Dominant Minority = 5% 1


I recently read a book by Colin Wilson in which he raises the interesting fact of a Dominant Minority: these belong to a group representing 5% of the population, the creative thinkers who challenge systems.

Probably made up of self-actualisers.

Apparently, this statistic was proved during the Korean War, when the Chinese realized that they only needed to control this minority [the enterprising type] amongst the prisoners of war and that the rest [the passive type] could be left with almost no guards at all.

The implications are startling.

This apparently applies to the animal kingdom as well [zoology].

Share on Social Media

Leave a comment

One thought on “Dominant Minority = 5%

  • Des Squire

    I found your article stimulating and of interest and felt a need to look a little further. I hope you find my contribution to be of interest.
    http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dominant_minority

    What I found was that “a dominant minority, (also known as alien elites if recent immigrants) is a group that has overwhelming political power, economic power or cultural dominance in a country or region. This is despite the fact they represent a small fraction of the overall population.

    The term apparently is most commonly used to refer to ethnic groups, defined along racial, national, religious or cultural lines. This particular group would hold a disproportionate amount of power.

    White minority rule describes a situation where Whites, comprising the minority of inhabitants in a given region or territory, lead countries where non-white populations are the majority of inhabitants. White minority rule was associated with legal segregation (apartheid) in South Africa but not in Rhodesia or the Portuguese colonial territories. In these countries, the franchise was extended to non-whites on a qualified basis.

    The term was principally though not entirely used in southern Africa, especially in the Republic of South Africa before and during the policy of apartheid and also in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) during the rule of the Rhodesian Front. Many in the local non-white populations tended to favour Majority Rule, a term which the white minority tended to describe as Black Majority Rule.

    White minority rule ended in these countries through a combination of violent attacks by non-white groups; peaceful protests by non-whites; widespread international moral, political and financial pressure, including from majority-white countries; and changing attitudes within the white minorities themselves.

    Some scholars argue that white minority rule exists within the international system and term this phenomenon as Global Apartheid.

    On – http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010709/booker I fount the following which I have taken a liberty to extract from an article – Global Apartheid By Salih Booker & William Minter

    “Global apartheid, stated briefly, is an international system of minority rule whose attributes include: differential access to basic human rights; wealth and power structured by race and place; structural racism, embedded in global economic processes, political institutions and cultural assumptions; and the international practice of double standards that assume inferior rights to be appropriate for certain “others,” defined by location, origin, race or gender.

    Global apartheid thus defined, we believe, is more than a metaphor. The concept captures fundamental characteristics of the current world order missed by such labels as “neoliberalism,” “globalization” or even “corporate globalization.” Most important, it clearly defines what is fundamentally unacceptable about the current system, strips it of the aura of inevitability and puts global justice and democracy on the agenda as the requirements for its transformation.”

    Makes one think????????

    Des Squire