Whites to Attain Minority Status?

[Bonam]

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.

The word you're looking for is "disadvantaged", not minority. The reason you are confused is because being a numerical minority is very frequently accompanied by being disadvantaged in some way, though not always (exceptions include as you mentioned, South Africa, but also many modern day Western countries with affirmative action laws). As a result of this correlation, you apparently have read some poorly written papers/articles where people use the terms "disadvantaged" and "minority" interchangeably, when minority in fact has a very clear and specific meaning.

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.

Obviously the meaning is that they will become a numerical minority. Whether becoming a numerical minority means that Whites will become disadvantaged is debatable. One could argue that, in Canada, our laws will adapt and change over time to help to keep all groups equal under the law. On the other hand, one could also argue that as other groups become the majority, they may try to change or maintain the laws (via our democratic system) to benefit themselves. For example, one could easily envision the case where, long after whites have become a minority group and "employment equity" has been achieved, laws that benefit blacks/Asians when it comes to employment are nonetheless maintained. Much like laws designed to equalize the situation of women in education and the workplace have been maintained across the board, even though in many fields women have reached equality or even surpassed it.

In any case, there is no point trying to continue to obfuscate the debate with the semantic argument.

Whites becoming a numerical minority is a foregone conclusion unless immigration policies are drastically altered in the next 1-2 decades. Whether and to what extent that will be followed by becoming socially/economically disadvantaged is debatable, but thousands of years of human history indicating a propensity for tensions on racial and ethnic grounds are not in good agreement with those who predict that everything will be peachy.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

The word you're looking for is "disadvantaged", not minority. The reason you are confused is because being a numerical minority is very frequently accompanied by being disadvantaged in some way, though not always (exceptions include as you mentioned, South Africa, but also many modern day Western countries with affirmative action laws). As a result of this correlation, you apparently have read some poorly written papers/articles where people use the terms "disadvantaged" and "minority" interchangeably, when minority in fact has a very clear and specific meaning.

Obviously the meaning is that they will become a numerical minority. Whether becoming a numerical minority means that Whites will become disadvantaged is debatable. One could argue that, in Canada, our laws will adapt and change over time to help to keep all groups equal under the law. On the other hand, one could also argue that as other groups become the majority, they may try to change or maintain the laws (via our democratic system) to benefit themselves. For example, one could easily envision the case where, long after whites have become a minority group and "employment equity" has been achieved, laws that benefit blacks/Asians when it comes to employment are nonetheless maintained. Much like laws designed to equalize the situation of women in education and the workplace have been maintained across the board, even though in many fields women have reached equality or even surpassed it.

In any case, there is no point trying to continue to obfuscate the debate with the semantic argument.

Whites becoming a numerical minority is a foregone conclusion unless immigration policies are drastically altered in the next 1-2 decades. Whether and to what extent that will be followed by becoming socially/economically disadvantaged is debatable, but thousands of years of human history indicating a propensity for tensions on racial and ethnic grounds are not in good agreement with those who predict that everything will be peachy.

The problem isnt immigration though. Its the fact we have a negative birthrate, and the government needs immigrants to facilitate economic growth. If negative birthrate continues then we are headed for obscurity no matter WHAT government policy is.

If people really care about this they should approach it from the opposite angle and try to fix the negative birthrate. And the ironic thing is that the same people whining about immigration are also the first ones to complain about programs that would help families have more children.

[cybercoma]

All the sources that I had for the academic definition of "minority" required a subscription, but there is an excellent wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

[Bonam]

If people really care about this they should approach it from the opposite angle and try to fix the negative birthrate. And the ironic thing is that the same people whining about immigration are also the first ones to complain about programs that would help families have more children.

Not all. I'm for programs that incentivize people having more children.

[dre]

Not all. I'm for programs that incentivize people having more children.

You see my point though right? If whites have a negative birthrate for long enough then eventually there will be ZERO of us.

And WE are the ones driving immigration. We have had similar policy for most of the last century. We allow in as many people as we need to try to keep growth stable at about .9 percent, and remain a growth economy.

A country that isnt growing or is even shrinking like ours would be without immigration, has a completely diferent kind of economy, and there would be a huge lifestyle adjustment involved for all Canadians if we lived during a time of contraction, both economic and in terms of population. At some point we will have to deal with this... we cant grow infinitely... and once we get their we will need completely diferent political and economic systems. Thats a long way off though.

