Talk:Dominant minority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed biased sentence[edit]

> For instance, Nelson Mandela gained his immense popularity after years of resistance against the apartheid government of South Africa; some militant members of the dominant minority (Afrikaners) reacted to his democratic ascent with anti-civilian terrorism, by setting off car bombs at polling stations during the election that brought him to power.

While this may be factually accurate, it is deceptive. The words "resistance" was used when referring to acts by the ANC. Most objective viewers would label it as "terrorism", e.g.:

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

http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/amanzimtoti-blast-kills-five

Less people died than during the isolated instances of white resistance than compared to ANC terrorism.

(More people actually died during ANC-IFP clashes, i.e. black-on-black violence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.110.159.209 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

African Americans as dominant minority in the US[edit]

I don't really understand why, but African-Americans are listed as a dominant minority. This is clearly not the case so I am removing them from the list. If someone believes this can be justified please cite you sources. Snake666 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with You, but I do, however, understand why they were added. Because of Barack Obama. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Obama is a Mulatto, and thus not definitive of a black american. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Before another Vote for Deletion:[edit]

Just to note that I decided to be bold. So, do bite the newcomers. That is all. El_C

Nah, it's good! Terrapin 19:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks, appreciated. Sadly though, that is not the point. The VfD was implemented in a discourtious fashion. It was my firt day on WP, no one bothered informing me of it. It was slipped under my nose, and the vote was concluded before I even found out it took place. Now that is not a welcoming reception to a newcomer on his or her first day on Wikipedia. El_C

Added a {{Limitedgeographicscope}} tag. Lots of countries have been dominated by a minority, but the article discussing only two of them. A complete article should discuss examples such as the Fulani in medieval northwest Africa and the Manchus in Qing China. - Nat Krause 03:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a good point. Such examples deserve to be discussed in this article. I suggest that White minority rule, currently a link to this article, be turned into an article in its own right. The case of the whites in southernmost Africa was quite different from that of the Manchus in Qing China, who became so assimilated to the Han majority that by the end of the dynasty there was virtually no cultural or linguistic substance to a separate Manchu identity. The whites in South Africa and "Rhodesia" had no intention of assimilating culturally or otherwise to any Black population, and they certainly did not become Black themselves. Shorne 12:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violence[edit]

In both South Africa and Rhodesia, majority rule was brought about through violent upheavals.

Wait a minute. While the ANC was certainly a violent organization (indeed, described by many as a terrorist organization), and while the pressure its violence put on the white government may have contributed to the collapse of apartheid, it seems to me that larger factors in apartheid's collapse were international financial, political and moral pressures, as well as changing attitudes among South African whites. Hasn't that been a major source of praise for the new South Africa, that the transition was peaceful and that there was no violent revolution?

Similarly, Rhodesia's white minority government, rather than having been dislodged by force of arms, decided to end its economic and political isolation, and peacefully handed over power after being promised that whites would receive protectively disproportionate representation in the legislature and respect for their private property. LeoO3 04:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Partly agree. While it's valid to describe Rhodesia's Second Chimurenga as a "violent upheaval" (thousands killed in action during a military struggle that lasted 15 years and destroyed the economy), SA is questionable. MK and Poqo bombs didn't bring about the end of apartheid - sanctions did. Humansdorpie 15:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Types of dominant minority[edit]

  • I have always seen the term "dominant minority" to refer to ethnic, racial or religious groups rather than to political ones. As such, i think the references to the rise of the Nazis and to electoral politics in Tony Blair's constituency should probably be removed. What do people think?

Also, virtually all societies have a dominant class normally called an aristocracy or the bourgeois or the upper-class. The unusual thing about some societies (like South Africa) is that there is also a racial minority that is dominant. This is unusual and, as i said above, i think it is cases like that for which the term 'dominant minority' can most usefully be applied to. Vino s 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • On the market dominant minority discussion, merging with this page was suggested. It seems valid that the idea of a market dominant minority could be considered a special case of a dominant minority and included here -- M0llusk 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge to dominant minority[edit]

Could be under a separate section, but AFAISI its a good idea to integrate. -St|eve 21:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

An effort should be undertaken to determine 1) are minoritarianism and dominant minority actually terms describing the same thing?, and if so, 2) Which one is the prevailing naming for such a thing? That said, at this time, I would prefer having two articles that point to each other, and clarify what the differences are in these terms--I have a strong feeling they're not exactly the same thing. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe the two are sufficiently different to merit their own aricles, although some sort of "See also" section probably wouldn't be amiss. nae'blis (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Whites in SA[edit]

I see that the link to Whites in South Africa is redirected to Afrikaners. I think that there should be a own article about whites in SA. And why the afrikaners? The Afrikaners are not the only whites in SA? The is also Anglo-Africans... �Dr.Poison 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That should be corrected. It is impossible to understand South African cultural circumstance without understanding that Afrikaners have tended to be poor and have little interest in commerce relative to groups of mostly British Anglo-African English speakers who dominate commerce. -- M0llusk 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not true. Anglo Africans are a minority of the white population in South Africa anyway, and Afrikaans people are NOT poor and bad businessmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.50.5 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Indians in Fiji should not be on the list[edit]

They are the majority in Fiji

also they don't really fit the criteria for an elite since qoute the wiki article on Fiji

Commodore Frank Bainimarama refused to hold elections by 2010, elections that the Commonwealth of Nations had demanded after the 2006 coup. He states a need for more time to end a voting system that heavily favours ethnic Fijians at the expense of the multi-ethnic minorities. Critics claim that he has suspended the constitution and was responsible for human rights violations by arresting and detaining opponents.[31][32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.28.6 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

why no talk about Jews[edit]

they run all Muslim countries by owning banks and media!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.146.233 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously though, why no mention of Jews as the dominant minority in Europe and the United States? 79.102.4.181 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added it. Jews have influence far beyond their proportion as a population. Did you know, for example, that over half of Democrat campaign contributions come from Jews?Winston S Smith (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Candidly-Speaking-Obama-Netanyahu-and-American-Jews
Catholics and Mormons are overrepresented too. That doesn't make them a dominant majority. Dominant minority is more when a minority group has (or had) nearly exclusive access to political power to the exclusion of the majority group. Like Whites in South Africa and Hawaii, or Jews in the West Bank. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No group is over represented to the degree that Jews are. The problem is that the definition of the word contradicts itself. The first sentence of the definition completely contradicts the second sentence. If the first sentence is used for the definition, then the Chinese in Southeast Asia, a commonly cited example, would not apply. If the second sentence were used, then the Jews would apply. It says the second sentence is "most commonly used" so I would add a reference to the Jews but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Someone else should do it for me.Winston S Smith (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No sources?[edit]

Where are the reliable sources for the list of supposed dominant minorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.157.86 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jews in the USSR[edit]

This seems blatantly untrue. Ethnic Russians were the leading political figures in the USSR, both from its foundation and during its seven decades of existence. This seems to harken back to old tropes about Bolshevism being a Jewish plot; it is also unsourced. I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.41.122 (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)