Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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)
If they make up 43.6 % of the population, and that is greater than any other "group", then are they not the majority? Not saying that they do, don't have the #'s regarding Indians in Richmond, but just curious.
If they make up 43.6 % of the population, and that is greater than any other "group", then are they not the majority? Not saying that they do, don't have the #'s regarding Indians in Richmond, but just curious.
Guess we have to wait till the numbers come out in 2011 Census.
Remember that there was a significant number of HK families opted for non-resident status after 1997 takeover and the perceived danger subsided.
CBC or was it CTV aired recently that by 2031 "visible minority" in Canada will mean "white", and South Indians will be the largest group of all ethnicity.
Frankly, your topic or flow of argument does not interest me. Words are often ambiguous. Writing on the wall is open to interpretation. The last time I ranted about crime, a couple of weeks later a dead body turned up at a luxury condo in Yaletown. RCMP had 87 investigations on one particular address that did not land on a single charge. Every time I passed by a signage "book club" and the pictographs meant "Emperor holding court", I felt a chill down my spine. What do I know that others don't already knew. So I won't dwell on this topic any further. Have a nice weekend.
If they make up 43.6 % of the population, and that is greater than any other "group", then are they not the majority? Not saying that they do, don't have the #'s regarding Indians in Richmond, but just curious.
You see he wrongfully assumes that you need to have either 50% or higher of the population designated to a particular group in order to qualify as the majority. This is the same assumption people make when "whites" are less than 50% of the population. They can still be the majority group if they fall under 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougie86
CBC or was it CTV aired recently that by 2031 "visible minority" in Canada will mean "white", and South Indians will be the largest group of all ethnicity.
And that's assuming the current immigration trends continue for the next 2 decades, and at the moment it's at an explosive rate. The city of Toronto can barely handle the influx at the moment.
Sonrise is a sharp enough cookie to have figured out that, in a system which contains more than 2 categories, it's quite possible to be classified as the majority while being less than 50% of the whole.
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.
Well, people would presumably find it odd if their designated group identity changed several times a day, merely because they had crossed the boundary between one city and another.
Usually, people think of group designations such as "visible minority" as being much much more than an indicator of what town the person being spoken of is standing in at the moment of speech.
Many would consider it ludicrous to say, "You, Sir, are *not* a visible minority as we are standing in Richmond at the moment, but if we were 30 miles away then I might accept your claim to being a visible minority as true."
So, I naturally assumed when replying to you, that you couldn't possibly mean that definitions of widely-used group designation words should change city-by-city based upon the latest demographic information.
Apparently, I was wrong in my assumption, and you are in fact suggesting this. My mistake.
Well, people would presumably find it odd if their designated group identity changed several times a day, merely because they had crossed the boundary between one city and another.
Usually, people think of group designations such as "visible minority" as being much much more than an indicator of what town the person being spoken of is standing in at the moment of speech.
Many would consider it ludicrous to say, "You, Sir, are *not* a visible minority as we are standing in Richmond at the moment, but if we were 30 miles away then I might accept your claim to being a visible minority as true."
So, I naturally assumed when replying to you, that you couldn't possibly mean that definitions of widely-used group designation words should change city-by-city based upon the latest demographic information.
Apparently, I was wrong in my assumption, and you are in fact suggesting this. My mistake.
And many people, including myself, find it odd that other people feel the compulsion to put people in "designated groups" in the first place.
I must say, though, the US Census Bureau site does have some very cool interactive maps which nicely break down each state by skin colour and ethnicity.
Of course, if your question is truly the larger one of "Why can't we all just be recognized as individuals?", then it's not really Canada specific and likely belongs in Great Debates or Politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, I see.
