Minorities to be majorities in two CAD cities by 2031, Statistics Canada projects

[Eug]

Maybe this way the minorities/majority terminology will fall out of favour. In the past decade in Toronto, it seemingly has become less and less relevant.

The proportion of visible minorities in Canada, already one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world, is set to explode in the coming decades and account for one-third of the population, Statistics Canada says.

In a projection released Tuesday, Statistics Canada says that by 2031 up to 14.4 million people in Canada could be a visible minority - with so-called minorities becoming the majority in two major cities.

Driven largely by immigration, but also birth rates and younger median ages among visible minorities, the projection suggests the face of Canada will have changed dramatically over half a century.

The largest visible minority group is projected to be South Asian, which includes people from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Statistics Canada projects the South Asian population could double in 2031 to 4.1 million from roughly 1.3 million in 2006.

I'm a little surprised though, as I might have guessed the biggest group was Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino. However, I now see that Chinese are classified separately from Vietnamese and Filipino, even though those from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are classified together, hence that statistic.

---

Unfortunately, our street food still absolutely sucks. Maybe the next mayor can allow introduction of some good Chinese and South Asian street vendors, without all the idiotic bureaucratic red tape.

 

[kettal]

"Majority will become a minority" would be more accurate wording. Unless south asians will be more than 50%, they're not a majority.

 

[Eug]

"Majority will become a minority" would be more accurate wording. Unless south asians will be more than 50%, they're not a majority.

You are correct sir... although even then, use of the term "majority" was also kinda iffy, since that "majority" would have been a mix of Brits, Italians, Jews, Russians, French, Polish, etc., etc.

ie. "Visible minority" kinda makes sense, but that would mean the "majority" would have to be "invisible majority".

BTW, as of 2006, 50% of Toronto residents were foreign born.

P.S. Here is the link, which I forgot to put in the original post.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100309/national/vis_min_growth

 

[Tacoma]

This was in the Toronto Star. If you read it more closely, it says that whites will be a minority (<50%) by 2017, not 2031. And the delineation of visible minorities is confusing as they group all South Asians together but Chinese and Filipinos are separated from their East and Southeast Asian neighbours. And are whtes just Europeans or are Jewish white as well? They need some definitions.

 

[golodhendil]

I'm a little surprised though, as I might have guessed the biggest group was Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino. However, I now see that Chinese are classified separately from Vietnamese and Filipino, even though those from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are classified together, hence that statistic.

This was in the Toronto Star. And the delineation of visible minorities is confusing as they group all South Asians together but Chinese and Filipinos are separated from their East and Southeast Asian neighbours.

Well that's probably because, culturally (in some cases), historically, linguistically and genetically, Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians are quite distinct from Chinese (especially Mandarin-speaking northern Han Chinese), and so are the Filipinos from other "Southeast Asians" especially with their admixture with Europeans. On the other hand, most peoples from the South Asian subcontinent form a group genetically more closely related to each other than to those outside, and the current state of political division being a rather recent phenomenon.

 

[lead82]

Its a slow news day if this is news to the folks at the Toronto Star/ Stats Canada. What did they expect? New immigrants are coming mainly from Asian countries. Europeans are not coming here much, except for a few from Eastern Europe. The natural growth rate in Canada is slightly negative(births - deaths), thus population growth is attributed entirely by immigration. So it only makes sense that the big cities of Vancouver and Toronto will be made up of minority groups.

In 10 years, there will be no majority, every group will be a minority group.

The question is, is this a good thing or a bad thing? How will this affect the way our city evolves over the course of the next few decades? Will Little Italy be replaced by Little Persia or Little Seoul? With the reduced influence of the European cultures, will the Little Italy's, Greektowns, Little Portugal's be able to survive? Will newer cultures take their place and build street oriented communities downtown or will the new cultural hubs be mainly in the suburbs as is the current trend.

 

[Eug]

Well that's probably because, culturally (in some cases), historically, linguistically and genetically, Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians are quite distinct from Chinese (especially Mandarin-speaking northern Han Chinese), and so are the Filipinos from other "Southeast Asians" especially with their admixture with Europeans. On the other hand, most peoples from the South Asian subcontinent form a group genetically more closely related to each other than to those outside, and the current state of political division being a rather recent phenomenon.

How different are Vietnamese from Chinese genetically? Remember, Vietnam is just over the border. Filipinos are different, related presumably more to native populations of the islands with a few other cultures thrown in.

It's true that Vietnamese culture is very different from Chinese culture, but then again Pakistan in many ways is very different culturally from India as well. Koreans and Northern Chinese have just as many similarities as differences, and again (North) Korea is just over the border from China. While the language may be different, there are commonalities to the food for example, and in fact Korea used to use Chinese for the written language.

My main point though was that if you're just looking at "visible" minorities, for the most part it's pretty damn difficult to tell the difference between a Vietnamese vs. a Chinese vs. a Korean, although I suppose it might be easier in some instances to pick out a native Filipino. Similarly it's actually pretty hard to tell the difference between a Brit and a western Russian or an Ashkenazy Jew in many cases, or a black South African vs. a Nigerian.

Anyways, in the greater scheme of things, that's probably all irrelevant. More importantly, I want access to all those foods in Toronto, instead of just hot dogs and fake Italian sausage, and sawdust-like veggie dogs. What the heck is wrong with having street vendors with Chinese fried rice, Vietnamese subs, tandoori chicken, Korean bibimbap, or Chilean humitas for that matter? Bureaucracy reigns to the point where the multiculturalism sometimes just gets lost in the red tape.

 

[Hairball]

My main point though was that if you're just looking at "visible" minorities, for the most part it's pretty damn difficult to tell the difference between a Vietnamese vs. a Chinese vs. a Korean, although I suppose it might be easier in some instances to pick out a native Filipino. Similarly it's actually pretty hard to tell the difference between a Brit and a western Russian or an Ashkenazy Jew in many cases, or a black South African vs. a Nigerian.

I guess Vietnamese and Chinese races are somewhat similar - assuming you aren't comparing with the ethnic Chinese people from Vietnam. Chinese and Korean, I'd definitely say there are more differences. An Asian person might be able to distinguish better though, but even then it's not an exact science of course.

 

[kettal]

If you order a hot dog at Bloor & Christie, you might get an exciting meal.

 

[golodhendil]

How different are Vietnamese from Chinese genetically? Remember, Vietnam is just over the border. Filipinos are different, related presumably more to native populations of the islands with a few other cultures thrown in.

It's true that Vietnamese culture is very different from Chinese culture, but then again Pakistan in many ways is very different culturally from India as well. Koreans and Northern Chinese have just as many similarities as differences, and again (North) Korea is just over the border from China. While the language may be different, there are commonalities to the food for example, and in fact Korea used to use Chinese for the written language.

My main point though was that if you're just looking at "visible" minorities, for the most part it's pretty damn difficult to tell the difference between a Vietnamese vs. a Chinese vs. a Korean, although I suppose it might be easier in some instances to pick out a native Filipino. Similarly it's actually pretty hard to tell the difference between a Brit and a western Russian or an Ashkenazy Jew in many cases, or a black South African vs. a Nigerian.

That's why cultural difference is not necessarily the best way to distinguish between populations; linguistics (NOT writing systems) work better, and genetics work best. I don't have the SNP or haplotype data on hand, but proximity doesn't equal relatedness, anymore than proximity means the Finno-Ugric peoples (Finns, Estonians and Hungarians) are closely related to other Europeans (they aren't), especially because many populations are historically isolated and rarely interbred even with neighbouring peoples. There are ethnic Vietnamese in China, and Southern Chinese are partially related to Vietnamese (peoples like Cantonese and Fukinese are descended from mixing of ancient Han migrants from northern China and the ancestors of Vietnamese people while they were still living in southern China), but Han and Vietnamese are less genetically related. There are also some ethnic Koreans in northern China, but Koreans are even less related to Han Chinese ancestrally and more genetically isolated subsequently.

Many cultural differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring Indians (Indian culture itself is very diverse) can probably be attributed to religious differences. Northern Pakistani populations are further up the "Indian cline" of genetic relatedness towards western Indo-Europeans, but South Asians are still closer to each other than to outsiders. Urdu and Hindi, the official languages of Pakistan and India respectively, are in fact basically the same language.

How easy it is to distinguish between different peoples very much varies with the person. As Hairball says physical features are far from being the most exact method, but I'd say personally I can distinguish pretty well between most of the groups you mentioned.

FYI, writing system is a very poor way of identifying relatedness, anymore than the fact that Urdu and Hindi are written with two drastically different writing systems means they're unrelated or that modern Vietnamese being written with the Latin alphabet means it is related to Europeans.

 

[adma]

If you order a hot dog at Bloor & Christie, you might get an exciting meal.

Compared to Tacos El Asador? You be kidding

 

[Eug]

An Asian person might be able to distinguish better though, but even then it's not an exact science of course.

How easy it is to distinguish between different peoples very much varies with the person. As Hairball says physical features are far from being the most exact method, but I'd say personally I can distinguish pretty well between most of the groups you mentioned.

Personally, I'd say you're probably overestimating your abilities here. Just about every single Chinese person who claimed they could recognize the difference between the northern Chinese and Koreans in our group were wrong most of the time.

 

[Tacoma]

... There are ethnic Vietnamese in China, and Southern Chinese are partially related to Vietnamese (peoples like Cantonese and Fukinese are descended from mixing of ancient Han migrants from northern China and the ancestors of Vietnamese people while they were still living in southern China), but Han and Vietnamese are less genetically related. There are also some ethnic Koreans in northern China, but Koreans are even less related to Han Chinese ancestrally and more genetically isolated subsequently.
...

Now you're just proving my point. There are over 50 different ethnicities in China and some closer to Korean or (as you say) Vietnamese as they are other Chinese. The earliest known Korean state was Old Choson in what is now northwestern Korea and southern Northeast China and Han Chinese ruled Korea for many centuries, so there's an big intermix there culturally as well if you read ancient Chinese and Korean history. This is not the forum to be discussing this, but you've proved my point that they should just categorize as East Asian to be consistent with the South Asian category for the purposes of this high level precision survey on visible minorities in Canada.

 

[M II A II R II K]

That would be one significant way that Canada can differentiate itself from the USA.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Note that a relatively large proportion of the people who've emigrated from places like the Philippines, Singapore, or even Jamaica are - in part or in whole - ethnically Chinese. There's been enough diasporas over time (not just from China) to really dilute the meaning of these ethnic/national groupings and people that have migrated before are much more likely to migrate again (which is why many have made their way to Canada). That's partly why it makes no sense to lump some countries together and not others. To an extent, these cultural groupings are just the WASP/French establishment in Canada's way of sorting people out...differentiate between Korea and Japan, don't differentiate between Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It's a bit old-fashioned and will change eventually, especially as the demographic numbers change. As we become more familiar with larger numbers of people from various South Asian countries, we may separate them and begin lumping together the European countries with a dwindling demographic presence.