# white vs. Caucasian



## twinklestar

Hi! What's the difference between 'white' and 'Caucasian'? If I refer to people's race, which word sounds better? Thanks!


----------



## cropje_jnr

According to this article the two are often used interchangeably.


----------



## Au101

White is probably more formal, on a government form, it may say caucasian. Caucasian is a more technical term. It's _probably_ _slightly_ more polite, but I certainly don't mind being called white. (It meaning caucasian.)


----------



## twinklestar

cropje_jnr & Au101,

Thank you for your answers.


----------



## Brioche

No-one would call an Asian "Mongoloid" nor an African "Negroid", so I think that the other member of the trio "Caucasoid" [or Caucasian] should go the same dustbin [US trashcan].

I am white, or of European descent. I am not a Cork-Asian.


----------



## kelt

So far I've seen Caucasian only on US government forms. Do you know what is the background of the usage? Is it also used in this sense in the UK?

Thank you


----------



## Teafrog

Brioche said:


> …I am white, or of European descent. I am not a Cork-Asian.


 So am I and… neither am I (a cork from Asia) 


kelt said:


> … Do you know what is the background of the usage? Is it also used in this sense in the UK?…


This might help. All the UK official docs refer to "white". I haven't seen "caucasian" used for ages.


----------



## twinklestar

Hi guys, thank you for your replies.


----------



## Oeco

From the above Wikipedia link/article: 





> _I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men_


That's reason enough for us to quit using that term.  That whole 19th century anthropology ought to be placed in the "dustbin."


----------



## twinklestar

Oeco said:


> From the above Wikipedia link/article: That's reason enough for us to quit using that term. That whole 19th century anthropology ought to be placed in the "dustbin."


 
Oeco, thank you for your reply!


----------



## Au101

I didn't know that, oh, definately do NOT go with caucasian then. I am now offended by the term and white sounds much better.


----------



## BODYholic

twinklestar said:


> Hi! What's the difference between 'white' and 'Caucasian'? If I refer to people's race, which word sounds better? Thanks!



In Asia, we rarely use the term White (or Black, Green and Blue for that matter) to describe or size up people.
"Westerners" is used as a general term describing people who are from USA, Canada and those around.
"Caucasian" is used to generalize people from Europe.


----------



## twinklestar

BODYholic said:


> In Asia, we rarely use the term White (or Black, Green and Blue for that matter) to describe or size up people.
> "Westerners" is used as a general term describing people who are from USA, Canada and those around.
> "Caucasian" is used to generalize people from Europe.


 
Thank you, BODYholic.


----------



## foxfirebrand

As long as we have to categorize people by skin color (and to some degree hair type), I don't object to being called white.  But let's not forget that the only way to be "white" is to spend a _whole_ lot of time indoors.  I am "naturally" a deep and I think attractive shade of *brown*, which is to say if I spend enough time in the sun.

My point is that the terms are really not very accurate, since a good many so-called black people are in fact brown-- some of them lighter than I am.  That's why the old terms like "Caucasian" were developed-- they are based, by the way, on the fossilized skeletal features (chiefly skulls) of people from certain regions.   skel.


----------



## eurwen

> So far I've seen Caucasian only on US government forms. Do you know what is the background of the usage? Is it also used in this sense in the UK?



You are right and is also used in American films, they never translate the word right into Italian. Anyway, in the Uk such term is not used, they rather monitor people especially in Ethnic Forms splitting up ethnicities into White: Scottish-Welsh-Irish-English; Mixed: Black Caribbean-White, White-Black African, White-Asian; 
Pleas look this up http://www.bda.uk.com/jobs/EqualOppo...toringForm.pdf


----------



## mplsray

twinklestar said:


> Hi! What's the difference between 'white' and 'Caucasian'? If I refer to people's race, which word sounds better? Thanks!



One difference is that _Caucasian_ is usually capitalized when referring to race, while _white_ is often left uncapitalized. I was only able to find one dictionary which showed the uncapitalized form, and it was an online dictionary which is not published in book form.  

Several of the dictionaries I consulted point out that the term is no longer in scientific use. I rarely hear the term _Caucasian_ used except when a police spokesman is talking about a suspect or person of interest. It is sometimes found on forms.


----------



## Fumiko Take

I've been watching _The X-Files_. The doctors who work on autopsy call the victim "Caucasian" ("Amy Anne Cassandra, *Caucasian* female"). Most victims on the series are Americans. It appears that "Caucasian" is usually used interchangebly with "White". What I'm asking is, can "Caucasian" be used as a 'formal' term (?) for "White" to avoid any bad racial connotation? Even in such a context as an autopsy report, as shown on the show?


----------



## JustKate

_Caucasian_ is a more precise term than _white_. There's nothing wrong or negative about describing someone as "white," any more than there's something wrong or negative about describing someone as "black" or "Asian." But _white_ means different things to different people, whereas _Caucasian_ is more closely defined, at least by those who need to classify people as part of their jobs.


