I'm still trying to get my head around the conflation of "visible minority" and "immigrant." Part of me says, isn't this just a statement of fact? Trends indicate an increase in immigration correlates with an increase in the population of visible minorities. I do get that the "where are you from?" can become a pet peeve. When I lived in Portugal I was often asked "Are you English?" If I said, "yes," next question was "what part of England are you from?" If I said "no," next question was "what language do you speak?"
Hi Jay, I appreciate you engaging me on this — and doing so respectfully. I figured this question would come up!
You're right that these are statements of fact to a degree. However, in a country like Canada where it's possible (especially in smaller, more far-flung rural towns) to never see someone who looks different from you, it's essential for journalists to add context.
My issue with these two articles in particular is that they casually conflate "visible minority" and "immigrant" without discussing the possibility that some of these immigrants are white (e.g. perhaps they're of European descent from Europe or a non-European country, etc.) and that this increase in the visible minority population may be partly due to domestic migrants who moved from say, Ontario to Saskatchewan. Without this necessary context, it's really easy for say, a white person who grew up in a homogeneous rural town, to assume that all people of colour are immigrants (and vice-versa) even though some of us have been here for generations. It adds fuel to the stereotype of racialized communities as perpetual outsiders, which is something that particularly plagues Asian-Canadian communities (and has also happened to me even though I was born and raised in Canada).
Happy to share more resources if you're interested.
I appreciate your refinement of the argument. Now I get it. "Fueling the stereotype" when journalists should be providing the context which undoes the stereotype. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
I'm still trying to get my head around the conflation of "visible minority" and "immigrant." Part of me says, isn't this just a statement of fact? Trends indicate an increase in immigration correlates with an increase in the population of visible minorities. I do get that the "where are you from?" can become a pet peeve. When I lived in Portugal I was often asked "Are you English?" If I said, "yes," next question was "what part of England are you from?" If I said "no," next question was "what language do you speak?"
http://www.thesourgrapevine.com/2020/08/should-washington-redskins-be-renamed.html
Hi Jay, I appreciate you engaging me on this — and doing so respectfully. I figured this question would come up!
You're right that these are statements of fact to a degree. However, in a country like Canada where it's possible (especially in smaller, more far-flung rural towns) to never see someone who looks different from you, it's essential for journalists to add context.
My issue with these two articles in particular is that they casually conflate "visible minority" and "immigrant" without discussing the possibility that some of these immigrants are white (e.g. perhaps they're of European descent from Europe or a non-European country, etc.) and that this increase in the visible minority population may be partly due to domestic migrants who moved from say, Ontario to Saskatchewan. Without this necessary context, it's really easy for say, a white person who grew up in a homogeneous rural town, to assume that all people of colour are immigrants (and vice-versa) even though some of us have been here for generations. It adds fuel to the stereotype of racialized communities as perpetual outsiders, which is something that particularly plagues Asian-Canadian communities (and has also happened to me even though I was born and raised in Canada).
Happy to share more resources if you're interested.
I appreciate your refinement of the argument. Now I get it. "Fueling the stereotype" when journalists should be providing the context which undoes the stereotype. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
Thanks for challenging me to refine the explanation (and for reading/commenting thoughtfully)!