Ethnological Research

Sure, come to Kosovo and tell an Albanian that he's Yugoslav... they'll hang you on the spot. So, there's plenty of that kind of thing in Eastern Europe, and not just there... in the East, mistaking a Korean for a Chinese person can also lead to unpleasant consequences.

There's no need to twist what I wrote. I didn't say that a Pole can be called a Czech; I said that they can be grouped together as Slavs. And, by the way, I don't consider Albanians to be Slavs. And you can call Ingush, Georgians, and many others Caucasians. And this won't be some precise ethnological definition, but simply a clear generalization. That's why I didn't write a list of nations, but simply mentioned that "people of Caucasian nationality" cause antipathy, and explained why specifically.
By the way, I also mentioned the Baltic peoples, and no one stood up for them. :smile32: Is everyone more concerned with their own group? How can we talk about national unity when it's all "there are no nations, there are only good and bad people"? Everyone immediately started banging their fists on the table in defense of their specific nation.
I have the right to dislike anyone. The question is about establishing the boundaries of what is reasonable. Yes, I don't like the Baltic peoples! Especially Estonians, if you want to know! But... my partner is Estonian. And nothing, we have no friction on a national basis. Because reasonable people draw a line between sympathy/antipathy towards a nation and towards specific people. By the way, I wrote there that I sympathize with the English... so, does that mean I think they're all wonderful people? And that there are no scoundrels and murderers among them? That's ridiculous...
Don't turn an ethnological debate into a personal one...