That's not quite what "unmarked" means. It's a term borrowed from grammar, really, whatever inaccuracies may come with the analogy (in the sense of "masculine is the unmarked" and that's why we use "he" and "man" when we refer(ed) to generic people or those of unknown gender (at least those that aren't demoted to "it") as well as the specifically male, while the feminine is only used for those that are specifically female. PC movements obviously worked against this in English, but it still happens in a number of languages...not that I'm taking a side, for the moment). In that sense, you are marked. Any non-white is. Outside of grammar, it's not that you can't tell what is unmarked by some outward sign (which is, indeed, a mark) but that it somehow gets to represent the general case, when it isn't actually. But yeah, you're right otherwise, I imagine, in that you aren't specifically 'marked' then, but just sort of ambiguously so. As is Tara. I'm sorry you feel the need to be.

I only mean it in a very limited sense, and if I were totally a social determinist who didn't have the least belief in human agency, I wouldn't even bother to bring it up.