This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Visible minority article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not all LAtin Americans are not visible minorities, it depend on what country they are from. White Brazilians (50% of their population), Argentines and Uruguayans (both 90% caucasians) are not visible minorities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.218.25 ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 August 2006
Regarding the above comment: In Canada, under HRDC practice, anyone of Latin American ancestry can legitimately claim to be a member of a visible minority. It is a paradox that someone can be of 100% European ancestry (a Uruguayan, for example) and yet be a visible minority, but that's the how the term is used by the agency that administers employment equity legislation in Canada. Much hinges on how the person perceives his/her own ethnicity and/or racial background. Canadian2006 ( talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you point to reference in HRSDC website regarding this issue? You are essentially suggesting that being a visible minority is a sobjective matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.118.101 ( talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to 217.132.118.101 (above), who stated "You are essentially suggesting that being a visible minority is a subjective matter." Yes, exactly! Racial identity and ethnic identity are, at their hearts, subjective matters, especially in situations where a person straddles the customary racial/ethnic categories. If you're thinking of employment equity as it applies to visible minorities, the underlying premise of e.e. has been to assume good-faith intentions all round rather than attempt to create some sort of formal racial classification system. I'm not aware of any HRSDC website that addresses this directly, but consider some of the print references in the Wikipedia employment equity article. Canadian2006 ( talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
i have alot of respect for canada there leaps and bounds ahead of the u.s in many respects but when it comes to race there pretty much dumb, to say white people from latin america are not white is utter non sence or people from west asia are not white either is ridiclous the u.s has a more legitment system for race,i mean canada seems to be trying to hijack whiteness for themselves-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
East Asian peoples were almost uniformly described as White, never as yellow.
I would like to add the following remark : Contrary to what the article states, "Visible Minority" is also frequently used in France ("Minorités visibles"), especially in newspaper articles, though it is not 100% politically correct.
"In March, 2007, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination described the term as racist, as it singles out a specific group." That's not being racist, that's being specific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.235.225 ( talk) 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The 2011 Census reference thingy already states that "In contrast, in accordance with employment equity definitions, persons who reported 'Latin American' and 'White,' 'Arab' and 'White,' or 'West Asian' and 'White' have been excluded from the visible minority population. Likewise, persons who reported 'Latin American,' 'Arab' or 'West Asian' and who provided a European write-in response such as 'French' have been excluded from the visible minority population as well." [1] The 2006 one says the same thing. So this isn't even about personal concepts of race, the Canadian census classification system itself does not consider all Latin Americans, regardless of ancestry, to be visible minorities. Not sure how the person who wrote that missed it. So I'm erasing Latin American Canadians as an example for the phrase saying some groups that may be indistinguishable from the white population are still considered visible minorities--but not the phrase itself. Gymast96 ( talk) 23:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The main groups designated as visible minorities are South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese.So, Latin Americans and West Asians/Arabs are visible minorities but the confusion seems to arise from a lack of mixed ancestry recognition. If we're being meticulous, not every visible minority group denotes a place of ethnic origin either.
employment equity definitionsthey must put in entries like "West Asian and Afghan", "Arab and Lebanese" and "Latin American and Peruvian". But this again, still raises some issues.
In addition, respondents who checked “South Asian” and had a write-in response such as “Swedish” would also be included in the “South Asian” category.This also means multi-ancestry entries like "Black and French" or "Black and Malaysian" will just be counted in the "Black" section. This again, seems to state that the data is not counting people who identify as mixed ancestry as "mixed" is not one of the 13 visible minority groups. Other
Where when why how by whom was the term coined? jnestorius( talk) 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As in "Visible minority, n.i.e." in the table. Its general meaning is obvious - "none of the above" - but the abbreviation is not, and I can't work out what it stands for. 86.132.139.119 ( talk) 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
n.i.e. = "not indicated elsewhere" From Canadian2006 ( talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time (or stomach) to write this but the absence of this much-needed article from Wikipedia is bothersome, epsecially given the high priority on visible minorities in many articles and category-definitions. Visible minority advocates also are often dismissive, i.e. discriminatory, towards invisible minorities. These range from "white minorities" of various kinds e.g. Europeans-from-Europe who have accent/language or cultural differences in North America, e.g. Polish immigrants, also peoples like the Doukhobors and Hutterites (Hutterites are actually visible because of their apparel, like Amish, but are still declared to be "part of the majority" which is defined on racial terms; even Britons still-with-an-accent are "invisible minorities" in North America and treated as such (particularly by the bigotry of post-modern historians ranting about British influence in Canada); other groups for whom the term is used are gays, Filipino-�Americans,. Hedwig Gorski, a Polish-American, defines here group as among "Invisible European minorities". Here is a prelimimary google for the term, which turns up all kinds of interesting things. I may come back and point-form a short version of such an article, but if someone would care to write up a more full exegesis on the topic in the meantime that would be great. And in a non-Wiki moment, I really believe minority politics cannot be fairly or adequately addressed until the racial biases and reverse discrimination built into the application of the concept of "visible minorities" in government and organizational policies until the invisible minorities are fairly dealt with, and not dismissed by visible-minority activists as "just another kind of white" and therefore unimportant. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Statistics Canada officially considers the following groups to be "visible minorities":
This means that Japanese, Koreans, etc. are included in the "Southeast Asian" category and not classified individually. There is no "visible minority" collective category for "Asian Canadian".
