After the study of skulls from various sources by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in De generis humani varietate nativa, the German distinguished in 1775 five human races: Ethiopians or Black; Mongoloids or Yellow; Malays or Brown; American or Red; and Caucasian or White.

Blumembach believed that the Indo-European race originated in the Caucasus area. That’s why he chose as a prototype a skull from the area of Georgia, so he decided to use the word “caucasar” to describe this raza.Hay than to say in favor of
Johann Blumenbach who clearly said that among the races there was no hierarchy, that one was no better than the other. That is, his was a mere scientific consequence, which did not have a social or ethical component. But on the one hand, research like yours has long been used to justify racism, even if the author has other intentions. And on the other hand, his work was based on scientific error, because today we know that there is no human race.

Furthermore, studies in recent years have shown that white skin is much more recent than expected. In 2014 they succeeded in sequencing the genome of some Mesolith human remains at the La Braña site in León (Spanish state) and deducing that the 7,000 year-old man was dark-skinned. This means that genetic adaptation took place in the Neolithic, thanks to the changes produced by agriculture in diet, metabolism and immunity. So 14.000-13,000 years ago, men painted the walls of Ekain, for example, they weren't white or Caucasian.

And yet, the word chosen by Blumenbach is widely used. It is an official term for describing white skin individuals in the United States, as saying Caucasian and African-American seems more correct than saying black or white. And the news, movies or series that come from there is constantly repeating.

Thus, the word “Caucasian” has become a politically correct way of saying “white”, although at its origin it is racist and also scientifically wrong.