IMO our immigration policy has been pretty much right.

[bush_cheney2004]

All the sources that I had for the academic definition of "minority" required a subscription....

LOL! That is very funny.....and ironic.

[jbg]

All the sources that I had for the academic definition of "minority" required a subscription, but there is an excellent wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

The U.S. Supreme Court, in City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 105 S. Ct. 3249, (1985), quoting the famous "footnote 4" in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 58 S.Ct. 778 (1938) stated:

But the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit other results under virtually all circumstances, such as castes created by law along racial or ethnic lines..... (citations only omitted), and significantly constrains the range of permissible government choices where gender or illegitimacy, for example, are concerned. Where such constraints, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, are present, and where history teaches that they have systemically been ignored, a “more searching judicial inquiry” is required. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 784 n. 4, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938).

***************

The discreteness and insularity warranting a “more searching judicial inquiry,” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 784 n. 4, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938), must therefore be viewed from a social and cultural perspective as well as a political one.

City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 472, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3271, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985).

In Carolene Products, footnote 4 the Court stated:

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, (citations omitted) , or racial minorities (citations omitted); whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, 58 S. Ct. 778, 784, 82 L. Ed. 1234 (1938)

The point that the Supreme Court made is that a group is a minority if the political process does not and cannot work for that group.

I think this definition is succinct and appropriate.

[Bonam]

You see my point though right? If whites have a negative birthrate for long enough then eventually there will be ZERO of us.

Of course. That's why I'd support programs that would boost the birth rate to above replacement levels.

[Shwa]

Of course. That's why I'd support programs that would boost the birth rate to above replacement levels.

Even the deciminalization of bigamy, polygamy and banning abortion?

[bush_cheney2004]

You see my point though right? If whites have a negative birthrate for long enough then eventually there will be ZERO of us.

Zero of what? "Caucasians"? Whites? Don't worry, "whites" will live on in perpetuity with a new version of the "one drop rule".

[Bonam]

Even the deciminalization of bigamy, polygamy and banning abortion?

First, I didn't say "any and all programs", just "programs". Obviously, there are many programs I wouldn't support. Such as government forcing people to reproduce against their will in collectivized breeding facilities. In regards to bigamy and polygamy, I don't know that the laws affecting such a tiny minority of people would have a significant effect on overall birth rates. That being said, I believe people should have the right to engage in whatever kind of relationships and marriages they want to, even ones including more than two individuals, so long as criminal abuse is not involved. It's a matter of individual rights, though it could have negative consequences on society as a whole if it became prevalent. As for banning abortion, that is a contentious topic and there are fundamental considerations in that debate that likely outweigh utilitarian concerns like national birth rates (the woman's right to freedom vs the unborn fetus' right to life).

What I had more in mind were economic incentives.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Bonam

[Dissenter]

The problem isnt immigration though. Its the fact we have a negative birthrate, and the government needs immigrants to facilitate economic growth. If negative birthrate continues then we are headed for obscurity no matter WHAT government policy is.

Immigrants cost $23B a year

JFK once called an immigration bill that would allow 250,000 immigrants per year, "the most liberal bill offered in recent years." Last year, regardless of serious global economic problems, the government of Canada brought more than that into a country with a 10th of America's population AND the Globe & Mail reported that the unemployment rate for immigrants in Toronto, the largest immigrant community in the country, was nearly 20%.

So, not only are you wrong on that, but:

"For the economy" does not justify white genocide.

"Low birth rate", does not justify white genocide.

"Because of history" does not justify white genocide.

"We all bleed red" does not justify white genocide.

"We are all human" does not justify white genocide.

"Race is just a social construct" does not justify white genocide.

Since 1948, international law has defined genocide as the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

Raphael Lemkin, who created the word, used it broadly to describe not only outright extermination, but also demographic restructuring and policies that bring about the destruction of culture, language, national feelings and religion.

Asian countries for Asians.

Black countries for blacks.

Israel for Jews.

White countries for everyone!

It's genocide.

There is NO justification for genocide.

[cybercoma]

White genocide!

[KylePorter]

Even the UN has said that mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" is making white children minorities in every white country.

You anti-whites should have the courage of your convictions and not come out with these lame weasel words to try and deny the observable and documented reality that you are demographically replacing whites with non-whites via your imposition of mass immigration and "assimilation" on all white countries and ONLY white countries.

