I have found it odd that groups are often referred to as “hyphenated Americans” except for one, and that I rarely ever encounter the label used or even discussed. If some of us are Native-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans - then why not European Americans? The advantage I think there is in using this term is that it brings us into parity. Terms such as African-American are used on the one hand for solidarity within the group, but also by a majority in an exclusionary sense - that “white people” often perceive themselves and each other as The Default, not hyphenated because they are just normal Americans. (or USians, but that’s another discussion) So I see using European-Americans as having the advantage of reminding people that they too are immigrants, that their traditions and customs are of a certain time and place, and not indigenously American.
Another benefit of doing so I think is clarity between using labels to discuss region, race, or ethnicity - which I am sure that people here will be aware are very different ways to frame identity. When we describe everybody else by region, we are comparing apples with oranges if we contrast this against white. So whatever groupings we use become more consonant, and it also serves as a reminder that continent does not equal race. Not all Africans are black, just as not all Euros are white. And it has the effect of pointing out instances of colonialism when people appropriate something as being European in a way which might be less obvious when discussing race/color itself.
What do you think? Is that reasoning sound? Flawed? Anything I am missing there? Do people in some disciplines or media already make this distinction?