Demographic shifts disrupt majority-minority status

Previously published 7 April 2018 by the Terre Haute Tribune Star

Over the last month or so, I have read and heard stories about the changing demographics of the United States. The term “minority-majority” is common in those reports. Even Wikipedia has an entry for majority-minority: “A majority–minority or minority–majority area is a term used in the United States to refer to a jurisdiction in which one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities (relative to the whole country's population) make up a majority of the local population.”

A search of the term produces many reports, especially over the last two years with headlines such as “10 percent of U.S. counties now majority-minority,” “US to be majority-minority by 2044,” “post-recession generation to be majority-minority.”

I guess it makes for good headlines to use such terms but it certainly isn’t helpful as the United States’ demographics change. Indeed, it is this kind of headline and framing that drives the uneasiness that is driving so much of the reactionary policies of our current politics.

In a racist society that constructs in-groups and out-groups based on physical or cultural differences, the dominant group, which may be a numerical majority as in the United States, will predictably be unnerved and feel threatened as “minority” groups gain more equal status, including numerically. For such groups, “equality” feels like discrimination.

My issue with the use of “majority-minority” is that it encourages that fear of greater equality.

Think about what the use of “majority-minority” assumes; it assumes that any white person has more in common with any other white person than any person of “minority” status. This line of thinking reduces all white folks to essentially the same things just as it also reduces others to the same-but essentially different than white folks. Indeed, constructing things in that way, makes it even harder for individuals to rise above the simplistic, inherently racist categories to create meaningful and positive human relationships, or for those who must see some kind of economic value in everything “social capital.”

The use of “minority-majority” also assumes that all “minorities” are the same, too. Adopting this usage forces the assumption that all minorities are the same. African-Americans are not the same as Latin/a Americans nor are they the same as Chinese Americans. The paradox is that using minority-majority actually pushes minority members to view each other as more similar than to the majority.

If demographic patterns hold out, whites will go from a majority to the plurality. Whites will still be the largest single racial/cultural group. To the extent that “white” preferences for foods, entertainment, fashion, and so forth are homogeneous, their market power will continue to dominate, because the “minority” is indeed not homogeneous in their preferences. Many share similar preferences that white folks do.

I suspect this is not the first time in our history that “whites” faced a similar demographic situation. (Of course we did not have the 24/7 media coverage of such things then.) From 1820 to 1860 the U.S. population almost doubled, and that doubling came from immigration. 31 million people immigrated to the U.S. in that 40-year period. And, given who was considered “white” then, many of the people who today are considered white were not then — the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Greeks, Italians and others.

Over time, however, definitions changed and they became “white.” Don’t be surprised if current racial definitions change and these trends change. Of course that means those currently “white” will be joined by some who are not considered “white” now. This, too, is predictable when such racial/cultural classifications signify inequalities individuals will look to “move” up into the dominant groups.

It is up to us. For me, the “dominant” group in the United States are its citizens. It’s too bad that is a minority viewpoint.