Talk:European Americans

Armenians, Turks, and Georgians are NOT European Americans

Armenians are not Europeans. They are considered Indo-Europeans though Europeans have evolved from natural selection to be physically different from their Indo-European cousins. Genetic mutations such as light skin pigment and light eye pigment are not common in Armenians as they are with most Europeans. European maps never include countries like Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia because they are historically different from Europeans. It has been set and written down by the ancient Romans and Greeks, that Turkish, Armenians, and Georgians are part of Asia not Europe. For further clarification on these three groups you may contact a European Union official or a European historian to provide uncanny data to prove that Armenians, Turks, and Georgians are NOT European. If not satisfied with the arguments then please compare DNA of a European to an Armenian. They are small differences and these small differences justify European identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.140.73 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes they do. > http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60950-1?large_figure=true . 134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a source that have the ancient Greeks and Romans say they're apart of Asia? (Cluker (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
  • LOL I'm sorry to have to laugh; but the original meaning of Asia, in both Latin and Greek, refers expressly to Anatolia and Persia, i.e. everything beyond the Bosporus and east of Suez (west of which was Africa, or course). To the ancients of Greece and Rome, the world was in three parts - Europe, Asia and Africa. Asia Minor was Anatolia (Turkey) and Asia Major was Mesopotamia and Persia and parts beyond, though India was somewhat consiered a separate world-realm again and China was virtually unknown. The modern co-opted sense of Asia, which tends to be associated with China even more than India, is virtually a complete malapropism. Other than the Bosporus, the other boundary between Europe and Asia was the Caucasus Mountains, and Georgia and Armenia lie to the south of that of course. They are not part of Europe, though historically they are one of the earliest and most resilient sectors of Christendom. But they are in Asia.. Turks did originate in Central Asia, part of Asia Major, but today's Turks are for the most part in Asia Minor (along with the Georgians and Armenians). There is no need to cite this, but if you really want one Herodotus would suffice.Skookum1 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenians and Georgians are indeed European. Georgians are just Russians. Armenians are biologically European. The only part of your little argument I agree with is that Turks are not European. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither do you. Modern Turks are an ethnic amalgam and include many Islamized Europeans from the Balkans who were "patriated" to Turkey in the wake of the national wars, just as many Greeks and others who were patriated in the other direction were "Asian" (in the geographic sense, being from Asia Minor i.e. Anatolia). Also, long-time Istanbullus in particular, but also in other historical centres of the Ottoman Sultanate, are teh descendants of people pulled from all over the Empire, either brought in as yeni seri, slaves, concubines or merchants; "Turk" post-Greco-Turkish War came to mean anyone who had become Moslem...but whose lineages might have been ethnically Italian, Croatian, Polish, Ukrainian etc. As race was not a factor in marriageability (or concubinage) in Ottoman society, but rather religion was, those European bloodlines - if converted - readily mixed with Turkic, Persian, Arab, Ossetians and others. Armenians are so anciently distinct from all other peoples in the Caucasus and Mid-East and, until the collapse of their once-high position within the Sultanate, were rarely seen in Europe, and did not generally intermarry with Europeans. One of hte main problems nowadays is that "European" has comr to be a p.c.-manque for "white" but it wasn't too long ago that Greeks and Sicilians weren't considered "white" by northern European standards either. And if your position on the Turks were to be made across the board, ultimately Hungarians aren't Europeans either. Georgians, well, that's dicey because of the ancient linkage with Greece..but in strict geographic terms Georgia is not part of Europe, which begins to the north of the Caucasus and to the west of the Urals. Where that puts the Chechens in this equation I'm not sure....the problem is really teh articial division of ethnicity by "European" and Asian". Turks are both, and at one time so were Greeks. And Arabs, actually (Spain before 1492, and southern France for at least a few centuries also...)Skookum1 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-Americans

I've noticed that the chart of the 2000 census does not show the numbers for Hungarian-Americans. Perhaps this should be remedied. According to the 2000 US Census, there are 1,398,724 Hungarians in the United States at the present time.

"Original Research"

This should only be added to an article to query something when this is properly justified; things in the public domain and widely available or accepted as common knowledge do not need to be cited repeatedly - otherwise wikipedia becomes nothing more than a giant hyperlink directory. In this article I have removed a long list of "OR" comments from the population section - the figures used in this section are readily available in an article that is cited at the bottom of the page. I fear "OR" comments are used as 'blocking' tools by those who object to an insertatation - they don't feel able to delete it, but make over-zealous use of a tool that should be used only when something is severely shortcoming.

And now the same things are removed repeatedly without explanation.. even though they now link to a JSTOR article from Demography from which material has been drawn!