----------



## se16teddy

The word "Caucasian" is not used to mean "white" in Britain, at least not in official contexts. It seems an odd term to me, because people who live in the Caucasus mountains are not typically very "white", as the word is understood in Britain.

P.S. There is already a thread on this subject:
<Thank you.  Threads merged. Cagey, moderator.>


----------



## JustKate

Thank you for finding that, se16teddy. I have merged Fumiko Take's thread with that earlier thread. If you still have questions, Fumiko Take, you're welcome to add them to this thread.

JustKate
English Only moderator


----------



## Delvo

foxfirebrand said:


> My point is that the terms are really not very accurate


Color words are often used to name living things (and maybe minerals too, I don't know) that are not actually those colors, but just closer to them than other comparable things are. For example, among ash trees, they all have green leaves, but one with a slightly bluer-green leaf is "blue ash", one with a more purely green (not bluish or yellowish) leaf is "green ash", and those with slightly lighter or darker ones are "white ash" and "black ash". And the wood of "red oaks" and "yellowwood" trees is not exactly red or yellow, but just a redder or yellower shade of brown than many other woods. There are also species of rhinoceros called white and black, even though they're all different shades of gray. And "red" grapes are purple and "white" grapes are green...



foxfirebrand said:


> That's why the old terms like "Caucasian" were developed-- they are based, by the way, on the fossilized skeletal features (chiefly skulls) of people from certain regions.   skel.


It works better with an "oid" at the end instead of "ian". "Oid" means "similar to" or "of the same type as", so it makes sense when applied to people who are no actually from the Caucasus mountains but are of the same type as those. Following the same pattern of naming after locations, black people were called "Congoid" ("of the type found in the Congo"), and Khoi-San were called "Capoid" ("of the type found at the Cape").



Fumiko Take said:


> The doctors who work on autopsy call the victim "Caucasian" ("Amy Anne Cassandra, *Caucasian* female"). Most victims on the series are Americans. It appears that "Caucasian" is usually used interchangebly with "White". What I'm asking is, can "Caucasian" be used as a 'formal' term (?) for "White" to avoid any bad racial connotation? Even in such a context as an autopsy report, as shown on the show?


It does include darker, medium-brown people who would not usually be called "white": natives of western Asia, the Middle East, and northern Africa. ("Black" people are only the predominant population of central & southern, not northern, parts of Africa.) However, those are a small fraction of the population of the USA, so the existence of some caucasoid people who aren't very "white" is seldom an issue that would cause any confusion. It's just enough to cause people to use "caucasoid" when a category that includes caucasoids who aren't white is needed.


----------



## panzerfaust0

I think that to call someone "white" is colloquial.  If you are talking about white people in a more official sense you would say "Caucasian".


----------



## PaulQ

The adjective was introduced in this meaning by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach) around 1800[OED]. 

Blumenbach divided the world into five races


the Caucasian or white race 
the Mongolian or yellow race, including all East Asians and some Central Asians. 
the Malayan or brown race, including Southeast Asian and Pacific Islanders. 
the Ethiopian or black race, including sub-Saharan Africans. 
the American or red race, including American Indians. 
 
His views, read today, will be seen as simplistic in the extreme, as they were based on sweeping assumptions and stereotypes but, when published, they started research in many fields.

The word Caucasian still has the meaning he gave it as a general descriptor whilst his other classifications have been greatly refined such that they are no longer useful.


----------



## sandpiperlily

No longer "useful," but still quite common!

It's now considered quite offensive to refer to Asians as "yellow" or indigenous Americans as "red," but "black" and "white" are still in common use even though their meaning has changed quite a bit over time and across different societies, as folks have explained already in this thread.


----------



## Basketballer

twinklestar said:


> Thank you, BODYholic.


Hi! I am considered caucasian, my father is from Lebanon, but he and me have green eyes. When i am in east asia some people call me caucasian or even white, when i am in europe people call me arab. So there is a difference between white and caucasian. This is what i have read: 

*Caucasian* race (also Caucasoid or Europid) has historically been used to describe the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia.


----------



## wandle

Am I right in thinking that the modern scientific consensus is that none of these broad terms intended to classify large populations, be they colour terms or geographical terms, can be ultimately justified in genetic terms? In other words, that genetically speaking, there are no distinct 'races' at all among humans (though of course there are plenty of individual differences in colour, body shape, etc.)?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Aardvark01 said:


> Not all Caucasians are white


How do you define Caucasian?


----------



## Forero

_Spanish_ is always capitalized and means "from Spain" or "the Castillian language" (the majority language in the Americas). _Caucasian_ is also always capitalized and has multiple meanings, including "from the Caucasus", and is also the name of a very interesting group of languages.


