At white point are "visible minorities" no longer considered the minority? (condo, luxury)

[Sonrise]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

No, because "minority" status is based off of the national demographics. In Richmond, Whites would be in the minority, but you have to keep in mind is that the 65% is made up of different groups. So, pluralistically, Whites could still be the largest group, but in the case of Richmond BC, Chinese make up the largest group pluralistically.

2006 Community Profiles - Census Subdivision

But surely you must see the absurdity in that spread sheet of labeling 80% of the population a "visible minority" when the exact opposite is true. They are not a minority in Richmond, they are the overwhelming majority.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

But surely you must see the absurdity in that spread sheet of labeling 80% of the population a "visible minority" when the exact opposite is true. They are not a minority in Richmond, they are the overwhelming majority.

You are missing the point. Like I said, the label is based off of the overall demographics of Canada. So, in turn, said groups are viewed on a national level as "visible minorities". It isn't based off of a local view.

[Sonrise]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

You are missing the point. Like I said, the label is based off of the overall demographics of Canada. So, in turn, said groups are viewed on a national level as "visible minorities". It isn't based off of a local view.

Yes, or no: are Indians and Chinese a "visible minority" in Richmond, BC? It's a really simple question, that you seem to refuse to answer, and I don't know if it's agenda driven or what.

[Kristan]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

But surely you must see the absurdity in that spread sheet of labeling 80% of the population a "visible minority" when the exact opposite is true. They are not a minority in Richmond, they are the overwhelming majority.

I wasn't aware that groups formerly characterized as "visible minorities" were now 80% of the population of Canada.

Oh wait... they aren't.

So, the argument here is that if a nation-wide minority group achieves numerical superiority in even a single town, then they should no longer be referred to as a minority group?

So, one need merely visit a few towns in the far north, notice that the vast majority of residents are Inuit, and auto-magically Inuits are no longer a minority group.

That's a neat trick =)

Perhaps for an encore, one could also auto-magically erase the long-term effects of systemized discrimination that they inherit as visible minorities.



Heck, if you really wanted to take this idea of magic word definitions to it's logical extreme, one could visit a few clubs in Montréal, notice that a majority of the people there were gay, and then decide that now homosexuals are the majority group in Canada, and further declare that any news stories describing homosexuals as a minority of the Canadian population are obviously biased PC lies.

[Sonrise]

Originally Posted by Kristan

I wasn't aware that groups formerly characterized as "visible minorities" were now 80% of the population of Canada.

Oh wait... they aren't.

So, the argument here is that if a nation-wide minority group achieves numerical superiority in even a single town, then they should no longer be referred to as a minority group?

So, one need merely visit a few towns in the far north, notice that the vast majority of residents are Inuit, and auto-magically Inuits are no longer a minority group.

That's a neat trick =)

Perhaps for an encore, one could also auto-magically erase the long-term effects of systemized discrimination that they inherit as visible minorities.



Heck, if you really wanted to take this idea of magic word definitions to it's logical extreme, one could visit a few clubs in Montréal, notice that a majority of the people there were gay, and then decide that now homosexuals are the majority group in Canada, and further declare that any news stories describing homosexuals as a minority of the Canadian population are obviously biased PC lies.

I wasn't aware of anyone claiming that they were. Do you not read the posts that you quote; did you not see the "in Richmond?" I'll ask you the same question that I asked the other guy, maybe you'll actually answer: Yes or no, are Indians and Chinese a "visible minority" in Richmond? I bolded the last part, so you don't somehow miss it again. Why is the color of ones skin so important to you? Why do you advocate racial profiling?

[Sonrise]

Originally Posted by Kristan

I wasn't aware that groups formerly characterized as "visible minorities" were now 80% of the population of Canada.

Oh wait... they aren't.

So, the argument here is that if a nation-wide minority group achieves numerical superiority in even a single town, then they should no longer be referred to as a minority group?

So, one need merely visit a few towns in the far north, notice that the vast majority of residents are Inuit, and auto-magically Inuits are no longer a minority group.

That's a neat trick =)

Perhaps for an encore, one could also auto-magically erase the long-term effects of systemized discrimination that they inherit as visible minorities.



Heck, if you really wanted to take this idea of magic word definitions to it's logical extreme, one could visit a few clubs in Montréal, notice that a majority of the people there were gay, and then decide that now homosexuals are the majority group in Canada, and further declare that any news stories describing homosexuals as a minority of the Canadian population are obviously biased PC lies.

I forgot to address the bolded part; maybe because it's so absurd. So you assume that white people automatically discriminated non whites, do you then make the same absurd assumption that the wealthy and powerful in Richmond engage in the same behavior, but towards whites? if not, why not? Basically this is a cliff notes of my previous post to you that you entirely ignored.

[ColdCanadian]

Depending on the context (informal situation?) I would be quick to accept being labelled "visible minority" if I lived in a part of Canada with high immigration, say Brampton ON or Richmond BC...

My interpretation (which doesn't mean other views are wrong) is that "visible minority" is usually just a generic way in Canada of describing people without European ancestry, or Aboriginal ancestry. (I've never heard it used to describe Canada's "native peoples" )

[ColdCanadian]

Just noticed "Kristan" is from California,
so maybe that's why they have a hard time understanding Canadian's "motives" for using this term.

And American culture is now hyper-sensitive to being politically-correct,
so suddenly Canada is starting to look bad because we don't share American's fear of upsetting others.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by ColdCanadian

Depending on the context (informal situation?) I would be quick to accept being labelled "visible minority" if I lived in a part of Canada with high immigration, say Brampton ON or Richmond BC...

My interpretation (which doesn't mean other views are wrong) is that "visible minority" is usually just a generic way in Canada of describing people without European ancestry, or Aboriginal ancestry. (I've never heard it used to describe Canada's "native peoples" )

A Yank weighing here: I have known several Anglo (non Hispanic) White people who have darker skin than many Asians i.e. some folks of Sicilian heritage, etc. Yet they would not qualify as a minority anything. They are lumped in together with Nordic White people here in Arizona.

[dougie86]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

I wasn't aware of anyone claiming that they were. Do you not read the posts that you quote; did you not see the "in Richmond?" I'll ask you the same question that I asked the other guy, maybe you'll actually answer: Yes or no, are Indians and Chinese a "visible minority" in Richmond? I bolded the last part, so you don't somehow miss it again. Why is the color of ones skin so important to you? Why do you advocate racial profiling?

Yes, Chinese are a visible minority in Richmond at 43.6% (see chart 1)
They make up of 12.8% for the whole of Greater Vancouver (chart 2)