References

This needs references. and used by who? When? Where? All we have is the why... --Sketchee 02:10, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Use of this term seems to ignore historical treatment of some European immigrants to the United States, such as Irish Roman Catholics until recently and Germans during the First World War. Acjelen 01:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've only ever encountered this term in connection with white supremacists like David Duke, who describes himself as a "European-American civil rights lawyer". --Angr 09:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The derisive comments on this page only underscore the need for European-Americans to unite in much the same way ALL other ethnic groups but we have. We have no voice, no leader representing our issues. What conceivable relevance has the treatment of Irish Catholics -- a canard also used in the immigration debate to justify mass (often illegal) immigration -- to the discussion of a satisfactory nomenclature for our people? ANY discussion of white identify results in the speaker's being tarred as a "white supremacist."

I had to look up canard in my dictionary. I'll remember to use it often as a euphemism. The danger with the term "European American" is that it can only accurately describe some group of Americans during the 20th century (and probably the later part of it). Prior to that, Americans the majority of whose ancestors lived in Europe were not part of a single "ethnic group". History must deal with the individual nationalities coming to this country from Europe. Indeed, Europe as we now consider it is a relatively recent idea. Happily, those German-Americans, Polish-Americans, Hungarian-Americans, Ashkenazi-Americans, Roma-Americans, English-Americans, Scots-Irish-Americans, etc. let go of their Old World strife and have intermarried to such an extent that we now have European-Americans.

I find the term much more satisfactory, personally, than "non-hispanic white," as I've been asked to identify myself on countless government forms.

This article is somewhat inaccurate. It says that the "European-Americans" are also called white or caucasian. It sort of gives people the idea idea that white or caucasian only means European, when "white" or "caucasian" also refers to white-Americans who are of non-European background such as Turks, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, etc.--Gramaic 09:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Turks are European and Europe in the sense of the Roman Empire and Macedonian Empire (no relation to the country by the same name or its people) due to cultural exchange and interaction, is also the Middle East and North Africa. Those regions today are still remotely European.

Why Turkey is a European country

• The Anatolian peninsula has been historically part of Greece until the Turks invaded and took over.

• Turks share cultural ties with Greeks and Albanians.

• The little insignificant break between Istanbul and the Anatolian peninsula doesn’t separate the Anatolian peninsula from Europe.

How Turkey can become an E.U. member

• Turkey and Greece have to allow Roma to become the major ethnic group in Cyprus.

1) Reason: because they are the most hated ethnic group in Europe (according to the BBC) and they have a population there in Cyprus already.

• Relinquishing Cyprus to a neutral ethnic group will end tensions between the two countries over the island and allow both sides to recognize Cyprus as an independent nation.

~ Steven Colosi

Turks Why exactly do we have Turks here as Europeans? Not many "whites" "Europeans", ext include Turks as Euro americans.

IRON RANGE, CULTURE-NO, MINNESOTA IS NOT DEVELOPING CULTURE-YOU MISSED THE WHOLE MELTING POT ON THE IRON RANGE-THE ITALIANS, JEWISH PEOPLE AND ALL THEIR BUSSINESSES, BIG SLAVIC POPULATION, SERB AND CROATIAN-ALONG WITH THE FINNISH, GERMAN, DANES, ENGLISH, NATIVES...NEW? 1994 AN DUNDER-HMONG, NOW, MORE AFTICANS AND NEW EUROPEANS-SOMESCHOOLS IN MPLS. SPEAK 73 DIFFERENT LANGUAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

problems

I have several problems with this page:

1. It gives the impression that this is a common term in the United States, at least, which is most certainly is not. I have lived in the U.S. since birth (31 years) and have rarely heard this term used in general conversation or even in official designation. The main times I remember hearing it used were ironically either used by white racists, such as Duke, or were used in satire, apparently in an attempt to make fun of or denigrate other "hyphenated American" terms. Regardless of whether this intended satire has any legitimacy or truth to it (I personally think it does), the usage of the term in actual life in the U.S. is misrepresented here.

I think Americans with European ancestry have reached a level of integration which brings about a desire for their own identity and an easier way to talk about the history of European immigration to the United States and the prior colonies (as well as the unique experiences of these immigrants and their descendants). Americans without ancestry from the British Isles may also wish to use the term to bring attention to the fact that in the past the study of American history hardly included them anymore than Americans with African, Asian, or Mexican heritage. Since the WASPy nature of "white" America is now nostalgia and provencialism, we may need another term to discuss this segment of the population. -Acjelen 9 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Since when does "a level of integration bring about a desire for...identity and an easier way to talk about the history of...immigration"? I'm "European American", and I don't find any desire in myself to "find a shared identity" with anyone and everyone descended from non-British European immigrants. Is it now impossible for someone to feel that they're truly American without becoming hyphenated?? How is it possible that this group (or any such group) is deserving of identity *now*, when they are *more* assimilated into American culture, than when they were previously?? It just seems to me that all this hyphenation and "group identity" happening in this country is a result of current political and social trends, and does little to actually understand history. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to learn about African, Asian, and Mexican immigration history to the United States without having to conjure up "identities" like "African American", "Asian American", or "Mexican American". In fact, these "identities" actually get in the way, as they arbitrarily bunch together a group of people who have *individual* stories and histories regarding their ancestry and immigration.

