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.
I find the term "vm", reprehensible and extremely racist, but that's another topic, for another time. My post has to do with the fact that Richmond, BC is over 65% visible minority, according to StatsCan, I believe. Well, since basic math tells us that 65 is larger than 50, how can they still be considered the "minority", wouldn't white people be the visible minority in Richmond? Thanks
That's what I have been arguing as well. I am offended by the retarded term as well and am shocked that media still use that damn word. Would a white person call himself visibly minority if say he moves to Japan? No, he wouldn't. Such terms are based on the ridiculously racist assumption that Canada is the whites' Canada, and all non-whites are simply something different, something "non-mainstream", people standing on the side.
The fact is, according the StatsCan prediction, in a matter of twenty years, Non-white will compose 1/3 of Canadian's entire population. In big cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, where most economic activities happen, Caucasians will cease to be the majority for sure (30% in Toronto). I don't know how they will feel if the mass media starts to call them "visibly minority". And they would have to tick in the box "do you consider yourself visibly minority?" @&^$$!
The changing face of Canada: booming minority populations by 2031 - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-visible-minority-population-to-nearly-double-by-2031/article1494651/ - broken link)
That's what I have been arguing as well. I am offended by the retarded term as well and am shocked that media still use that damn word. Would a white person call himself visibly minority if say he moves to Japan? No, he wouldn't.
^^ I wouldn't mind, but then our term "visible minority" doesn't offend me.
Why does it matter if many people think most Canadians currently "look" or "don't look" a certain way?
Multiculturalism to me is ideally about enjoying that there are many differences in people who live somewhere,
not pretending that these differences don't exist.
You better be careful when you call someone a visible minority, you could find yourself in front of A Human Rights Tribunal:
"In September 2008, Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) adjudicator Pierre Deschamps ruled that Shiv Chopra, a Punjabi Hindu who’d emigrated to Canada in the 1960s, was entitled to $4,000 in damages for "hurt feelings," lost wages, and interest, finding that Chopra was subjected to discriminatory comments.... The comments in question occurred on Feb. 9. 1998; Chopra was in the audience when his incoming boss at Health Canada, André Lachance, stated that "he likedvisible minorities.” Chopra claimed this was “a racist remark” and Deschamps accepted this argument that this comment was “discriminatory against Mr. Chopra ..."
^^ I wouldn't mind, but then our term "visible minority" doesn't offend me.
Why does it matter if many people think most Canadians currently "look" or "don't look" a certain way?
Multiculturalism to me is ideally about enjoying that there are many differences in people who live somewhere,
not pretending that these differences don't exist.
Better question; why does it matter that many Canadians "look" or "don't look", as you put it, a certain way? Skin color is as arbitrary and inconsequential as handedness or hair color. The term "visible minority" is embarrassing, what exactly is the point, if all people are "created equal?" Do you not think that different languages and foods let people know there are many diverse cultures in Canada? You think an official label, like a scarlet letter A makes it more obvious? Not to mention that it's factually incorrect in some cities, such as Richmond, BC like I cited, where Indians and Chinese make up over 65% of the population, clearly not making them the visible minority; but the overwhelming majority, white people are the visible minority in that case. The whole thing is contrived government enforced liberal pc groupthink, and it's embarrassing.
I find the term "vm", reprehensible and extremely racist, but that's another topic, for another time. My post has to do with the fact that Richmond, BC is over 65% visible minority, according to StatsCan, I believe. Well, since basic math tells us that 65 is larger than 50, how can they still be considered the "minority", wouldn't white people be the visible minority in Richmond? Thanks
Sociologically speaking, the word "minority" can also be used to describe members of non-dominant groups as "minority" not because they make up a minority of the population's numbers, but because they have a minority of the power, wealth, and status within society.
In those cases, people of non-Caucasian ancestry continue to be referred to as "minorities", because of their relative poverty of opportunity when compared to the Dominant group, even though they are not a minority of the population when counted numerically.
Now, if you want to get technical about the use of the word "visible minorities" to describe 65% of the population in areas of British Columbia... then feel free to start using the more-accurate term: "Historical subordinate arbitrarily-defined groups which are recognizably phenotypocologically distinct from the arbitrarily-defined dominant group".
Maybe you can abreviate it to HSADGWARPDFTADDG for short.
Sociologically speaking, the word "minority" can also be used to describe members of non-dominant groups as "minority" not because they make up a minority of the population's numbers, but because they have a minority of the power, wealth, and status within society.
In those cases, people of non-Caucasian ancestry continue to be referred to as "minorities", because of their relative poverty of opportunity when compared to the Dominant group, even though they are not a minority of the population when counted numerically.
Now, if you want to get technical about the use of the word "visible minorities" to describe 65% of the population in areas of British Columbia... then feel free to start using the more-accurate term: "Historical subordinate arbitrarily-defined groups which are recognizably phenotypocologically distinct from the arbitrarily-defined dominant group".
Maybe you can abreviate it to HSADGWARPDFTADDG for short.
Your argument makes no sense. If economic power, which is largely invisible here, is the key, why call people visibly minority, which is purely based on skin color? So basically we are making the assumption that because Caucasians are wealthier and more powerful as the whole, so is each individual Caucasian?
Historically dominant? Really? The white dominated the world for a sheer 5 centuries (starting from the 16th century), and prior to that, for like thousands of years, it was the Chinese etc who occupied the dominant position. Before starting to feel all superior and "dominant", better study history first. I mean, human history, not European history.
Plus, the Western World is in relative decline in the past decades, not only economically, but also demographically. Latinos are eating up the US, Muslims are taking up Germany and France etc, not to mention Canada. Be careful, your daughter and granddaughter are very likely to become part of the HSADGWARPDFTADDG.
Sociologically speaking, the word "minority" can also be used to describe members of non-dominant groups as "minority" not because they make up a minority of the population's numbers, but because they have a minority of the power, wealth, and status within society.
In those cases, people of non-Caucasian ancestry continue to be referred to as "minorities", because of their relative poverty of opportunity when compared to the Dominant group, even though they are not a minority of the population when counted numerically.
Now, if you want to get technical about the use of the word "visible minorities" to describe 65% of the population in areas of British Columbia... then feel free to start using the more-accurate term: "Historical subordinate arbitrarily-defined groups which are recognizably phenotypocologically distinct from the arbitrarily-defined dominant group".
Maybe you can abreviate it to HSADGWARPDFTADDG for short.
or........maybe we can knock off this leftist pc groupthink nonsense and treat everyone as an individual, and not part of some man made subset to fit an agenda; with all due respect, your first paragraph is utter rubbish. Again, to determine that the color of one's skin is what makes them a "minority", whether literal, or sociologically (whatever the heck that means) is so absurd it's laughable. What if it's determined that not only were white people historically powerful and wealthy, but right handed white males named Arnold, were the truly powerful, should everyone not a right handed white male named Arnold be considered a "minority?"
Lastly, why does historical power take precedence over current power? For example, using the example that I gave, Richmond, BC; Indians and Chinese are the financially, politically and socially powerful of that city, so using your own definition, they are not the visible minority, but the visible majority; both literally and sociologically. I know this is contrary to what you were taught in all of your sociology and anthropology classes, but please give it some thought, you'll see it makes sense. Thanks
I find the term "vm", reprehensible and extremely racist, but that's another topic, for another time. My post has to do with the fact that Richmond, BC is over 65% visible minority, according to StatsCan, I believe. Well, since basic math tells us that 65 is larger than 50, how can they still be considered the "minority", wouldn't white people be the visible minority in Richmond? Thanks
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.
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.
A more accurate description... =)