See the following source for accurate definition and most recent statistics. The table in the article should be updated as per the correct table in the source. According to StatsCan, "The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."
Whoever was working on this article was totally ignorant of these facts. IranianGuy ( talk) 23:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
like Afrikaaners or Pied Noires of France) whom "look" like white people . You are just Muslim White wannabes..... the only real white muslims are Bosnians and Albanians maybe? Then you call yourself Iranian, you must be a muslim or you must be an ex-muslim, convert to Zoroastrianism by cursing out Arabs for destroying Iranian civilization..... -- 65.92.108.138 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The Government of Canada "Visible Minority" definition is either racist or born out of complete ignorance. Why are Greeks, Portuguese, and Italians not classified as visible minorities when they are clearly visible in the sense that you can easily identify them as as being of non-English and non-French background? For example the majority of Syrian Arabs have lighter complexion, hair and eye colour from your average Greek, Portuguese, or southern Italian, yet the former is defined as a visible minority while the latter is not. I think it would have made more sense to say you are either of European or non-European background for census information and employment equality purposes. The government of Canada has no right in defining which race people belong to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderKnight ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/pop127-eng.cfm
Moxy ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the other things that is a struggle with this classification is the lack of clarification as to where a person who is of mixed heritage, minority (racialized) and non-minority (aka Caucasian), puts themselves. There is question as to which is the right one, or which classification would be the most advantageous to oneself, or rather which one is not going to disadvantage me? But the bottom line is that with someone that is equally mixed, they are forced to choose and that shouldn't be necessary nor required.
This is not unlike the issues that people face in the gender realm and the forced categorizations that have gone with the choice between female and male. One should not have to choose, and if they are asked it should be open to allow for variances.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Visible minority article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not all LAtin Americans are not visible minorities, it depend on what country they are from. White Brazilians (50% of their population), Argentines and Uruguayans (both 90% caucasians) are not visible minorities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.218.25 ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 August 2006
Regarding the above comment: In Canada, under HRDC practice, anyone of Latin American ancestry can legitimately claim to be a member of a visible minority. It is a paradox that someone can be of 100% European ancestry (a Uruguayan, for example) and yet be a visible minority, but that's the how the term is used by the agency that administers employment equity legislation in Canada. Much hinges on how the person perceives his/her own ethnicity and/or racial background. Canadian2006 ( talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you point to reference in HRSDC website regarding this issue? You are essentially suggesting that being a visible minority is a sobjective matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.118.101 ( talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to 217.132.118.101 (above), who stated "You are essentially suggesting that being a visible minority is a subjective matter." Yes, exactly! Racial identity and ethnic identity are, at their hearts, subjective matters, especially in situations where a person straddles the customary racial/ethnic categories. If you're thinking of employment equity as it applies to visible minorities, the underlying premise of e.e. has been to assume good-faith intentions all round rather than attempt to create some sort of formal racial classification system. I'm not aware of any HRSDC website that addresses this directly, but consider some of the print references in the Wikipedia employment equity article. Canadian2006 ( talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
i have alot of respect for canada there leaps and bounds ahead of the u.s in many respects but when it comes to race there pretty much dumb, to say white people from latin america are not white is utter non sence or people from west asia are not white either is ridiclous the u.s has a more legitment system for race,i mean canada seems to be trying to hijack whiteness for themselves-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
East Asian peoples were almost uniformly described as White, never as yellow.
I would like to add the following remark : Contrary to what the article states, "Visible Minority" is also frequently used in France ("Minorités visibles"), especially in newspaper articles, though it is not 100% politically correct.