You say you are anti-racist,but you only ever argue against white interests,and white racial survival.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

[CANADIEN]

White genocide!

Lictor... err I mean Dissenter.

It is very unlikely that a woman in her right mind would consider procreating with you if she knew what kind of drivel you promote. Which means that you are unlikely of have descendants. Less white babies.

You are guilty of white genocide...

[KylePorter]

White genocide!

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

"Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out."

Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)?

Of course you anti-whites are going to deny you are committing geNOcide against your fellow white citizens,just like any criminal will deny they are guilty of committing crimes.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

[CANADIEN]

Even the UN has said that mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" is making white children minorities in every white country.

You anti-whites should have the courage of your convictions and not come out with these lame weasel words to try and deny the observable and documented reality that you are demographically replacing whites with non-whites via your imposition of mass immigration and "assimilation" on all white countries and ONLY white countries.

You say you are anti-racist,but you only ever argue against white interests,and white racial survival.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Lictor, Litor, Lictor... You don't really believe that anyone will be fooled by your attempt at making people believe there are more than one person posting your drivel, do you?

Now, would you be kind enough to explain to me how white-skinned people being less than 50% of Canada's popultion would lead to white-skinned men procreating with white-skinned women and having white-skinned babies? Because that's what would need to happen for white-skinned population to disappear.

Edited August 17, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Of course you anti-whites are going to deny you are committing geNOcide against your fellow white citizens,just like any criminal will deny they are guilty of committing crimes.

And I have heard that the Eastern Bunny is denying he's leaving eggs all over the place one Sunday a year.

Anti-white is Lictor/Dissenter/Kyle code for "not being a racist loser".

[Shwa]

White genocide!

But since it is the whites bringing it upon themselves, it is more likely white suicide. Mostly likely caused by all that white guilt.

[Oleg Bach]

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.

Naw - not really. Just sticking up for those of my adopted tribe - give browns and blacks and Asians - the same white rights that we have - they will become as debauched as their pale skinned counter parts. The point I always make is not racist or supremist...it's just a case of being loyal to extended genetic family - The Jews are loyal to their own - Asians are loyal to their own etc...nothing wrong with a bit of charity begining at home.

[Oleg Bach]

But since it is the whites bringing it upon themselves, it is more likely white suicide. Mostly likely caused by all that white guilt.

There is no such thing as white guilt - My father was always disturbed by the constant use of the anglo phrase "I am sorry" - Dad beleived if you were truely sorry you would not have done what you did to begin with. Whites are not sorry for anything - They just pander to visable minorities in order to maniputlate them.

[Shwa]

There is no such thing as white guilt - My father was always disturbed by the constant use of the anglo phrase "I am sorry" - Dad beleived if you were truely sorry you would not have done what you did to begin with. Whites are not sorry for anything - They just pander to visable minorities in order to maniputlate them.

Oh, well, uh, thanks for that. Carry on...

[cybercoma]

But since it is the whites bringing it upon themselves, it is more likely white suicide. Mostly likely caused by all that white guilt.

Brilliant!

[KylePorter]

Lictor, Litor, Lictor... You don't really believe that anyone will be fooled by your attempt at making people believe there are more than one person posting your drivel, do you?

Now, would you be kind enough to explain to me how white-skinned people being less than 50% of Canada's popultion would lead to white-skinned men procreating with white-skinned women and having white-skinned babies? Because that's what would need to happen for white-skinned population to disappear.

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

"Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out."

Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)?

Of course you anti-whites are going to deny you are committing geNOcide against your fellow white citizens,just like any criminal will deny they are guilty of committing crimes.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

See what I mean now,anti-white?

Oh yes,there are many pro-white anti-geNOcide camapigners spreading the word about you anti-white cultists and your agenda of white geNOcide.

Google B.U.G.S Swarm and White Rabbit Radio.

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/

http://whiterabbitradio.net/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeeKfLZW3uY

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Edited August 17, 2011 by KylePorter

[Shwa]

See what I mean now,anti-white?

Oh yes,there are many pro-white anti-geNOcide camapigners spreading the word about you anti-white cultists and your agenda of white geNOcide.

Google B.U.G.S Swarm and White Rabbit Radio.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Depressed and suicidal? Call the Centre for Suicide Prevention.

Anti-Racist = White-Suicide = Anti-White