Whites to Attain Minority Status?

[Jack Weber]

Wow....you mean when someone calls Farrakhan racist, they are being ant-white?

I have always considered anti racist to be code for anti-sub par IQ idiot

Welcome to Lictor/Mr.Canada World...

[WWWTT]

Yes--- we too could have the civil wars of Africa--- the slaughters and cannibalism of Uganda, the pleasures of the Somalian famines and the kindness of the Middle Eastern despots all rolled up into one country known as Canada if we can only continue to give our citizenship so easily. The Americans stopped importing desolation so I guess Canada had to fill in for them. Send us your Terrorists, your despots, you people who have sucked the goodness out of their birth countries & are looking for new places in which to make desolation.

Are you saying we never had civil wars or rebellions in Canada or North America?

Are you saying there was never any groups of people in Canada that have suffered great losses or were never coralled into small corners to live?

Are you saying that there were never any groups in Canada that suffered from famine through the loss of one of their main food sources(buffalo)?

Are you saying that there never was any religuos repression in any parts of Canada at any time?

What is it about Canadian history that you do not like that has put you into such an incredible denial?

WWWTT

[Bonam]

1. Whites are and have always been a minority worldwide.

2. A simple consideration of the math can trivially show that with a below replacement birth rate (less than ~2.1 children per woman per lifetime), and an immigration rate greater than zero, the descendants of an original host population will always become a minority after some amount of time. It comes right from the math and can't be escaped.

3. Saying that not having "whites" as a distinct race would be no loss, or would even be better off for the world (as some have said/implied in this thread and others on related topics) is no less racist than saying the same thing about blacks or Asians (in which case it would generally be interpreted as a call for genocide and condemned in the strongest possible terms).

4. There is nothing morally wrong with some people having a sentimental attachment to the long term existence of various phenotypes.I have no problem admitting, for example, that I wouldn't mind if descendants of mine still had some passing resemblance to me a few generations down the road.

[Remiel]

4. There is nothing morally wrong with some people having a sentimental attachment to the long term existence of various phenotypes.I have no problem admitting, for example, that I wouldn't mind if descendants of mine still had some passing resemblance to me a few generations down the road.

Out of curiosity, if your descendants did not have any resemblance to your looks, but did possess something of your smarts, would this less obvious resemblance satisfy your sentiment attachment to your own qualities?

[Bonam]

Out of curiosity, if your descendants did not have any resemblance to your looks, but did possess something of your smarts, would this less obvious resemblance satisfy your sentiment attachment to your own qualities?

I don't know if there's any particular threshold to "satisfy". Certainly, there are many other things that can be passed down besides physical appearance.

[cybercoma]

People are conflating two different ideas of minority.

Def. 1: Minority as a sociological term refers to a groups relationship to institutional power.

Def. 2: Minority as a statistic simply refers to the numbers of people.

People are switching between the two as though becoming a minority (def. 2) automatically means you'll be a minority (def. 1). Throughout history "whites" have been minorities (def. 2) in countries, but absolutely were not minorities in the sociological sense, since they controlled the institutions and held the power. It would be nice if people could be clear about which definition they are using, rather than switching between the two as though they mean the same thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

People are conflating two different ideas of minority.

Def. 1: Minority as a sociological term refers to a groups relationship to institutional power.

Def. 2: Minority as a statistic simply refers to the numbers of people.

OK...so which definition applies to Canada's laughable framework for "visible minorities"?

[cybercoma]

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

LOL! I knew you would dodge that curveball.

[cybercoma]

LOL! I knew you would dodge that curveball.

I'm not dodging anything. Minority group is a sociological term, as well as the obvious statistical term and people here are using them interchangeably. Given that, I'm sure you can figure out what "visible minorities" means.

[Bonam]

OK...so which definition applies to Canada's laughable framework for "visible minorities"?

In Canada, visible minority pretty explicitly means "not white". I believe it also excludes natives. As such, it relates to neither of cybercoma's definitions.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

In Canada, visible minority pretty explicitly means "not white". I believe it also excludes natives. As such, it relates to neither of cybercoma's definitions.

Agreed....the provided definitions were incomplete. The curious Canadian term is germane to the Employment Equity Act, but is used in other government programs.

It is not clear whether "derived" classification is self (person) identified or assigned by government based on visible colour or "racial" attributes as defined here:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/concepts/definitions/minority-minorite1-eng.htm

Edited July 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Employment Equity exists because of the disadvantaged position "visibly different" people face in getting jobs. As such, they are "minorities" by the sociological definition and they are lacking institutional power because they are visibly different from those in power, thus visible minorities.

[bush_cheney2004]

Employment Equity exists because of the disadvantaged position "visibly different" people face in getting jobs. As such, they are "minorities" by the sociological definition and they are lacking institutional power because they are visibly different from those in power, thus visible minorities.

Unless "aboriginal", so that doesn't compute, as that group is excluded. Who gets to define the attributes for "non white"...white people?

[cybercoma]

Unless "aboriginal", so that doesn't compute, as that group is excluded. Who gets to define the attributes for "non white"...white people?

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. All I'm saying is that there are two definitions of minority, the sociological and the statistical.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. All I'm saying is that there are two definitions of minority, the sociological and the statistical.

No, upon further review, it appears that other aspects are in play, at least for Canada. Besides, it is always fun to bring up the very idea of a "visible minority" whenever one of these scared white people threads get started.

[cybercoma]

Ok. So there are other aspects in play. That still doesn't change the fact that people are using two different definitions interchangeably. That's all I'm bringing attention to.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok. So there are other aspects in play. That still doesn't change the fact that people are using two different definitions interchangeably. That's all I'm bringing attention to.

Well, since the government does the same thing, it is to be expected.

[Bonam]

Employment Equity exists because of the disadvantaged position "visibly different" people face in getting jobs.

Who is "visibly different" in Greater Vancouver?

[Peter F]

the Managerial Clase makes the determination. and you dont get to be in that class unless you conform.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who is "visibly different" in Greater Vancouver?

Canucks fans after a Game 7 loss?

[Scotty]

Ummm. I think it is called a "history book."

Depending on whether you take "history" as "evidence" mind you...

So if something was good in the past, that means it's good in the present? Is that what you're saying?

[Scotty]

If you accept that population growth is good for the economy, and that without immigration, there would be almost no population growth in Canada, then you must, at least tentativly, accept by extension that immigration is good for the economy.

But I don't accept that population growth is good for the economy. A bigger economy is not necessarily a better economy. A bigger pie gets divided into more mouths, but if each mouth isn't getting more pie then there's no improvement.

The population of this country was much lower when I was growing up, and I have not seen any improvement in our economic fortunes since that time.

[Scotty]

Is your real life name Helen Keller?

Of the 34 million people in Canada, about 32 million plus are immigrants to the country.

Thank you for making my point about the kind of people who are enthusiastic about immigration while being nearly completely free of knowledge or the ability to think.

[Shwa]

So if something was good in the past, that means it's good in the present? Is that what you're saying?

Is that what I am saying? Or is that all you are getting? There is a difference.

For one, you asked for "evidence" and I have suppplied a whole category of evidence. All you supply (above) is how it was back in the day for you, the

.

I was going to supply links to sources about Canada being in the G7, G8, G20, etc. How our economy is doing comparatively worldwide, how it has grown and so forth, but I suspect that you would prefer your internal fiction over anything I can cite. In other words, reality is overmatched against your fixed ideas.