"In March, 2007, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination described the term as racist, as it singles out a specific group." That's not being racist, that's being specific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.235.225 ( talk) 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The 2011 Census reference thingy already states that "In contrast, in accordance with employment equity definitions, persons who reported 'Latin American' and 'White,' 'Arab' and 'White,' or 'West Asian' and 'White' have been excluded from the visible minority population. Likewise, persons who reported 'Latin American,' 'Arab' or 'West Asian' and who provided a European write-in response such as 'French' have been excluded from the visible minority population as well." [1] The 2006 one says the same thing. So this isn't even about personal concepts of race, the Canadian census classification system itself does not consider all Latin Americans, regardless of ancestry, to be visible minorities. Not sure how the person who wrote that missed it. So I'm erasing Latin American Canadians as an example for the phrase saying some groups that may be indistinguishable from the white population are still considered visible minorities--but not the phrase itself. Gymast96 ( talk) 23:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The main groups designated as visible minorities are South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese.So, Latin Americans and West Asians/Arabs are visible minorities but the confusion seems to arise from a lack of mixed ancestry recognition. If we're being meticulous, not every visible minority group denotes a place of ethnic origin either.
employment equity definitionsthey must put in entries like "West Asian and Afghan", "Arab and Lebanese" and "Latin American and Peruvian". But this again, still raises some issues.
In addition, respondents who checked “South Asian” and had a write-in response such as “Swedish” would also be included in the “South Asian” category.This also means multi-ancestry entries like "Black and French" or "Black and Malaysian" will just be counted in the "Black" section. This again, seems to state that the data is not counting people who identify as mixed ancestry as "mixed" is not one of the 13 visible minority groups. Other
Where when why how by whom was the term coined? jnestorius( talk) 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As in "Visible minority, n.i.e." in the table. Its general meaning is obvious - "none of the above" - but the abbreviation is not, and I can't work out what it stands for. 86.132.139.119 ( talk) 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
n.i.e. = "not indicated elsewhere" From Canadian2006 ( talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time (or stomach) to write this but the absence of this much-needed article from Wikipedia is bothersome, epsecially given the high priority on visible minorities in many articles and category-definitions. Visible minority advocates also are often dismissive, i.e. discriminatory, towards invisible minorities. These range from "white minorities" of various kinds e.g. Europeans-from-Europe who have accent/language or cultural differences in North America, e.g. Polish immigrants, also peoples like the Doukhobors and Hutterites (Hutterites are actually visible because of their apparel, like Amish, but are still declared to be "part of the majority" which is defined on racial terms; even Britons still-with-an-accent are "invisible minorities" in North America and treated as such (particularly by the bigotry of post-modern historians ranting about British influence in Canada); other groups for whom the term is used are gays, Filipino-�Americans,. Hedwig Gorski, a Polish-American, defines here group as among "Invisible European minorities". Here is a prelimimary google for the term, which turns up all kinds of interesting things. I may come back and point-form a short version of such an article, but if someone would care to write up a more full exegesis on the topic in the meantime that would be great. And in a non-Wiki moment, I really believe minority politics cannot be fairly or adequately addressed until the racial biases and reverse discrimination built into the application of the concept of "visible minorities" in government and organizational policies until the invisible minorities are fairly dealt with, and not dismissed by visible-minority activists as "just another kind of white" and therefore unimportant. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Statistics Canada officially considers the following groups to be "visible minorities":
This means that Japanese, Koreans, etc. are included in the "Southeast Asian" category and not classified individually. There is no "visible minority" collective category for "Asian Canadian".
See the following source for accurate definition and most recent statistics. The table in the article should be updated as per the correct table in the source. According to StatsCan, "The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."
Whoever was working on this article was totally ignorant of these facts. IranianGuy ( talk) 23:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
like Afrikaaners or Pied Noires of France) whom "look" like white people . You are just Muslim White wannabes..... the only real white muslims are Bosnians and Albanians maybe? Then you call yourself Iranian, you must be a muslim or you must be an ex-muslim, convert to Zoroastrianism by cursing out Arabs for destroying Iranian civilization..... -- 65.92.108.138 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The Government of Canada "Visible Minority" definition is either racist or born out of complete ignorance. Why are Greeks, Portuguese, and Italians not classified as visible minorities when they are clearly visible in the sense that you can easily identify them as as being of non-English and non-French background? For example the majority of Syrian Arabs have lighter complexion, hair and eye colour from your average Greek, Portuguese, or southern Italian, yet the former is defined as a visible minority while the latter is not. I think it would have made more sense to say you are either of European or non-European background for census information and employment equality purposes. The government of Canada has no right in defining which race people belong to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderKnight ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/pop127-eng.cfm
Moxy ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the other things that is a struggle with this classification is the lack of clarification as to where a person who is of mixed heritage, minority (racialized) and non-minority (aka Caucasian), puts themselves. There is question as to which is the right one, or which classification would be the most advantageous to oneself, or rather which one is not going to disadvantage me? But the bottom line is that with someone that is equally mixed, they are forced to choose and that shouldn't be necessary nor required.
This is not unlike the issues that people face in the gender realm and the forced categorizations that have gone with the choice between female and male. One should not have to choose, and if they are asked it should be open to allow for variances.