But this is besides the point. My main point is that this term is not used much in the United States, except by white supremacists, and to most Americans, it conjures up pictures of David Duke and white racists more than anything else. I may not agree with terms like "African American", either, but at least these are widespread and adopted terms, which this one is not. The article does not reflect this. Revolver 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

2. "Europe" is itself a relatively recent social construction in terms of identity, so I see little justification for the use of the term, personally. But then again, I have the same opinion and criticisms about the term African American, and this term seems to have caught on (unfortunately, IMHO). Europe itself is (like Africa and black Americans of African descent) a place of extremely varied cultures, ethniticies, histories, and identities.

And, of course, recent immigrants to America from Europe may wish to use the term to distinguish themselves. -Acjelen 9 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Distinguish themselves *from what*?? We're all distinguished from each other at some level. This is just a politically motivated attempt to forge divisive group identities under the guise of historical scholarship. Revolver 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

3. The picture seems misleading. Where do the data come from? The info with it gives the impression that it refers to "whites", whereas the article says this is different from "European American". This should be cleared up and clarified.

4. The link at the bottom (as of 8 July) is to a website that appears racist and only confirms my first point. One of the main articles listed at this site questions whether "Zionists and Jews" are running the country into ruin. Revolver 9 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Caucasian-American

As all of you are aware, Caucasian-American redirects to this article. Caucasian-American should be a seperate article, because the term "Caucasian" also refers to non-Europeans such as Middle Easterners and North Africans. It's a big mistake having Caucasian-Americans redirect to this article! --Gramaic | Talk 08:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it really used that way? I've seen Caucasian and Caucasian-American used to refer to European-descended individuals, but I don't know any people of Middle-Eastern descent who wouldn't rather be called Middle-Eastern-descended.--Nectarflowed ^T 10:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term goes beyond European. In fact, take a look at Race (U.S. Census) which is a copy of the real U.S. Census definition, and the definition of White/Caucasian would be; a person that descends from the original people of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. You could also look up the word Caucasian in the dictionary and the defintion would be; person who is the original inhabitant of Europe, Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Indian Sub-Continent.

<quote>I don't know any people of Middle-Eastern descent who wouldn't rather be called Middle-Eastern-descended.<quote/> Actually most (if not all) Middle Easterners in the United States refer to themselves as White or Caucasian-American. Yes there are some Middle Eastern people who would rather not refer to themselves as Caucasian, but as just Middle Eastern. In fact, I've seen some Italians who are of course White and European-Americans refer to themselves and referring to all Italians as non-White, but that doesn't mean that Italians are actually non-White. So that's why Caucasian-American should be a seperate article, rather than be a redirect to this article. --Gramaic | Talk 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the definition; I was speaking regarding a discrepancy between official usage and popular usage.--Nectarflowed ^T 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Caucasian is used in the United States as a euphemism to refer to Whites and give them a more anthropological-sounding label. It is probably often used to refer to Americans who look white but don't "qualify" (so to speak) as being of European descent. Like so-called European Americans, Americans of west Asian and north African descent have only recently (if at all) thought of themselves as a single, coherent group requiring a handy label. It seems a disturbing trend in the United States that its people feel compelled to join (or restructure) one of its outdated and inadequately limited "racial" groupings. -Acjelen 20:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

This page needs to be expanded. European Americans are the most important racial group in the country, yet the "African-American" page is several times longer.--80.186.137.142 21:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that`s an important point: I don't think that "European Americans" are a racial group (there are no human races in the biological sense, though people of african descent of course look different from other people with asian or european roots). It refers to Americans who originally came from the culturally-geographical defined region of Europe. Of course there are differences between the ethnicities of europe, who are devided by culture, languages etc., but there are also a lot of similarities. So I would say it is a term which includes all the different ethnical groups (or ancestry groups) like Irish-American, German-American etc. And the differences of these groups in America are slighter than the differences between the ethnicities in europe. (Sorry for my bad English).