----------



## Aardvark01

RedwoodGrove said:


> How do you define Caucasian?


"... a taxon historically used to describe the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. The term has been used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone."
Caucasian race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RedwoodGrove

As is frequently the case for me with Wikipedia, I find this definition bizarre, if not outside the realm of possibility. So Ethiopians are Caucasians. Well it's news to me.

Do you honestly believe this?


----------



## Myridon

RedwoodGrove said:


> As is frequently the case for me with Wikipedia, I find this definition bizarre, if not outside the realm of possibility. So Ethiopians are Caucasians. Well it's news to me.
> 
> Do you honestly believe this?


North Africa is one of the regions where the word "some" in the definition is the case.  
... some ... of the populations of ... North Africa ...
Bedouins are an example.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Myridon said:


> North Africa is one of the regions where the word "some" in the definition is the case.  ... some ... of the populations of ... North Africa


You mean the Brits and other Europeans who moved there in the 19th and 20th centuries?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Myridon said:


> Bedouins are an example.


Bedouins are descended from the people of the Caucasus region?

From what I've read of the recent DNA investigations, the last 10,000 years of evolution in ethnicities is rather complex.


----------



## Keith Bradford

RedwoodGrove said:


> As is frequently the case for me with Wikipedia, I find this definition bizarre, if not outside the realm of possibility. So Ethiopians are Caucasians. Well it's news to me.
> 
> Do you honestly believe this?



Yes, I believe that this word was *historically* used in that sense (see the opening three words of the quote in #30).  Nobody's expected to believe we use it that way *now*.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I'll be happy to accept that Ethiopians were historically referred to as Caucasians once I've seen the proof. Once again, (post#30), I tend to disbelieve Wikipedia when their political agenda engines are roaring.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Fumiko Take said:


> I've been watching _The X-Files_. The doctors who work on autopsy call the victim "Caucasian" ("Amy Anne Cassandra, *Caucasian* female"). Most victims on the series are Americans. It appears that "Caucasian" is usually used interchangebly with "White". What I'm asking is, can "Caucasian" be used as a 'formal' term (?) for "White" to avoid any bad racial connotation? Even in such a context as an autopsy report, as shown on the show?


Yes, Caucasian in American English means White.


----------



## Myridon

RedwoodGrove said:


> I'll be happy to accept that Ethiopians were historically referred to as Caucasians once I've seen the proof. Once again, (post#30) I tend to disbelieve Wikipedia when their political agenda engines are roaring.


Wikipedia did not say Ethiopians.*  Some *populations in North Africa. There are many peoples native to North Africa who are not "black".  Those people are "Caucasian" for the purposes of this particular definition.
Ethiopia is a country not an ethnicity.  There are ethnic groups that are native speakers of Semitic languages in Ethiopia.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Some time ago, the Caucasians developed new technologies in the forms of bronze swords and horseback riding. they went out and conquered or comingled with native peoples from Africa to India. Let's just pick an arbitrary date of 4 to 8 millennia ago.


Myridon said:


> Wikipedia did not say Ethiopians.* Some *populations in North Africa. There are many peoples native to North Africa who are not "black". Those people are "Caucasian" for the purposes of this particular definition.


Can you provide an example of these people? When did they move to North Africa from the Caucasus? Are you referring to Brits and other Europeans who moved there in the 19th and 20th centuries?


----------



## Aardvark01

RedwoodGrove said:


> As is frequently the case for me with Wikipedia, I find this definition bizarre, if not outside the realm of possibility. ...


The claim is not only made in Wikipedia


> In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, *Caucasian* (or *Caucasoid*) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India).
> Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific (see Mongoloid (usage)), the term *Caucasian* has acquired a more restricted meaning.
> It is now used, especially in the US, as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin’, as in _the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties_.
> Caucasian - definition of Caucasian in English from the Oxford dictionary


Note that it is the "*more restricted meaning*" which has been widely adopted.


----------



## JulianStuart

RedwoodGrove said:


> Some time ago, the Caucasians developed new technologies in the forms of bronze swords and horseback riding. they went out and conquered or comingled with native peoples from Africa to India. Let's just pick an arbitrary date of 4 to 8 millennia ago.


Is that how you define Caucasian - they are the "people" who did that - or do you have some other way to define the term to clarify who they were?  It's a bit more complex than that  Some of those people in that time period made it through northern Europe to Atlantic western Europe, only to find lots of people already there, having come from the mediterranean via the Atlantic coast and well before 6,000 BC.  Would their (intermingled) descendants also be "Caucasians" or only "part Caucasian" later?  As noted above, it seems like a term that is at best vague and in reality outdated.  To be useful going forward, its definition needs to be, inevitably somewhat arbitrarily, restricted (see an example in #39).  A sensible approach these days would be to try and assign a particular haplotype set to any group we want to give such a name to.  Any map of human migration shows the complexity of such an endeavour. Here's an example


----------



## Packard

RedwoodGrove said:


> Some time ago, the Caucasians developed new technologies in the forms of bronze swords and horseback riding. they went out and conquered or comingled with native peoples from Africa to India. Let's just pick an arbitrary date of 4 to 8 millennia ago.
> 
> Can you provide an example of these people? When did they move to North Africa from the Caucasus? Are you referring to Brits and other Europeans who moved there in the 19th and 20th centuries?



