It might be a convenient size, but as a political category it has very limited meaning.

That is an interesting inquiry. We’ve somehow developed a notion that a Spanish surname and eating posole precludes ‘whiteness’, i.e. white = homogenous northern European background. At the same time, on the census, my wife from Mashad, Iran is told to check ‘white’ (she is close in complexion to Razib). Arabs are also ‘white’ on the census, and no one ever considered Steve Jobs to be otherwise. But Arab is a linguistic construct, if nothing else.

And don’t get me started on how Indians are ‘asian’ and lumped in with east Asians, although they tend to be linguistically and physically closer to Europeans. Saudis, Iranians and Israelis aren’t asian despite their presence on the continent.

Its utter self-contradictory confusion.

It is ironic how this granular differentiation from ‘white’ comes during a period when the concept of ‘whiteness’ is being obviated (intermarriage, grandpa admitting he is 1/4 black, people just don’t give a fuck about it anymore, etc).

I think this is not true; despite the invention of the European Union, the history of european countries is much more diverse than that of the american states; their roots are solidly planted in a scale of millenia. The USA are a social experiment aprox 300 years old, and much more homogeneous.

i think the the analogy that works is western civilization (excludes the east roman/orthodox), india, and china. the EU is the attempt by western civ to recreate political unity after the roman collapse. the british imposed it de novo on india, though unity had been achieved sporadically over the course of its civilization, while china is the inverse, in that it was more unified than not, especially in ideology (ie.., second halves of dynasties tend toward de facto decentralization).

Bangladeshi fertility rates are the true wonder here. I think that the perceived notion that Muslim. societies are especially resistant to declining fertility should be reconsidered.