Matthias

One reason the African American article is longer is because African Americans have existed as a group much longer than European Americans (the 17th century versus 1940s) Moreover, European Americans did not emerge until the general lessening of segregation in the United States along social, economic, and ethnic lines. In fact, that very flattening of American society made such a group as "European Americans" possible. But an unsegregated society makes it difficult for European Americans to create unique cultural, social, or political contributions. For example, more European Americans died in the Vietnam conflict, but they did so in an integrated military. European Americans are important in the history of popular music, especially rock-n-roll, but that would have hardly existed as it does today without the contributions of African Americans. The stereotypical hippy movement of the 1960s is European American. Generally one could consider the current field in Nashville-sound country music, Evangelical Christianity, and the rise of the contemporary Republican Party as contributions of the European Americans. White flight, of course, and suburban sprawl will be one of the lasting contributions of this group. -Acjelen 22:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came upon a 1940s date for the start of the "existence" of European Americans, but I do not agree with that. Americans of different European ethnicities have been intermarrying from the start of colonization. Yes, there were more "pureblood" whites before the 20th century, but that had more to do with the fact that many of these people had recently passed through Ellis Island and had not had much of an opportunity to intermarry outside their ethnic group. In the South, where immigration rates were lower, whites had largely discarded their old ethnic labels well before the Civil War; they were less "Scottish," "English," "German" et al. and more "Southern." 24.192.17.34 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sense of adjective

It should be pointed out that the adjective in European American is used in the narrow biological sense. The U.S. Secretary of State, for example, wears European fashions, speaks a European language, and occasionally gives recitals of European music on a European instrument. In this broader sense, nearly everyone in the United States is a European American. -Acjelen 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

The article makes a point to distinguish between latin american and euro american, that while some people from both might be considered white in the census their ethnicities are different. So my question is, why does the article include Christina Aguilera as european-american when she is latin-american. Her father is from Ecuador. So, any comments? Cjrs 79 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does not make a point to distinguish between Latin Americans and Euro Americans. It just talks about Euro Americans. Latin American does not negate her being classified as a European American, because she was born in the USA and has origins in the original peoples of Europe.--Dark Tichondrias 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Are Italians Hispanic?

If some dictionaries include Portuguese people, language, and culture under the term 'Hispanic', then since Italy was part of the Spanish Empire, Italians are Hispanic, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.144.224 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, they are not. The term "Hispanic" comes from the Latin word "Hispania," which refers to the Iberian peninsula. People of Portuguese origin are considered Hispanic because Portugal is also in the Iberian peninsula. However, Italy is not, so Italian-Americans are not Hispanic. Equating the word "Hispanic" with "Spanish" is a mistake, even though they have the same etymological origin. Portugal is a part of Hispania, too, but Italy most certainly is not.

Actually, the term Hispanic is very broad. If Bolivians are considered Hispanic, while 90% have no Spanish blood, then Italians, Dutch, and Moroccans all can be Hispanic as well, since they don't have any Spanish blood either. Like Bolivia they were part of the empire, and have no genetically ancestry. The only way this can get by is because the word Hispanic is the most misused word in the United States of America. Casey14 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

90%?? your are way off in your calculations, there is a large amount of people of no Spanish blood but is more in the 20%'s, and then mestizos that look native which make about 35%. the rest are whiter mestizos, blacks, asians and whites. --76.89.151.106 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, the first paragraph states, 'European Americans have the lowest poverty rate . . . after Cuban-Americans'. The majority of Cuban Americans are of European descent, so the comparison is not very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.23.224 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can`t find Serbian-American on the list

Why?

Because you didn't add it. This is wikipedia. Please sign your comments with four tildes. JesseRafe 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Who uses this term at all?

The term European American is more specific than White American in that these terms in their official usage...

and

It should, however also be mentioned that the term "European Americans" is sometimes used as a synonym for White Americans in certain government publications.

What official usage? I've never seen either European American or White American in any government publication. Care to provide some examples?

The term was coined in response to the increasing racial diversity of the United States, as well as in recognition of this demographic diversity moving more into the mainstream of the society in the latter half of the 20th century.

Is there a reference as to how it was coined? Nathanm mn 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow Wikipedia is just glorified grafiti and this article is a perfect example of what i mean... this term is practically non-existent in common or academic usage --62.245.143.34 13:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the only example of use of the term that I have ever seen.

You are fos. thanks, go away.

Euro-American redirects here

Euro-American redirects here, which I've got an issue with because of the USAcentricity of this page; the reason it's USA-centric is because of, well, the ethno-biased p.c.-ism of rehashed histories of Canada and other New World countries where "Euro-American" or "European" is substituted for "white", "Scottish", "Irish", "French" and so on; in Canada's case it's used by politically-conscious/pretentious historical writers to get around the distinctions between American-origin whites and British-origin whites, compounded by (especially in frontier areas) actual European-origin whites who are not American or British. Confusing? Yeah, I know, and a pain in the ass too. Obviously this page is fine as it is - "European American" - though it's not a common-usage term; I just want to submit that some kind of disambig seems necessary on "Euro-American" because of that term's usage in other contexts.Skookum1 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Turks

Aha.. If some people have got issues with Turks, that them somewhere else please. Such statement bordering on racism is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Have a look if you would like to learn the origins of Turks and those of the seperate Mongolians. Keep it down, and please do not post borderline-racist notes that can only contribute to the creation of a hostile working environnement.Baristarim 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this brings into to question the whole racist nature of categorizing peoples like this to begin with. I mean how is this guys comment any more racist than the entire concept of the page to begin with. He is mearly arguing a point, even if his facts are incorrect(and the whole thing is rather subjective really). Anyway, you sure are quick to through out the term racist and start preaching. You sound like you have been to one to many tolerance training classes or something. Like the comment about "hostile work environment", I don't know about you but I'm not getting paid to be here. Also, what's so bad about the mongols that that's an insult? Whatever... In conclusion, please be less of a moron in future posts. - Arch NME 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • haha, how much I love Greeks? They are funny. BTW we increased 40% in last ten years. That is scary, man. That is the highest increase from Europe.

