6 ms·

At a meta level, does minority even truly mean “minority” anymore? If I said “minorities” referring to people in California people would assume I’m referring to

At a meta level, does minority even truly mean “minority” anymore? If I said “minorities” referring to people in California people would assume I’m referring to Latinos and not White people even though there are more Latinos than White people. Is there a more accurate term I’m not aware of?

Ericson2314 6y ago
Yes, we all know it's a terrible word for this purpose.
jedimastert 6y ago
It really is just important to discuss the context. Usually, if a disadvantage is discussed in relation to a "minority", it generally has less to do with the real world diaspora they belong to and more the fact that they are in the minority. For instance, the fact that "minorities" are more susceptible to COVID in the first place (in the US, at least) isn't because of racial makeup or ancestral heritage, but rather because marginalized people in the US are more likely to be in "front line" jobs that come in contact with large groups of people (service workers, hospital janitorial staff, food workers, the like) and much less likely to be in a position to remove themselves or work from home.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
In this context, the context is the US, not California. Latinos are a minority in the US, regardless of what they are in California or the world. We're trying to talk about the vaccine's effectiveness. We're trying to talk about biology, and it's kind of urgent at the moment. Can we please give sociology issues a pass for a bit?
- jdxcode 6y ago
  I'm not talking about this study or even sociological issues necessarily: I'm just looking to be able to use language to speak more directly.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
It's a fact that there's a genetic component in susceptibility to different diseases. One example: the 1918 Spanish Flu killed > 5 % of people on the Indian Subcontinent, but in China it was hardly noticeable in the death figures. Instead of pussyfooting around the issue of Race in America (it is an issue, mind), one should say that in population X the vaccine may be less efficaceous.
- jdxcode 6y ago
  literally nothing to do with what I asked EDIT: apologies HarryHirsch, it was relevant if I just read until the end. You did explain a better way to phrase it. I think you're right that using the word "population" is better here. Good reminder to me to make sure I understand what someone is saying before rejecting them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Ericson2314 6y ago

Yes, we all know it's a terrible word for this purpose.

jedimastert 6y ago

It really is just important to discuss the context. Usually, if a disadvantage is discussed in relation to a "minority", it generally has less to do with the real world diaspora they belong to and more the fact that they are in the minority. For instance, the fact that "minorities" are more susceptible to COVID in the first place (in the US, at least) isn't because of racial makeup or ancestral heritage, but rather because marginalized people in the US are more likely to be in "front line" jobs that come in contact with large groups of people (service workers, hospital janitorial staff, food workers, the like) and much less likely to be in a position to remove themselves or work from home.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

In this context, the context is the US, not California. Latinos are a minority in the US, regardless of what they are in California or the world. We're trying to talk about the vaccine's effectiveness. We're trying to talk about biology, and it's kind of urgent at the moment. Can we please give sociology issues a pass for a bit?

jdxcode 6y ago
I'm not talking about this study or even sociological issues necessarily: I'm just looking to be able to use language to speak more directly.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

It's a fact that there's a genetic component in susceptibility to different diseases. One example: the 1918 Spanish Flu killed > 5 % of people on the Indian Subcontinent, but in China it was hardly noticeable in the death figures. Instead of pussyfooting around the issue of Race in America (it is an issue, mind), one should say that in population X the vaccine may be less efficaceous.

jdxcode 6y ago
literally nothing to do with what I asked EDIT: apologies HarryHirsch, it was relevant if I just read until the end. You did explain a better way to phrase it. I think you're right that using the word "population" is better here. Good reminder to me to make sure I understand what someone is saying before rejecting them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]