Talk:Majority-minority state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Women a minority group?

Is that meant seriously? --212.51.246.226 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I've moved two sections here for discussion, as they largely report information irrelevant to majority-minority status, and are vague and badly written. --JWB 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Projections

U.S. Census projections suggest that states will continue to shift into this category in the coming decades. As of 2004, those next in line for minority majority status according to the U.S. Census Bureau (35% or more minority populations) were:

By contrast, more rural states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine are not projected to experience such a change for centuries, if ever. Of course, if the majority of the U.S. population becomes Hispanic (for example), then it is those more rural states which will become majority-minority states, as their white majority will be at odds with that of the rest of the country.

35% currently says nothing about how fast growth is. --JWB 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat in agreement - what we need are tables comparing older and newer numbers, which show some rather dramatic trends. bd2412 T 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External factors

Demographic shifts may be influenced by factors other than normal patterns of population growth (births, deaths, urbanization, etc.) Following the U.S. Civil War, some former Confederate states such as Georgia and South Carolina had majority-black populations, but decades of racial discrimination, along with greater economic opportunities in the industrial north, drove large numbers of black people to northern states in the Great Migration.

True, but says nothing about the future. --JWB 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is not on "the future of majority-minority states"; the above correctly points out that certain states were majority-minority, then ceased to be. bd2412 T 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

External factors may influence the status of majority-minority states. For example, the success of the Christian Exodus movement, which supports the migration of conservative Christians (who are predominantly white) to South Carolina, would likely reverse the trend of the growing black proportion of the overall population of that state. Hurricane Katrina, which scattered the mostly-black population of New Orleans to neighboring states, may also have had an effect this trend in several states.

There's no evidence that Christian Exodus is likely to have any effect. Louisiana is not a major destination for minority migration, and is not heading for majority-minority status any time soon. --JWB 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
True with respect to Christian Exodus, but their goal is to make their own "majority-minority" state, with the majority composed of persons who see themselves as being a religious minority. With respect to Louisiana, the point is actually the opposite: the state was headed towards becoming a majority-minority state, but Hurricane Katrina discplaced a large minority population to other states, thus reversing the trend as to Louisiana - but accelerating it as to Alabama, Georgia, and Arkansas, and enhancing it as to Texas. bd2412 T 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, other factors such as stricter enforcement of immigration laws would likely slow the move toward majority-minorities, as this would slow the flow of minority illegal immigrants, especially along the border states such as Texas and California. This would have a great effect in the border states, where Hispanics from South and Central America (particularly from Mexico) are the predominant minority group, although it would have only a minor impact on states where the predominant minority groups are legal immigrants or are American-born.

Texas, California and New Mexico are already listed as majority-minority, so are not relevant to discussion of states that may become so in future. Also, currently numerous minority groups are not relevant; it's increasing minority groups that are relevant. --JWB 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree entirely. First, immigration from minority groups definitely increases the rate at which all states may become majority-minority states; second, it enhances the "minority" population of Texas and California, cementing their majority-minority status... the article should also mention Arizona, and destination states such as Nevada and Colorado. bd2412 T 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Florida, for example, has a large Cuban American population, encouraged by the federal government's Wet Feet/Dry Feet Policy, which allows Cuban refugees who make it to dry land to remain in the United States. New York and New Jersey have a significant population of Puerto Ricans, who are United States citizens and do not face any restrictions on travel to the mainland. Alaska and Hawaii each have large indigenous populations, deemed to have become citizens when those states entered the union.

Not many Cubans are currently immigrating. Puerto Rican population on the mainland is stable, not rapidly increasing. Hawaii is already majority-minority. Alaska is unlikely to become majority-minority. Phrasing as "deemed" is also poor. JWB 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. The wet foot/dry foot policy is responsible for the existing large minority population, which is trending towards becoming the majority. This explains how Hawaii became a majority-minority state in the first place (it always was one). Why is "deemed" poor phrasing? That is exactly what happened... perhaps "declared" or "accepted as"? bd2412 T 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article ends with the word "and".

And what?--Greasysteve13 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fixed. bd2412 T 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I'm confused. I was quite sure the term "majority-minority state" did *not* mean that the majority group in the state did not match the majority group in the nation. I was sure it meant "there is no group representing more than 50% (a majority) in this state" = "all groups are minorities in this state". The crucial difference is, for example, if California were to become 60% Hispanic, it would no longer be considered "majority-minority state" the way I defined it (since there would be a majority group in the state), but it would still be a "majority-minority state" they way it's defined here (since Hispanics are not a majority group in the rest of the country). Am I off here? I at least feel that's how we use the term in (my part of?) California, but I could be wrong about how the rest of the nation uses it. --SameerKhan 00:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now I'm sure I'm right. I did a little research to confirm what I was already pretty sure was true - there is no group that forms the majority of the population (50%+) in any of the four states mentioned here. In all four states, all groups are minorities. For example, in California, whites are still the largest group, although they make up less than 50%. They are not outnumbered by any other group (other than, of course, "non-whites", if that can be considered a group). This article is highly misleading; the way it is currently written, it makes it seem as though there is some particular group that forms a majority in California and the other states, which is simply wrong. Hispanics, Asians (both of which are really huge groups that should be broken down to be more accurate), and other groups do not make a majority in California and Texas at least (Hawaii is majority Asian if you clump all different Asian origins in as one group; I didn't look at New Mexico), unless you group them into a super "non-white" category. Anyhow, unless someone can show me why the current definition is more accurate, I think we should make a significant change. --SameerKhan 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that a majority of the population is of any minority, not a specific one. The interesting statistic that this article references is when a majority of the population of a state does not share the same race as the majority of the country. Whether the majority of a state is comprised of a specific minority or many minorities is irrelivant in this definition. It is also worth noting that the statistic of a single state having a majority of its population coming from a single minority is extremely unlikely. 66.253.36.140 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am amazed that this kind of organized racism is possible.--Daanschr 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How is this racist? (Unless your point is that categorizing people by race is an exercise in racism itself). It could cut in any direction - if a city in South Africa (with its majority black population) has a white majority within its municipal borders, it is a majority-minority city, because the majority in the city is the minority in the country. bd2412 T 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which is the correct term?

I see both "majority minority" and "minority majority" used in the article. Which term is correct? Or are they both acceptable? 217.12.14.240 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Andreas.

As a sociologist, I'd say majority-minority is correct, as in a majority of the entire population is made of persons who are members of minority groups. bd2412 T 02:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a bit too obvious sentence?

It is important to note that Hispanics do not constitute a race but rather an ethnicity. Individuals who market white and Hispanic were therefore not counted as being multi-racial but rather only as White. Why is such blatantly obvious 'information' even necessary? How could there ever be confusion about this? So should someone need to explain that germans, french, italians, polish, irish, swedish, czech etcetc are also white??? --83.131.143.101 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/j/Talk%7EMajority-minority_state_490e.html"