One of my professors in college explained that there were many features that went into defining a "Caucasian" and that a white or pale skin was just one of them. Bone structure helped define the Caucasians.

For a time at least I heard that with the exception of the skin color that Ethiopians had all the attributes of a Caucasian, and that some anthropologists wanted to get Ethiopians cataloged as "Caucasian".  I have not heard that lately and it may have fallen out of favor.


----------



## Copperknickers

This thread is getting very complicated. The term 'Caucasian' is not really meaningful as a racial designation because race in the 19th century sense does not exist. Generally speaking 'Caucasian' means people who are clearly of European ethnic origin, but sometimes also includes people of Middle Eastern and North African origin too. In former times, it meant anyone who was not African, East Asian, Native American or a Pacific Islander, and could be extended to include everyone from Brits to Arabs to Indians to Somalis. But this definition is not used any more.

It is not very commonly used in the UK and is not very specific so I think 'white' is a better term. That being said, some people only regard Northern/Eastern Europeans as 'white', but not Southern Europeans and Arabs, who would be described as 'olive-skinned'. But the latter is old fashioned and not very politically correct.


----------



## TheRealMcCoy

Copperknickers said:


> It is not very commonly used in the UK and is not very specific so I think 'white' is a better term



I prefer "pinkish-white"!


----------



## Keith Bradford

It's really a matter of horses for courses.

When I worked in race relations, we didn't talk about people being in _races_, but rather in _ethnic groups_.  _White _was one of the categories, meaning roughly "north European/Anglo-Saxon/family been here so long that I don't know".  _Caucasian _and _olive-skinned_ never came into it.

However, when I do theatrical makeup I'll gladly talk about olive-skinned, to describe what Corson* calls Orange 5 greyed.  (However, Pan-Stik have Red-Orange 3 greyed and 5 greyed which they call olive and deep olive respectively.)  These are real colour terms, not ethnic groupings.

And, Real McCoy, the pinkish-white covers a vast range from yellow-orange through the pale oranges and red-oranges to pale reds.  Any of these may be the natural complexion of a "white" person.  Anything except actually white, used for ghosts and corpses only!

* Richard Corson, Stage Makeup, Peter Owen 1967.


----------



## Copperknickers

TheRealMcCoy said:


> I prefer "pinkish-white"!



Nobody is trying to claim that white people have white skin. It's a metaphorical term that should not be taken literally.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Packard said:


> For a time at least I heard that with the exception of the skin color that Ethiopians had all the attributes of a Caucasian, and that some anthropologists wanted to get Ethiopians cataloged as "Caucasian". I have not heard that lately and it may have fallen out of favor.


I am not the proponent of the term "Caucasian". I am simply pointing out that it is ludicrous to get Ethiopians classified as Caucasians just because some professors and bureaucrats find it convenient to do so.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

JulianStuart said:


> Is that how you define Caucasian - they are the "people" who did that - or do you have some other way to define the term to clarify who they were?


I didn't define Caucasians. I am not an anthropologist. My point, again, is that it is stupid and disingenuous to define Caucasians as virtually any group from Africa to central Asia, and, oh yeah, what about Europe?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

As far as I'm concerned the map, whatever its source and whatever it's supposed to represent, proves my point. People got around. They moved from place to place. If a bunch of Caucasians went to Northern India that did not make all India a colony of Caucasians. The invading group assimilated. The Caucasians became Indians, not the other way around.



JulianStuart said:


> Is that how you define Caucasian - they are the "people" who did that - or do you have some other way to define the term to clarify who they were?  It's a bit more complex than that  Some of those people in that time period made it through northern Europe to Atlantic western Europe, only to find lots of people already there, having come from the mediterranean via the Atlantic coast and well before 6,000 BC.  Would their (intermingled) descendants also be "Caucasians" or only "part Caucasian" later?  As noted above, it seems like a term that is at best vague and in reality outdated.  To be useful going forward, its definition needs to be, inevitably somewhat arbitrarily, restricted (see an example in #39).  A sensible approach these days would be to try and assign a particular haplotype set to any group we want to give such a name to.  Any map of human migration shows the complexity of such an endeavour. Here's an example


----------



## panjandrum

_The discussion in this thread is inclined to wander beyond the specifics of linguistic usage and the thread has therefore been closed._


----------

