Whites to Attain Minority Status?

[Bonam]

There was never a Finnish state until one came into existence. And there were other European states. Just one example.

Like it or not, there cannot be a peace without Israel AND a Palestinian state, mutually recognized and with borders that make these two states as liveable as possible.

Prey tell. What would be the status of the Palestinians if there was a peace on your terms?

They'd have 100% of Gaza and something like 98% of the West Bank. That's about the best they can realistically hope for.

[CANADIEN]

They'd have 100% of Gaza and something like 98% of the West Bank. That's about the best they can realistically hope for.

It's that what they get, with full statehood, that's fine by me. That would mean, though, that most Israeli settlements in the occupied terrotories would have to go.

[Bonam]

It's that what they get, with full statehood, that's fine by me. That would mean, though, that most Israeli settlements in the occupied terrotories would have to go.

Yup. They wouldn't get East Jerusalem though, nor would they get a right of return (to Israel).

Edited August 14, 2011 by Bonam

[CANADIEN]

Yup. They wouldn't get East Jerusalem though, nor would they get a right of return (to Israel).

II think at least some of the Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem ought to form a part of a Palestinian state. Complicated issue when it comes to the Temple Mount. Israeli control of it has proven better (a lot better) than Jordanian control between 1948 and 1967. Wide access for both Muslim and Jewish pilgrims to the mosques and the Wall, respectively, is paramount.

And the right of return within the borders of the State of Insrael is just not feasable. Period.

[Bonam]

II think at least some of the Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem ought to form a part of a Palestinian state. Complicated issue when it comes to the Temple Mount. Israeli control of it has proven better (a lot better) than Jordanian control between 1948 and 1967. Wide access for both Muslim and Jewish pilgrims to the mosques and the Wall, respectively, is paramount.

And the right of return within the borders of the State of Insrael is just not feasable. Period.

Predominately Palestinian-populated parts of East Jerusalem could probably be handed over, as long as it didn't create thin necks or enclaves of Jews surrounded by a Palestinian state or create tactical/strategic vulnerabilities due to terrain. If Palestinians could agree on as much as you just did, negotiations would have a lot better chance of actually leading somewhere.

[CANADIEN]

Predominately Palestinian-populated parts of East Jerusalem could probably be handed over, as long as it didn't create thin necks or enclaves of Jews surrounded by a Palestinian state or create tactical/strategic vulnerabilities due to terrain. If Palestinians could agree on as much as you just did, negotiations would have a lot better chance of actually leading somewhere.

It would also have to be agreed upon by the Israeli government. Fat chance with Netanyahu.

[Bonam]

It would also have to be agreed upon by the Israeli government. Fat chance with Netanyahu.

Israel has gone through many governments, with varying levels of amenability to a deal that could at least be a reasonable starting point for negotiations. Furthermore, the Israeli government actually exerts the sovereignty to implement such a deal, should it enter into one. On the other hand, the Palestinian leadership has for decades refused to give up on claims that are pointless and achievable (such as the right to return). And, even when individual Palestinian leaders have been amenable to what they considered a reasonable negotiation, they never exerted the sovereignty to enforce that decision were it to be implemented. For example, while Abbas negotiated with Netanyahu, Hamas continued to declare its continued resolve to resist Israel, and Palestinian leaders residing abroad said that Abbas had no right to surrender Palestinian claims to all of Israel, and that they would not be bound by his decisions.

The reality is that for a negotiation to have meaning, both sides of the deal need to have the capability to implement what they agree to. It does no good for Abbas to agree to something reasonable if Hamas then turns around and starts launching more rockets into Israel. Until the Palestinians are united under a strong and capable leadership that can persuade the Palestinian people to accept the terms of a difficult compromise treaty, they have no chance of achieving their sovereign state.

[jbg]

It would also have to be agreed upon by the Israeli government. Fat chance with Netanyahu.

Netanyahu would agree to a deal if such a deal were sought by the Arabs. They have expressed no interest in making a deal; only Western leaders saying they ought to be so interested.

[CANADIEN]

Netanyahu would agree to a deal if such a deal were sought by the Arabs. They have expressed no interest in making a deal; only Western leaders saying they ought to be so interested.

When PALESTINIAN leadership recognize the right of the Israel to exist, I'll believe they are interested in a real deal. When Netanyahu stops expending the settlements, I'll believe he's interested in a real deal.

[M.Dancer]

A "visible minority" is someone that is limited or hindered in social privilege because of some visible characteristic, most notably skin colour, but also gender, sexual orientation (where it's visible), religious affiliation and/or disability.

Women can be visible minorities?

[cybercoma]

Women can be visible minorities?

Yes they can, even though there are more women by population.

[M.Dancer]

Yes they can, even though there are more women by population.

So in other words, it can mean what ever you want it to mean...

[cybercoma]

So in other words, it can mean what ever you want it to mean...

No. It means exactly what I said it means. How many times do I have to repeat that it has nothing to do with population and everything to do with privilege?

[M.Dancer]

No. It means exactly what I said it means. How many times do I have to repeat that it has nothing to do with population and everything to do with privilege?

As many times as you need to. Won't make it right nor will it make a majority a minority. Nor will it make the privileged minorities oppressed.

It will make you look silly though....

[cybercoma]

It's simple, really. Only an idiot would see Whites as a minority group in South Africa during Apartheid. The Black population was many times larger, but sociologically they were the minority group in that situation.

[cybercoma]

If you're not even willing to use the terms in their proper context, then there's no point in even having a discussion with you.

[M.Dancer]

If you're not even willing to use the terms in their proper context, then there's no point in even having a discussion with you.

