[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.
Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.
And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn’t make them hypocrites?
For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.
Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.
It reads like op used the common American euphemism for ‘white’. Which is the correct usage as he’s addressing an American audience.
That’s right, but I wasn’t aware of this either. Thanks for correcting me.
The usage of the word as it is common in the USA is incorrect. OP might not be aware of this, hence my comment.
Do you know why US-americans don’t use the appropriate word “European”? I’ve always wondered. They do say African, Asian, Latino, but not European, to describe ethnic origins.
Etymological prescriptivism is not really a tenable point in linguistics. You can argue that, for instance, in American English the Dutch word ‘rekening’ (bill) is abused as reckoning. And you can find literally thousands of examples like that.
I’m this case a non native speaker used the American English vernacular correctly. You argue that the word is used incorrectly in this vernacular, and it is very peculiar and steeped in the racial discourse of the country. However it’s usage was correct in this case.
I mean, sure, you Japanese person you. No silly, being called Japanese has nothing to do with being from Japan, why would you even think that?
You are not adressing my argument at all and being obtuse.
I am trying to demonstrate how absurd it is to use the demonym for one region of the world to refer to the inhabitants of a completely different part of the world
I understand that, and I don’t dispute that either. I only point out that that is how language works. Your free to discuss the intricacies and weirdness of how that term became to mean that.
However you can’t berate a language user (certainly a non native speaker) for using the term in it’s connotation. It’s like shaming someone calling the Magyar people ‘Hungarian’.
It all started with a dude looking at skulls, he saw one that was the most symmetrical, the best looking skull he ever saw. He decided it must belong to a white European, as they are the best people (/s). He finds out that the skull was that of a person from the Caucus mountains.
Caucasian has been used to describe the ‘superior’ white Europeans since. So, OP is using the word correctly really. They say African, Asian, Latino because those are other races… with unpleasant skulls.
This is a gross oversimplification, but one of the modern excuses for racism and race superiority. Also, why ‘Caucasian’ is used to say white European.
Two reasons spring to mind: