Who gets to be a “Minority”? “Minority”, in the simplest terms possible, implies status as a statistical or numerical minority as the ultimate criterion of being counted as a political “Minority, but we all know that, philosophically, the conception of “Minority” status employed in Social Justice discourse is much more than that. You’ll find no shortage, afterall, of SJWs who’ll tell you that whites, if current population projections hold, will not actually count as a “Minority” group upon becoming a numerical minority, for reasons of “Structural Inequality”, and “Institutional Racism”. Furthermore the category of “Whiteness” is hardly clearcut, what groups count as “White”? Is it on the basis of skin-tone alone that a person is white? There are white passing black people, but they still count as “Minorities” don’t they? And technically Italian and Hispanic people have darker complexions than most other traditionally “White” groups, but we still decide to count them as “White”, why?
There are no “White” people, the category of “Whiteness” is built up of numerous other ethnicities and nationalities that have been decided, for reasons unknown, to count as “White”, and to together comprise the “White” people. This is where the SJW definition of “Minority” shifts, from being about either numbers, or skin complexion, to be being about “Historical Oppression”, what makes a group “White” then, is the perception of that group as being historically “on top”, of that group having power and “Privilege”, of that group being culpable in “Western Imperialism” and domination of the world.
Couldn’t you make the case that the Anglo-Saxons are a historically oppressed group? They were invaded and colonized by the Normans, the Normans lined their political and religious leaders up against the wall and exterminated them, the Normans salted the fields and wiped out entire towns through starvation, the Normans installed curfews and other systems of control, they set themselves up as the ruling aristocracy, but the Anglo-Saxons are “White”. Despite being taken over and forced by the Normans to participate in the “Western Imperialism” of subsequent centuries against their wills, they are still considered part of the oppressor class. But in the case of blacks, they’re given a pass, why exactly is that?
The Irish, the Polish, the Italians, the Catholics, these are all groups that were historically “oppressed” in America at one time, just as the blacks were at one time, but today, the historical oppression suffered by the Irish isn’t enough to confer upon them “Minority” status, is it? They get subsumed by the larger category of “Whiteness” and transformed into oppressors, while blacks are again, given a pass…
And SJWs consider South Asian and Indian ethnicities to be non-white, to be “POC”, but what historical oppression have Indian people really faced in the United States that earns them this coveted protected status as “Minorities”, the case for the historical oppression of Catholics is significantly stronger than it is for Indians, there is no real hatred or distrust of Indians built into our culture, like Asian-Americans, they’ve actually rather had a great deal of success in recent decades.
What I’m getting at here, is that you say “Minority” as if being one is this very solid, objective thing, this characteristic inherent to the group in possession of some sort of meaningful empirical validity, you say “Minority” as if there are some “Minorities” out there in the world, but what you have to understand is, there aren’t, “Minority”, for SJWs, is something completely subjective and mutable.
Think of it like the difference between political boundaries drawn a map, and eternal natural boundaries, like mountain ranges and rivers, that are always present as features of the real landscape. In Social Justice, “Minority” groups are just like invisible nations drawn on a map, that only exist for the mind, and can be drawn and shaped according to political whim as current need dictates. Define your political opponents as “White” or as the “Majority”, and you can use that status, that you impose upon them, to take power away from those groups in order to reallocate it to yourself. And, likewise, if you define your supporters as the “Minority”, you can buy their political loyalty, their votes on election day, using the payola of Progressive government handouts and the benefits that come in our contemporary society from being one of the “Oppressed”.
That’s the problem, “I believe minorities should be equal”, that’s a slogan, it’s not a belief, and has no real meaning. What you have to understand is that the “Radicals” are at the top of the ideological pyramid, they’re the ones in the academy, their the lobbyists and the politicians, and only their beliefs ultimately count. They hand out slogans to the “Moderates” like yourself, shove them into the voting booth, get themselves elected, and then carry out their “Extremist” agendas once in power, and all those agendas ever amount to at the end of the day, is the hunger and pursuit for even more power. It doesn’t matter if the “Moderates” outnumber the “Radicals” 10:1, because the latter group sits atop the pyramid, and the former one is only some resource to be utilized in service of their own particular ends.
The strategy of Progressive Democrats in the US has been to get as many people to think of themselves as “Minorities” as possible, today everyone is some kind of “Minority”, whether you’re fat, or have a mental disability, or a physical handicap, whether you once kissed a member of the same sex in a dark hallway, or simply “identify” as some nonsensical “non-binary” gender, whether you’re part of the third generation of a hugely successful Indian family of lawyers and doctors, or you just happen to have a tan, everyone today thinks of themselves as some kind of “Minority”. What the Democrats have done from there, is to market themselves as the party that “cares” about the “Minorities”, the more “Minorities”, the more Democratic voters. It’s as simple as that.