Eastern European

I honestly beleive it is an antiquated term. The only identifying factor is a relatively short 40 year communist era. Most of the countries identified as such are now almost as long out of communism as they were subjected to it. All of them have at least 2,000 year old histories and cultures.

Some are Slavic, some are Latin, some are Ugro-balts, some are Germanic. Some are Catholic, some are Protestant, some are Ortodox, some are Athesist, some are Islamic. Some are further west than Greece, Austria or Finland. Some have an primarily agricultural hertigage, some have a heavy industry and technology history that surpasses the heavy industrial areas of the Rurh, Northern Italy, Northern France, or Northern England.

The Croatians are much Mediterrians as the Italians, The Czechs are as much Central Europeans as the Swiss or Austrians, Estonians are as Scandanavian as the Finns.

"Eastern Europe" is as much an intergral part of Europe as as any other part of Europe, and the Iron curtain was a temporary aboration.

This has the look and feel of the national equivalent of using the correct pro nouns for a country! lol

Most eastern Europeans I know, don't seem to have any issue with the term. They frequently refer to themselves in this classification.

Is it a sign of disrespect to the individual cultures that make up this region? No, I don't think so. It's just an old legacy term we still use, just like northern Europe or Scandinavia, southern Europe or Mediterranean etc.

When you see it printed, like say "man of eastern European origin", it is very often followed up by a more precise location within that region if this information is available. You see the same classification with say "UK man held on charges of... " further down the article, you may then get "the man in his 50's, originally believed to be from the greater Manchester area" etc etc. I think it's very similar to that really.

I don't think there is any malice implied in these terms. (most of the time)

Well we still refer to the Balkans which was the border to the Ottoman Empire and that empire died 100 years ago

I always feel that highlighting demographic information in crime reporting was simply to make sure the dear readers knew exactly "who we are dealing with here".

In the US, you don't have a police shooting a suspect. You have a white officer gunning down a black male. (eg lookit the hate crime)

Over here you get "Eastern European" which always seems to come across as less than a high class Irish citizen. A legit way of calling them a durty foreigner. It's been awhile since I've seen a Nigerian noted in the press.

You can of course also, of course, read about Irish Nationals whom are "known to the Guardi" (criminal scum and not worth worrying over) and also those "of no fixed abode" (and we all know what that is).

Anytime I see any of those it just seems the article is moving away from relevant facts and including terms meant to be incendiary and simply detracts from the validity of the news.

It may not be their intent, but it's always how it reads in my head. So maybe the problem is with me?

The only phrase I hate worse than any of those, and which lowers my trust in media even more is "users took to social media".