would be European, but more and more I just can’t be bothered and go ‘Sweden’ or ‘France’ or ‘America’ depending on my mood and what language I happen to be speaking when asked. Many Germans are rather extra sensitive about these issues due to certain well-publicized events in the past and sometimes it is rather comical to watch a PC German trying to navigate around the issue verbally without coming across as a racist or xenophobe.
Incidentally Sweden is simple; ‘svart’ (black) as a descriptive is all that is used and anything else including origin in relation to skin color or other phenotype would be considered racist and not PC.
Personally I’m all stumped by this stuff, I mean what’s the point? Good friends of mine had kids a good couple of years ago, he’s pretty dark skinned recently being of somewhat African origins while she has lily white, almost porcelain skin. Racist logic of phenotyping would give brown kids right? Wrong! Both daughters have whiter skin than me and I’m pretty darned white skinned… (well OK yucky pink then but still) while they got papas dark brown hair color. Angelic little girls, but what are they? ‘Race’ is nonsense and in any case has no biological basis.
Sparc
Hey, I don’t know how that happened. 
Frightfully sorry about that everyone. :o
Mods: If you’re up to it; please remove the second post.
THX and again sorry