ı cant understend why always says"turks originally from Mongolia"İts imposible mogolians and turks always be enemy Turkish race name: Europid/Turan and Greeks are Turkish minority and They dont have clear DNA,Yes Turkish race arnt belong sothern bloc accordingly we are Whitest then European mediterreanans,They Always says Turks come From MOGOLIA,Its not true.

• Why does this definition include Turkey?? They arent culturally, linguistically, or ethnically white/european-they are relatevily recent arrivals from central asia and they have been migrating to asia minor for centuries. I know the Turkish people article says the turkic population HAS MOSTLY Y CHROMOSOMES THAT ARE FOUND IN OTHER EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, but Y chromosomes are only the MALE lineage of the population..the some Turk articles on Wikipedia say this >> fromDemographics_of_Turkey#Ethnic_groups "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Turkey#Ethnic_groups", and this quote from the Turkish people article >> "The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that most of the Turks originated in Central Asia. Interestingly, this paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs), found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al. 2001). Moreover, the mtDNA (female linkeage) sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives (from graves 46, 52, 54, and 57) were also found in a Turkish individuals (Comas et al. 1996), suggesting a possible Turkish origin of these ancient specimens. Two other individuals buried in the B sector (graves 61 and 90) were characterized by mtDNA sequences found in Turkish people (Calafell 1996; Richards et al. 2000)."

DONT CONFUSE PHENOTYPE WITH A SPECIFIC GENOTYPE! (phenotpye is superficial-as about as good as using LANGUAGE to find someones ETHNICITY) from Turkic peoples: "The Turkic peoples possess physical features ranging from Caucasoid to Northern Mongoloid. In western Turkic lands, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan, a great many people look "European" and "Mediterranean"." I know not all Turks resemble mongolians, PHENOTYPE is different from GENOTYPE because phenotype is very malleable is subject to selective pressures (they have lost their asian features from natural and sexual selection), but in essence they are still asians. This can be seen on Dr. Sforza and Piazza's The Geography of Human Genes where he compares the genetic distances of many populations. The results concluded that Turks cluster very closely to Amerindian populations and NOT WITH EUROPEANS, which makes sense because they come from the same parent population (mongolians)>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg - they are close to europeans on ONE dimension but are markedly different on others.. heres another study that has similar results >> http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf . WHATEVER THE REASON (DOESNT MATTER REALLY) TURKS CLUSTER FAR FROM EUROPEANS AS FAR AS GENETICS IS CONCERNED. Also cultural differences (esp. religion) prevented them from mixing heavily with european populations- note on that study what was plotted was North Turkish (no doubt european turkey) and wouldnt be considred european in that way either.. Norway considers Turks as Asians (according to the 'Asians' article and so do the vast majority of the British population (laymen) dont consider them as White people. So I dont see any reason to consider the Turks as European on this article; scientists wouldnt consider them "white" and evidently neither do the general population..as for the Turks themselves-they dont conform to the "white"-"non-white" labels. But from what I hear the turkic people dont want to have their country admitted to the EU. So finally, why are they on this article??? It contradicts other Wikipedia articles. -- 134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Before making racist and infantile comments about Turks, look at this (http://racialreality.110mb.com/tatc.html) and then you will realize how stupid your claim that scientists would not consider Turks "white," even though they have always consider them "white." The only "Europeans" who do not consider Turks white/European are Islamophobic Nordicists like Norman Lowell and Nicolas Sarkozy, not rational human beings. Besides N. Turkic people from Centeral Asia have grown genetically distant from Turks and Azeris as a result of mixing with neighboring populations over time. -- Muhammad al-Assad

Greeks

Greeks are not European. They came from ethopia and genetic testing has shown them to be related to ethopians. Cyprus is in the middle east next to freaking lebanon. They invaded what is now greece and stole the land from the macedonians. Now they shamelessly to pass macedonian history as greek. Alexander is macedonian and always will be!

First of all, Greeks are European, Mediterranean, and originally shared cultural and historical ties with people of the lands Alexander the Great conquered, until Europe went into chaos thanks to the Roman's lead poisoned water and the yet uncivilized invaders of Europe known at that time as barbarians to the civilized ancient world. Now, we have this picture of Jesus as a light skinned -- light complexioned caucasian, dispite no one of true Mediterranean origin could pass as such. The lead poisoned water coming from the Roman's lead pipes turned the Roman Empire into a self-destructive and defenseless empire. Slavs such as yourself are delusional from all the brainwashing that's been done to you. Do us all a favor and don't try to rewrite history. 68.248.229.10 17:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Muhammad al-Assad

Have you ever seen a Greek, have you ever seen an ethiopian? Have you ever seen a statue of an ancient Greek?

