"Biological Euphemisms"

       Dear reader,
                    Lately, there has been a few things on my mind both scientific topics and sociological theories. One theory in particular is the theory of colour blindness. Before I go on i would honestly like to ask you these questions: Do you think canadian society is "Colour Blind"? Do you think Canadian university institutions are "Colour Blind"? I wont be answering these questions myself; however, i do want to explain something that really "Grinds my gears".
                   For those of you who are in the course "Race, Racism and Colonialism" I realized what i'm about to explain about half way through the first term. In today's Canadian society we have many different terms to profile different people. Terms that encompass or group together what is known in Canada as the "visible minority". This term tries to target a group or large array of people that person might call a "visible minority". This term as you may have guessed can refer to "race", or gender(mostly used for "race").
                   In academia we tend to try to steer away from this social construct of "race" by referring to more of what people might call a "biological origin" term. These are terms like "African-Canadian"or "Asian-Canadian". Some may deem these terms "politically correct"; however, these are terms i would like to get back to in a moment.
                   In Canada the way we deal with talking about a person who is of "North-European"(Canadian or not) decent  I have noticed we just deem this group of people as "white". Now, heres where something doesn't exactly match up. Why exactly are we still classifying a group of people as "white" when we have deemed euphemisms for other groups. Terms like "African-Canadian and Asian Canadian". Terms like these, from what I understand were invented to be used for "people of colour" in a political correct way. However, it is to my understanding that the colour(or shade) white is still on the Colour Spectrum(which is a combination of all visible colour/light). So why exactly are we not using a "biological euphemism" for the profiled group of "white". Why aren't we using "European-Canadian"?
                  To rant on further i'm going to contradict myself and explain that I don't even believe in these "biological euphemisms" that we deem "politically correct". To be honest these "biological euphemisms" are racist in itself because they group a large group of people on a continental level. When i'm sure we are all aware there are many different people, with many different cultures and beliefs within a modern day continent.
                  Before the Colonial conquest age there are writings that explain "Northern/Western European's" acknowledged the difference in nations in a continent. Writings explain different groups of people in Africa known for their certain expertise or way of life. People in Africa was not considered to be one “race”. To the "Northern Europeans"(at the time), all of Africa was divided into “nations” and “tribes” with different “Gens”(The closest word to "race" at the time, which more refers to a blood linage) this showing that the Europeans recognized the many difference types of African linage. African nations(from a European’s perspective) were divided up into “clans” and “nations”, some of which had a what some may associate with a stereotype(Not races). For example:  a “clan” called the “Illophagi” were known as the “fruit eaters”, the “Spermaphagi” were known as “seed eaters”. Hinting at the fact that this idea of "Race" only came into play or established as a concept during the colonial age.
                  There, my rant is over...
                                                       Lets not pretend anymore...


Heres a little bit of my research.

      Nicholas Hudson. (1996). From "nation" to "race" the origin of racial classification in eighteenth century thought. Retrieved from http://jft-newspaper.aub.edu.lb/reserve/data/s11147/s11147.pdf 

Ps. Do you guys disagree?