Hmmm, what about when white people are less than 50% of the population

[((A))P]

huh? how does minority imply inferiority?
blacks, for example, are a minority in the U.S. even if they're a majority in other parts of the world. That's a physical fact, what's offensive about saying that?

minor:
1. lesser, as in size, extent, or importance, or being or noting the lesser of two: a minor share. 
2. not serious, important, etc.: a minor wound; a minor role. 
3. having low rank, status, position, etc.: a minor official. 

regardless of whether it is offensive or not, or if it is intended to be purely statistical i was focusing on the implied meaning of minority. to label a people as minor implies a sense of unimportance or a sense of lower rank. within the boundries of the u.s. people of African descent are less than half of the population, this is a fact. My critique focuses less on the word minority as such but rather the whole discourse surronding it and the political act of placing a community of people within that discourse.

[tzip]

so you're saying race shouldn't even be an issue in politics or elsewhere. I agree. But for race to stop being an issue, that is, for communities not be recognized as minorities by their race/ethnicity, those communities themselves need to reject that self definition. if anyone was to tell, for example, blacks, to stop identifying their community as unique by virtue of its ethnicity, that would be regarded as a racist request. However, as long as communities define themselves a by their race, they will be viewed by themselves and others as a minority.

[ImVinny!]

What would happen if we all just stopped thinking in terms of race? If people were just people? i think that if we stop asking what someone "is" we can move on from that mediocre assessment of personhood.

[tzip]

amen to that! but realistically, that's never going to happen.

[ImVinny!]

But if we all keep thinking that then it never will. But if at least some people start the trend than maybe others will go along with it and we can soon be on our way to getting rid of the divisions that are caused by just checking little boxes (oversimplification i know, but yeah).

[((A))P]

so you're saying race shouldn't even be an issue in politics or elsewhere. I agree. But for race to stop being an issue, that is, for communities not be recognized as minorities by their race/ethnicity, those communities themselves need to reject that self definition. if anyone was to tell, for example, blacks, to stop identifying their community as unique by virtue of its ethnicity, that would be regarded as a racist request. However, as long as communities define themselves a by their race, they will be viewed by themselves and others as a minority.

You've completly misinterpreted me. up to this point i have not mentioned race, i was merely expressing that i dislike minority discourse. I would remind you that African peoples were not refered to as Black (or as N***** or any any other tasteless slur these are not names that were chossen they were forced on us by whites) until Europeans decided that they were white and assigned meaning to that socialy constructred category, simultaneously excluding non-europeans (most of the world) from that category. while i certainly accept the fact that race is a social construction i am also very aware of the social realities of race and racial oppression. when whiteness ceases to exist as a racial category then we can talk about doing away with race, but as long as white privilege and racial oppression continue then i will always hold on to my African identity as a source of resistance. In holding on to this identity i reject the label minority because i know that African people and People of Color as a whole are not in the minority.

[ImVinny!]

"white" should be done away with as well. it is inherenty racist.

[tzip]

im honestly confused, not trying to start a fight. but if you identify your community as "african" or "of color," how can you resent that community being called a minority. i dont understand. as long as you distinguish a group by race, and as long as that group is less than 50%, it is a minority. if we abolish racial definitions, which ideally is a great idea, then you're right, use of minority would be offensive, but as long as groups identify themselves as groups of racial identity, they force others to treat them by that very same definition. in other words, the only difference between the word "african" which you use, and the word "black" which others use is simply that you personally find one offensive and the other not, while both are considered in the main stream to be synonymous.

[ImVinny!]

im honestly confused, not trying to start a fight. but if you identify your community as "african" or "of color," how can you resent that community being called a minority. i dont understand. as long as you distinguish a group by race, and as long as that group is less than 50%, it is a minority. if we abolish racial definitions, which ideally is a great idea, then you're right, use of minority would be offensive, but as long as groups identify themselves as groups of racial identity, they force others to treat them by that very same definition. in other words, the only difference between the word "african" which you use, and the word "black" which others use is simply that you personally find one offensive and the other not, while both are considered in the main stream to be synonymous.

Exactly.

[Gary Glitter]

whoever said "south africa" was spot on

the sort of radical population change that the op is referring to is already occurring in the american southwest, where you have traditional white upper and middle class populations, in either static or negiatve growth, being quickly (in historical sense) being surpassed by a burgeoning hispanic population. the numbers, if you look at them, are sort of staggering. phoenix, AZ has gone from 8% to 35% hispanic in under 20 years. 2 years ago, over 50% of the babies born in california were hispanic. these numbers are only increasing, and at a fairly amazing rate. this is what happens when you "pit" a static population against one that is increasing virtually exponentially.

for whatever reason (religious, cultural, etc.), outside of the traditional bargain-basement working class type mold, hispanics haven't adapted well to the american system (when compared to Asians and Indians [esp. in teh state of California, where the UC is in a state of meltdown because hispanics just aren't getting teh scores to get into the system], teh differences between minority immigrant populations immediately becomes stark). the reality remains that 3rd and 4th generation hispanc-americans gennerally occupy the lower rungs of society. in arizona, tremendous $ is being spent attempting to get predominately hispanic high schools "up to speed," yet the % that don't graduate from high shcool only increases with each year. the emphasis just isn't being put in education in hispanic households, and as a result, the placement of hispancis amongst the lower rungs of american society remains relatively constant.

sooooooooo you have a rapidly-breeding, under-achieving immigrant population that is quickly swelling the ranks of the american southwest. everyone knows what is going to happen next. by the time we're old and gray teh southwest with be full of "brown cities" with enclaves of white communities hidden away behind tall gates; teh whites that stay will, of course, be generally afraid (like SA), and will hold on to whatever power may still have (a human condiiton, as opposed to a racial one). there will be acrimony, fear, violence, white-flight, etc. or maybe it'll be a washington, DC type situation, where the various racial "factions" coexist, but only in very separate and distinct quadrants. any out-of-bounds after-dark wandering will result, inevitably, in some sort of violent episode.

seems like a positive outlook doesn't it?