Yeah problem solved

All humans came from the region of Ethiopia and neighboring areas (if you believe in Evolution, that is). So? :) Baristarim 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

yes all Mediterranean people come From North of Africa(except Turkey) and some of them mixed with europeans,only Turkish people come from Eastern europe/central asia

A further note, lead poisoning did not lead to the decline of the Roman Empire. ➳ Quin 09:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is an OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM. You are refering to a DEBUNKED study done by Skopkian historical revisionists that was published in an obscure magazine that doesnt show its methods and which has some names attached to it that would definately be suspicious. That study only used one genetic marker, by that study-Japanese are also subsaharan african-funny. It has been debunked and is propoganda for political gain-anyone with any intelligence at all would be able to see that that was a bogus pseudo-science study (i hope). All humans came out of Africa, thats all that study proves >> THE STUDY IS DEBUNKED HERE ON RACIALREALITYBLOG >> http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/09/study-clarification-ii.html . The articles I cited on my post showing that turks dont cluster with europeans also shows THAT GREEKS DO CLUSTER WITH EUROPEANS> ALL EUROPEANS ARE VERY CLOSE BECAUSE THEY ALL EXPANDED OUT OF SOUTHERN EUROPE IN THE IBERIAN, ITALIAN, AND GRECIAN REFUGIA AFTER THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM. IM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE EQUATING PHENOTPYE WITH GENOTYPE, they dont correspond. Chinese and Japanese have similar phenotpyes, yet they are very different genetically. Also skin color is determined by sexual selection and distance from the sun (varies on a North-south clinal relationship). Unless you know anything at all about human evolution stop spouting off about retarded and racist stuff like 'Porteugese look like gypsys, therefore they must be/mixed with gypsys', etc nonsense. I cant believe how many morons dont know the story of the human journey out of africa or the slightest bit about human evolution/diversity. Pick up a book and read it...use you HEAD, and if you cant let Wikipedia fill in for it >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg . DONT BRING THIS UP AGAIN. -- 134.121.247.116 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Map is absolutetely arbitrary

British Isles not Western Europe? etc. I am deleteing this arbitrary map. Veritas et Severitas 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about accuracy of numbers

How did america lose 40 million euro-americans in 10 years? Something is wrong with this page.

Total 210,181,975 84.2% 171,801,940 60.7% decreased 18.3%

It is a consequence of the new term "AMERICAN" included in by the U.S. Census Bureau as another ethnicity. In fact, taking into account that Americans are NOT considered Europeans when they arrive to Europe, the term "AMERICAN" will increase during the next decades. I am European and I don´t know about anybody which when meeting a group of Americans in Europe think about them as Europeans. We only think about them as Americans (basically a Germanic ethnicity like the Dutch) And the same happens when a group of black Americans arrive to an African country: they are easily recognised as AMERICANS not tswanas, tsonas, xhosas, fangs or any other tribe. Americans look different, speak different and behave different. They are neither Europeans nor Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.130 (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post, but back to the question, yes it is possible to lose 40 million euro americans because of the way in which people claim themselves on the US census, the people arent "lost" they just didnt declare themselves the same way on both census's.--Joebengo 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Joebengo as I am one of those missing Americans, I haven't physically gone anywhere. I just decided the idea of race in general was stupid as it leads to separatism and tons of other problems. So I just don't check the boxes on anything anymore. I would encourage everyone else to do the same. I'm kinda committed to the idea that if everyone just forgets the whole concept of race America would be a better place. It's not that I want to forget who I am it's that I just don't think I need to contribute to racial ideology every time I fill out some government paperwork. As to the argument that European-American is a geographic origin and not a race, it's complete nonsense and ever sane person knows it. Same old shit, new politically correct name. It's nice to see that maybe 40 million other Americans agree with me. I move this whole page be deleted for the good of humanity. - Arch NME 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

Out of all the European Americans to have ever graced our country, the best pictures we can come up with are Clinton, Reagan, and Marilyn Monroe? Is there anyway we can come up with a more representative sample? --Caponer 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can then do it, the best idea would be to find some better representations and propose them on the talk page so that people may express how they feel about each picture you may propose.--Joebengo 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton is not an important representitive of European Americans. We already have a picture of a blond female celebrity (Marilyn Monroe), who is a much more significant figure in American culture. Paris Hilton may be famous now but her fame will leave no lasting impact on our culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Pictures

