What Is the Proper Use of the Terms Caucasoid and Caucasian?

Pepperroncini writes:

Caucasoid is a scientific term to refer to a particular group of people; it is not a misleading term like Caucasian.

Pepperoncini is absolutely correct here.

We should probably use the term Caucasoid when referring to the broad scientific race that stretches from Iceland to India and the term Caucasian to refer to the present day people of Caucasus mountain region.


Filed under Anthropology, Physical, Race/Ethnicity

6 responses to “What Is the Proper Use of the Terms Caucasoid and Caucasian?

  1. Rus

    This “scientific” term was invented at the very early immature age of physical anthropology by some German scientists, who thought that Georgians (from Georgia that in the Caucasus) and the people of the Caucasus in general are the most beautiful people on Earth and are the most ideal examples of human race. I suppose one of those scientists might have been in love with some Georgian girl to draw such conclusions. Later it was picked up by the English and Americans. And while Germans later chose another term “Aryan” (which was no better), and after 1945 they seem not to use any terms, but Americans at the same time stuck to this silly word from the 18th century. It is neither scientific nor correct. You may well use such words as Japhetic or return to Aryan. Indeed, “Caucasian” sounds as stupid as “Aryan”. Randomly pick up some small geographical region and call with this term a third of humans. Why not Sicilian? Albanian? Anatolian? Egyptian? Babylonian? Anything?

    It is out of my understanding why we should employ the 18-century VERY outdated “science” (if we can call that all science, as they still sincerely believed then that the Bible is the ultimate truth and they hardly knew about evolution and the origin of humans), and the terms from that immature era. If somebody likes the term “Caucasian” why they do not take into account other curious theories from the 18-19th centuries like everybody has degraded from Adam and Eve, of course, with the exception of Georgians (again not that one Georgia in the USA, but that one in the Caucasus, of course, assuming Americans are capable at all of locating this obscure region on the map).

  2. Rus

    I’d like just provide a link to an interesting article written by an American of South Asian descent:

    But most interesting are comments and among them a comment by an American. It’s the key to understanding why Americans use such term. They want to include everybody because they do not want others to have privileges! The sick crypto-racist American society creates stupid terms.


    It’s important to keep it that way. As a Southern Californian surrounded by affluent, intelligent Armenians, Israelis, and Iranians, I want them to be classified the same as me, as getting no legal benefits from their ethnicity. The use of the term “Caucasian” is highly conducive to that to maintaining that big tent, while terms like “European” encourage them to push for special treatment.

    I want the biggest tent possible in defining who, like me, doesn’t get special preferences in government contracting. I want the South Asians back in the Caucasian tent, not in the Asian beneficiaries of cheap SBA loan tent where they got shifted in 1982. From a physical anthropology point of view, it’s reasonable to call South Asians Caucasian, but not European or white.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s