WHat? You already decided that the proper context was too narrow....and decided that it is what ever you want it to mean.

Lets refresh...

A visible minority is a person who is visibly not one of the majority race in a given population.

The term is used as a demographic category by Statistics Canada in connection with that country's Employment Equity policies. The qualifier "visible" is important in the Canadian context where political divisions were traditionally determined by language (English vs. French) and religion (Catholics vs. Protestants), or by ethnic background - "invisible" traits. Since the reform of Canada's immigration laws in the 1960s, immigration has been heaviest from areas other than Europe, thus creating visible minorities. Members of visible minorities are defined by the Canadian Employment Equity Act as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."[1] The term is used to address the alleged labour market disadvantage of this group.

That definitely does not include a gender or sexual orientation....not does it even include whther someone is privileged or not.

The only other definition I am aware of, is yours.

I for one have no problem either discussing the accepted version, or your own.

[M.Dancer]

It's simple, really. Only an idiot would see Whites as a minority group in South Africa during Apartheid. The Black population was many times larger, but sociologically they were the minority group in that situation.

There are no visible minorities in South Africa. But they were and are a minority.

except I assume for the mathematically challenged...

[Oleg Bach]

Upper middle class whites are well trained in economy - in the idea of having a work ethic - they still hold the values of their grand parents - They are proper - they have children - they own homes - they do not give in fully to debauchery through booze - drugs and experimental unhealthy sex - WHITES rule.

[Wild Bill]

There are no visible minorities in South Africa. But they were and are a minority.

except I assume for the mathematically challenged...

You can't win this one, Morris. To you (and anyone else who speaks the Queen's English) a minority is a smaller percentage of a whole or group. Of course, we use dictionaries.

To CC, a minority is a slang term, meaning disadvantaged or oppressed. I guess that means if you said that a minority of eggs are brown then it would also mean that those eggss are discriminated against.

I've always understood how slang becomes popular but until I read CC's post I never realized it had displaced the dictionary.

[cybercoma]

The problem is you guys want to have a sociological discussion about disadvantaged groups, known as minority groups in academia, but use it interchangeably with a mathematical minority. A person is not part of a sociological minority group simply because they are part of the mathematical minority. Whites in South Africa during Apartheid were a mathematical minority, but they certainly were not a "minority group" nor did they have "minority status", as the thread title indicates, because in that context we're talking about status in regards to power and privilege. When you talk about Whites attaining minority status, you're not simply talking about numbers. You're conflating that concept of minority with the idea that Whites will somehow be in a disadvantaged position. They won't. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding some fundamental concepts about the meaning of "minority groups".

[M.Dancer]

The problem is you guys want to have a sociological discussion about disadvantaged groups, known as minority groups in academia, but use it interchangeably with a mathematical minority. A person is not part of a sociological minority group simply because they are part of the mathematical minority. Whites in South Africa during Apartheid were a mathematical minority, but they certainly were not a "minority group" nor did they have "minority status", as the thread title indicates, because in that context we're talking about status in regards to power and privilege. When you talk about Whites attaining minority status, you're not simply talking about numbers. You're conflating that concept of minority with the idea that Whites will somehow be in a disadvantaged position. They won't. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding some fundamental concepts about the meaning of "minority groups".

Oh that's nonsense...but that is really your own problem.

The Japanese are the second largest Asian group in Canada. They are indeed a minority and a "visible

minority"

Now tell me because they aren't disadvantaged, they are not a visible minority...

[Shwa]

The problem is you guys want to have a sociological discussion about disadvantaged groups, known as minority groups in academia, but use it interchangeably with a mathematical minority. A person is not part of a sociological minority group simply because they are part of the mathematical minority. Whites in South Africa during Apartheid were a mathematical minority, but they certainly were not a "minority group" nor did they have "minority status", as the thread title indicates, because in that context we're talking about status in regards to power and privilege. When you talk about Whites attaining minority status, you're not simply talking about numbers. You're conflating that concept of minority with the idea that Whites will somehow be in a disadvantaged position. They won't. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding some fundamental concepts about the meaning of "minority groups".

What is missing is context, for example, women in the workplace were in a 'minority' and thus the requirement for Employment Equity programs to address the issues of numbers. They question now is, do women occupy an equal part of the workplace with regard to numbers in different sectors of the workplace or do they still constitute a 'minority?'

Women are not considered 'visible minorities' for the purposes of legislation, even though they might be visibly in the minority in a given workplace or job sector.

http://jobs-emplois.gc.ca/centres/definitions-eng.htm

[jacee]

- they do not give in fully to debauchery through booze - drugs and experimental unhealthy sex - WHITES rule.

It's (white) judges, lawyers, politicians, cops, etc. who keep the the child porn and sexual abuse network profitable, run by (white) Hell's Angels

Oleg you are a delusional white supremist.

[cybercoma]

Women are a minority group in the workplace not because of their mathematical numbers in the workplace, but because they make less money, are more likely to be part-time wanting to work full-time and are less likely to be promoted. They have less power than their male counterparts. That's what makes them a minority group when it comes to employment.

These laws were written after years of academic research and analysis by social policy professionals. The specific law is not THE definition of minority group. They simply borrowed it from the academic jargon and defined it legally for a particular purpose.

I don't care which definition people want to use, whether it's mathematical minority, sociological minority, or the legal definition from the Employment Equity Act. However, people need to be much clearer about what definition they're using in their arguments here. To say whites will attain minority status means something entirely different if you mean simply a mathematical minority. It means something entirely different if you mean a sociological minority or the legal definition of a minority group under the EEA.