I am tired of having a useless revert battle and i WILL NOT break the 3 revert rule, there fore i will bring the subject here and take a "vote". A certain anon editor has insisted on placing the image on the right of Kazimierz Pułaski, the trouble i have is that there is no way of having him comapred to JFK, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Marilyn Monroe, He is simply not well known on a WORLD WIDE scale and the pictures should represent the best of European Americans. There are plenty of other European Americans such as Bill Gates, John Paul Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone else who is more famous than some general who is barely known from the revolutionary war. If anyone else agrees with me please let your views be known so that when a change is made it can be a community decission.--Joebengo 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

kids in illinois get a day off for pulaski day. chicago[land] has a lot of poles so we have a columbus-day-like historical figure to celebrate. except we were never taught about him, probably because they dont want the kiddies dwelling on 'my nationality has more heroes than your nationality' because polaski is all we could come up with. and i dont mean to sound snarky, i'm polish. we were also told that columbus was a peaceful explorer. (rolling my eyes) 76.217.120.247 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Better map needed

Predominant religious heritages in Europe

  Roman Catholicism

  Orthodox Christianity

  Protestantism

  Sunni Islam

  Shia Islam

  Judaism

This article could really benefit from a better map of "European ancestries." The regions labeled on the current map are completely wrong. See Northern Europe, Western Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Southern Europe. Also the anatolian part of Turkey is not in Europe.

I propose replacing the current map with either a generic political map of europe or a religious one. Historically European Americans have devided themselves along religions lines rather than political ones. Such a map could shed light on why Swedish and German neighborehoods are usually separate from Irish and Polish ones.

Regardless, either the current map is corrected to reflect the regional definitions in the above mentioned articles or it will be replaced. JRWalko 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion in Europe has a map. (see right) --JWB 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this map would be better, what do the other editors think? My criticism of the current map comes from the fact that the region labels are somewhat old and misleading especially given the fact that you can put things like "Scandinavian" in the census.I don't think many Spaniards consider their ancestry to be from the same region as Turks nor would Icelandic Americans say the same about Lithuanians.JRWalko 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This religious based map is not only discriminatory, but it sets up worse boundaries. This would be wrong to use becasue this article is about ethnic groups, not religious groups. Also, Turkey's Anatolian part may not be geographically in Europe, but the nation itself is part of Europe, thus stop the bs on this page. Casey14 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Turks not on list

The Turks are not on the list and need to be added. Casey14 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish Americans were originally on the list that I made. Some editors removed them claiming that they were not part of Europe. This feeling of distance from other Europeans may have arisen from Turkish people not being full European in lineage having mixed ancestries with the Mongolian horde, being situated on the Arabian peninsula and the fact that Turkey is a Muslim nation. I think we should find multiple WP:RSs to see whether expert sociologists consider Turkish Americans to be Euro-Americans or Middle Eastern Americans.----^DarkTea 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure sociologists would make pronouncements on this; rather, they might study to what degree Americans or other people consider Turkey to be European.

The relationship between Turkey and Europe is a current controversy which could support a whole article of its own. I don't see such an article now, but for example Accession of Turkey to the European Union covers the points in some detail. Given more than one widely held POV on this, this article should briefly note that there are various opinions and link to the appropriate articles.

Since Americans do not know much about Turkey and there are relatively few Turkish-Americans, Americans' opinion of whether Turkish Americans are European Americans may not be strong or stable. It is likely to change (at least towards the viewpoint that some Turks are European) with additional knowledge of Turkey's European heritage (besides including some European territory now, the Ottoman Empire's initial growth was in the Balkans, and many Turks are descended from Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Russia), or if Turkey is admitted to the European Union, or as Muslim and European identity are gradually reconciled. --JWB 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it simply a question of geography and religion? Only a tiny portion of Turkey lies in Europe, if that is the only claim Turks have to Europe then it would be like saying the French were South American people because of their possession of French Guiana. As for

being "culturally" European that may or may not be the case. No one is picking on Turkey, it's simply hard to establish what it means to be European. Similarly one can make the case that Morocco was heavily influenced by Europe yet Moroccans are obviously not Europeans. A great deal of European identity is defined by religion and one could take a look at the map in the above section and draw clear lines if one was so inclined. Just because a country has undergone Europeanisation does not make it European. JRWalko 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if strictly by current geography, there are at least some people who lived in European Turkey before coming to America, who would be European Americans.

People of European descent in Asian Turkey are no longer living in Europe, but then neither are Americans or Australians.

