I’m choosing this week to discuss a seemingly minor (no pun intended) point that came up in this week’s third article reading, by Waldinger.
He mentions the presence of a majority-minority in the city of Los Angeles, a term which means that the majority of the city is actually composed of minorities. He actually mentions it quite casually, but I thought about it a lot more than just a casual side note.
If the majority of a city is composed of seeming “minorities,” then how can we even call them “minorities” anymore? At this point, the minorities become the majorities, and there has been a turning of the tables. Why do we attach the “hyphen minority” to the term “majority” when discussing a city like LA?
I suspect that it’s because we are looking at it in respect to the entire United States, in which case the “majority-minority” people are minorities compared to the U.S. demographic. So in actuality, that would mean that our terms “majority” and “minority” are decided in respect to the national demographic. Imagine if it wasn’t, and each city was using the term “majority” and “minority” based on its own demographic…it’d get pretty confusing and people would be arguing about whether in their city people xyz are a minority or majority. What about if they’re neither, then what are they classed as?
This week’s reading just made me think of the terminology we use, and its derivation. While I’m very tempted to say that Mexicans living in LA are not a “minority,” I need to look at it more from the national perspective, and recognize that statistically in this nation, they are. The city is just one small part of a much bigger nation, and that’s whole is what’s important.
