File talk:Visible Minorities of Vancouver.png

Filipinos are Southeast Asians too. So, the "Filipino" amd "Southeast Asian" pies should be combined together. --203.51.21.144 17:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Data source/year?
Where is this from; is it Census Canada that's lumped together white people and First Natiosn people; and while breaking down Asian ethnicities by specifics doesn't do the same courtesy for white people or for "West Asians" (Persians? Turks?  Lebanese??  Afghans?  Chechens??). If this is what StatsCan churns out it's just another demonstration how skewed ethnic politics have screwed with the public consciousness/identity. I'm not "white" any more than a Chinese person is "yellow" for another; not taking it out on you, just right pissed off about public data sets that are so propagandistic in nature; subtle but still propagandistic, once you know the atual history/statistics behind the vetted statistics. Was it TE Roosefvelt - "there's three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics". This is one of those lies....and there's other more palatable data sets around; unless Census Canada has censored them (which is not unlikely).Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think it was disingenuous of you (or if the source made the order, then them) not to group East Asians together and not to group "West Asians/South Asians" together; doesn't seem to be because of order ranking. Also another probledm with the wehole "visible minorities" bandwagon, as has come out from some immigrant spokespeople at times, is that the invisible minorities - the Yugoslavs, Poles, Russians, Italians, Brazilians are all hidden within that catchall "white".  "You all look the same to us" just doesn't cut it when "us" gets to fly its own national flags.  Either this is white/black/yellow/red or it's by country; if statscan doesn't have that inforamtion, someone find it and f**km statscan.  Sorry for the invective, this kind of thing just turns me sick in its pretentiousness; this NOT directed at the author of this page, but of the cultural/temporal hell "right-minded" people have gotten all the rest of us smothered up in....the people I'm mad at here are the bureaucrats and statisticians and sociologists who knwo what's good for the rest of us, and aren't interested in how we feel; that would be unscientific, wouldn't it?Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The further politics of it are this: if "white" gets broken down by actual ethnic origin. the Chinese may come out as a larger group than English or Scots (the two largest groups, until recently anyway); they've long since passed Germans (who used to be 3rd in BC) and there's not a small Ukrainian or Scandinavian element here, assimilated or otherwise, likewise FRrench Canadians and different shades of Irish, plus the Italians and Greeks. the politics are that if it comes out that the Chinese are the largest "minority" inthe city it has political ramifications for funding, media profile etc; what if Anglo-Saxons become a minority?  They already are, given the non-Britons in teh "white" portion of your pie; "visible minority" is **so**I 20th Century, and irrelevant o what Vancouver's come to.  I'm sure there'es fairer stats out there; surely Census Canada doesn't count people solely on the basis of what their skin colour is?????Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

StatsCan is different
Request for data source again, as the following paragraph on Metro Vancouver's composition is quite different from your piechart:

The census metropolitan area of Vancouver had the highest proportion of visible minorities of all such urban areas in Canada, according to the 2001 Census.


 * About 37%, or 725,700 people, belonged to a visible minority group, up from 31% in 1996 and 24% in 1991.


 * Vancouver’s visible minority population was almost entirely Asian, primarily a result of immigration trends in the past 20 years. One-third of people in Vancouver was Asian in 2001, up from 28% in 1996 and 21% in 1991.


 * Over one-half (53%) of Vancouver’s Asian population was Chinese. The remainder was South Asian (including East Indian, Punjabi and Pakistani), as well as Filipino, Korean, Southeast Asian or Japanese.


 * Vancouver was home to 342,700 Chinese in 2001, up from 279,000 in 1996 and 175,200 in 1991. Its Chinese population accounted for 17% of its total population, the highest proportion of any census metropolitan area. In contrast, Toronto’s Chinese population of 409,500 accounted for only 9% of its population.


 * Vancouver’s 164,400 South Asians, the second largest visible minority group, represented 8% of its population. The number of South Asians increased from 120,100 in 1996, when they represented 7% of the population, and 86,200 in 1991, when they accounted for only 5%.


 * Filipinos, the third largest visible minority, numbered 57,000 or 3% of the total population. Vancouver, along with Toronto, ranked second in terms of the concentration of Filipinos after Winnipeg (5%).

You're showing nearly half the population as visible minority, StatsCan says only 37%. True, you're probably only addressing the City of Vancouver, but your piechart should say so. And it should have a citation. It sill grates me that multicutluralism-happy pols and bureaucrats don't give the same amount of pandering detail to non-visible minorities, i.e. the rest of us....Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All other visible minority groups living in Vancouver numbered fewer than 30,000 and accounted for less than 2% of its population. However, Vancouver had the highest proportions of Koreans (1.5%), Southeast Asians (1.4%) and Japanese (1.2%) of any metropolitan area.

inaccuracies
I've removed this from wikipedia articles, as the grouping of "white" is inaccurate, and there are questions as to the accuracy of the data provided, and the image contains no reference for the information. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for doing that; I meant to comment somewhere that I found it garish and meant to be attention-grabbing, and that its placement in "ethnicity" section was inappropriate and when something like this is used "Race/Racial minorities" or "Visible Minorities" are the only suitable titles. I think you already know my views on peopel being particular about Chinese/Korean/Japanese etc but always lumping people of European/American/Canadian ancestry who aren't "visible" as "Europeans" or "white" - it's cryptoracist, is what it is.  It also obscures the realities of ethnic origin re "white Canada", as in BC and the Prairies the Northern and Eastern European communities are notable and also historic in nature; "you're just assimilated" is how it comes across, and in many usages such as some I've seen lately comments about "Chinese, First Nations, Japanese and Europeans" in the canneries and such are completely misleading and don't do credit to the Norwegians and otehrs in the industry; important facts about BC/Canada are obscured by the new visible monirities-are-the-only-relevant-minorities line of thinking.  It doesnt' help that for smalelr communities StatsCan only provides the visible minority tables, not the ethnicity tables; THAT is data-as-politics.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that "Canadian" is assumed by the author of this image to mean "white" when that's likely not ht e case at all; from First Nations people I know who use the term through to Chinese-Canadians of "old stock"/gold rush origin to mixed-race and black folks and so on - "Canadian" is NOT a synonym for "white Canadians" at all; it's self-identifier used by many people, even in single responses, and has no relevance in "visible/invislbe" reckonings of how to break society into mutually conflicting rival groups (which is IMO what Multiculturalism was brought in for, other than to shore up thet country's immigrant-capital agenda). Just to be fair tables of "invisible minorities" migth be worth having; but those are "ethnicity" tables crossed with "languaegs sopken at home" tables; and "invisible minority" so far hasn't been recognized by either the media or government (who have too much fun with playing up to visible minorities).Skookum1 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * maybe this image should even be deleted?Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we disagree with this image for different reasons, but as long as we are united, that's what counts. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

premise of legend is racist
None of the sources uses "white" to define non-visible minorites and the supposedly dominant "majority". The "white" in the table should be, at best", "non-visible minority" although whatever StatsCan uses is preferred. How abgout a table of non-visible minorities too ;-| ??Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)