Yes, national identity often has a lot to do with religion, but if you are going to go strictly by religion, you would be better off talking about Christian Americans than European Americans. --JWB 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• == Turks as "European" ==

I commented earlier on this...I may have misinterpreted Sforza's STR plot(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg); I am assuming that by N Turk they mean European Turkey..but it might be talking about Siberia or something. I cant find any STR plots with them in it.. the EUROAIMS article shows they are drastically different in some areas but the same in other areas on some graphs (http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60950-1?large_figure=true). Although, the Hittites were the ancient inhabitants of anatolia (greeks settled on the coast too), evidence does suggest that there is a significant amount of non-caucasoid admixture among the Turks, as much as 33%(http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html). But, if we include Turks on here, should we also include Mexico or some other South American countries, they have significant european populations and alot of meszitos. Turkey is like a grey area..its not a nation state-its like America..Turkey is really diverse, people from lebanon, iraq, iran, central asia, etc live there. Im no expert on the subject of Turkey demographics, but I dont think there is a 'typical ethnic turk' like this isnt an American' ethnicity. I think the map or list should only include european nation-states that are UNDENIABLY ethnically european. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Validity of some of the statistics

It seems to me like recently added statistics can't be used because they all follow the white American categorizing rather than European American. Since the two are different statistics from one clearly can't be used for the other. I'd like to know the opinion of other editors here. JRWalko 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the term European American becoming more common?

The article says the answer to this question is yes. I would think the answer would seem to be yes, however I never yet hear it on T.V. although many other continent and region based terms are becoming more and more common (though some are perhaps reaching their upper limits of usage by now). I have mainly observed its usage in an anthropology text book and a few other places. Observer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still going to say that I next to never hear this term used in normal context. And the map is absolutely dreadful. The british isles are all part of northern europe? the baltic too? news to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.112.165 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

European American != White American

Since US Census also accepts North Africans and Middle Easterners as white. AnotherLurker (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And does the US Census also accept White South Africans coming to the US as "African Americans"? There are numerous problems with lots of terms. That doesn't invalidate using "European American" in place of "White American", especially when preceded or followed by "African American" or "Asian American", etc. It is consistent and fair --Crxssi (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no they don't, arguably because they are descended from colonial settlers. There are numerous ethnic settler groups residing as minorities, for generations, in other countries, but that doesn't mean that they are to be referred to by the ethnic term for the predominant majority of that country. But the larger point that the original poster is making is valid; "white" refers to a much broader category than simply "European", and the proof is in the pudding. We can see exactly how the term is defined by how it was used in legal documents and court decisions in America and other countries, and its quite clear that "white' refers to just about anyone who is of a lighter skin tone and who is not "black" or, as in many European countries "Asian" or "Indian". Like many terms, it was invented in tandem with its own opposite

I came on this page because I've noticed an attempt, in some articles relating to African-American history, to substitute "European-American's" for "white" and its simply not usable. They are not interchangeable. European-American's may refer to a more discrete subset within "white", and it may in fact be usable in certain historical articles, most notably about colonization of the New World, but cannot be dropped into every article that discusses white people. Scholarly sources simply do not use the term "European-American" that often, and never as interchangeable to white, except for some of the instances I've mentioned (early settler history). It is not Wikipedia's job to change the terms commonly used in historiography.SiberioS (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting example of how this can pan out, and how white solely exists in contrast to black, is the case of the racial category of Ethiopians that was debated early on in the 20th century. Many Europeans, and even most of the Ethiopian aristocracy, argued that they were not "black" or "African" but clearly "white" as indicated by their "advanced" (their term) level of science and culture. It wasn't until the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy that such a movement for "White" identification collapsed, and Ethiopians came to embrace the then burgeoning concept of Pan-African ideals. Clearly, the Ethiopians did not live in Europe, yet they were argued to be "white", or at the very least, not "Black". SiberioS (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence the problem with macro-racial classifications. It's easy to tell the difference between a Nordic European, an Asian from Japan, and a sub-Saharan African, but when you go to northern Africa or the Middle East, things aren't so straight forward. I think we all can agree that European American is not as common as white, and even though all people from Europe (excluding recent migrations) can be considered white, not all white people can be considered European. Kman543210 (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama is European American

i understand a 'concensus' has been reached on his page, but according to the definition here he fits in, so why has his image been removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Halle Berry is European American

By the article's definition. She is also African American under its definition. However she is not white as clearly her skin colour is light brown, in the same way as she is not black as her skin colour is not black, but she decends from both! (Invertedzero (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

this term is really only to replace the term "White" in the future, so does that include her?..she even said that she doesnt consider herself white cause she doesnt look it, that came from her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.25.214 (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well find another definition then, because that's the one referenced on wikipedia, as someone who is of european descent! Halle Berry doesn't identoofy as that simply because of the pressure in america to identify as black. If she had a realistic option and experience of being able to call herself mixed race or something to that effect, she would, just like many americans and 1 million people in uk do now! As the wikipedia article ITSELF explains, European American does not nessecarily mean 'white'. I put Halle Berry there as an example to show this for clarity of the difference between various definitions for similar things. There has been no argument as such to convince me that she shouldn't be there, so shall be put back. (Invertedzero (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Basque and Catalans are Spanish

Both are included into Spanish. If we make that distinction then we can should divide each country in different subdivisions. This doesn't make sense.