To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Minorities in Vancouver
So I was reading the paper with stats from statscan
Im just curious the statistic for Richmond was something like 71% of visible minorities...wouldnt that make them not the minority?
Or is minority a word that only reflects caucasians presence in the world
Vancouver and Burnaby are also over 50%
Im just curious the statistic for Richmond was something like 71% of visible minorities...wouldnt that make them not the minority?
Or is minority a word that only reflects caucasians presence in the world
Vancouver and Burnaby are also over 50%
Comments
1.) In the 2001 Census, only 1,346,510 people designated themselves with Chinese descent. In fact, according to the stat, there are actually more Italian (pop. 1,445,335) than Chinese in Canada. Which raises the question, why can't I find a good Italian pasta shop anywhere?
2.) Also, according to the Census, only 3.4% of Canada's population are Chinese. It looks like there are a lot of us in Canada because we pretty much congregated in major cities and there are not much in the countryside. To give you a comparison, there are more Natives in Canada than Chinese, not that it is surprising...
3.) The notion of Ethnic Minority is based upon the notions and values of the people in power, often white. So, yeah...
Well, there are also...
17705 Taiwanese
10015 Thai
3965 Mongolian
if you want data on other Asiatic ethnicity...
But honestly, you will rarely, if ever, find the ethnicity Asian in any census or stat because it is a very convoluted term. Questions such as "Asia ends where?" or "What about the Euro-Asia?" will often be posed.
Visible minority is a term used primarily in Canada to describe persons who are not of the majority race in a given population.
In Canada, visible minorities are defined as "persons, other than Aboriginals, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."
1)To be fair you're using wikipedia
2)The definition you've quoted is obviously based on PC subscriptions, with the exclusions of aboriginals as minorities
They've excluded Aboriginals because the WHITE PEOPLE who came here F*CKED them and the Aboriginals STILL can't get their feet up under them. Yes, of course their excluded from being a "visible minority". They get their own category for being royally f*cked by them WHITE PEOPLE.
Oh, was this post PC enough for you?
As for the thread, i am white and i feel like a very visible minority in Vancouver.
:/
2) second does it really matter if they got fucked over? they should still fall within the category of visible minority by technical standards, definitions should be objective without bias, whether the bias is good or bad--further; keeping themselves distanced from the rest of society further perpetuates stereotypes and differences in the world
Oh, sorry I didn't know I was writing a paper here...Intellectual references...gimme a break. All definitions are defined specifically for some purpose. There is no perfect all-inclusive definition for anything.
You find me a definition for "definition" that backs up what you're trying to say because in my studies, EVERY definitions comes with exclusions and exceptions. Try taking a biology class or...any science for that matter.
Oh ya, remember to find an "intellectual" source. I'll shut up if it's been cited by others a million times.
im trying to have an intellectual debate, or looking at etymology, when you make definitions its great to have them as bias free as possible--IE why would aboriginals not be considered in a minority as opposed to other minorities
i personally dont find the logic that cause they were fucked over sensible in relation to the term minority, minority is mathmatically bound although judged by an outward qualitative appearance, but still in relation to numbers? so why would something qualitative like history change the def
How do you explain what category someone half asian-half white goes into? Judge it by your standard of "qualitative appearance". Since minority is MATHEMATICALLY bound, how do you propose you tackle this? 50% can swing either way. Either way, you're neither right nor wrong.
You say definitions are supposed to be bias free as possible, but that is entirely up to whoever is creating the definition (based on assumptions, exceptions to the rules, etc). In our case of "visible minorities"...it EXCLUDES aboriginals (as rule of the definition).
and youre right i dont have a good way to define people who are bi-racial, in fact there is no good way in census information, or any good way socially to define anyone like this...but how many of us are exactly 100% white to begin with?
also with bi-raciality if you count minority as visible minority then that kind of does solve that....unless you cant really tell then the whole thing is confounded IE even though hes not bi-racial, Michael Jackson
lastly, i was thinking more of a global definition of minority if you see the context of my other posts i was searching for a definition that was outside of just one country, one continent, nor at any point have a made an exclusive claim of what minority is cause im still puzzled
i just personally dont agree with natives not being minority compared to other assumptions of what a minority is, i mean if we are going to count natives as not a minority, then why count chinese as not? when they came in the early 1900's and white people were lynching them, being cruel, and turning some away, had they not received such bad treatment back them maybe their numbers would have been higher now
its ironic living in a capitalist society saying this, but i dont buy the fact they land originally belonged to the natives, you can just own an entire continent square foot by square foot even if you dont inhabit it--native land reserves are a good reparation for their own home areas being taken away but beyond that...
if you have any other good reasons why they shouldnt be minorities put them out, if theres one i can accept i will