Tomofumi Kodo
What does the word of “minority” and “majority” mean? I do not know the answer, because it seems, for me, that these idea can easily be created based on arbitrary criteria. For example, when we consider “Okinawan” people as a minority group, that means WE are in a majority simply because we are not them, or because they have different dialect, culture, behavior, and so on compared to us, “Japanese”. However, these criteria implicitly mean that we share same identities and deny the diversity within us. Since the awareness of diversity, or being different, makes people alienate the different group from them. “We are not same.” Within the majority group, other minorities are created, and then, “original minority”, “Okinawan” people in my post, would be categorized into “majority”, after those segmentalization of original majority. I think that majority turns into a minority, and then, various minority idea would be taken over by the idea of majority. Then, we notice that it is useless to consider “Okinawan” people as a minority. “Why do we need to think ‘Okinawan as minority’, even though we are not majority?”
However, I do not think this process does not, or hardly, occur in reality, because people, including me, try to avoid from being treated as minority, ignoring lots of difference. I have Japanese nationality, but am not sure I have Japanese identity as other Japanese have. Some tell me the definition of Japanese people with various identities, but I do not totally agree to the definition because there must, and actually, be Japanese people who is not Japanese based on his definition but I believe he is. It’s true that there is minority group in number, but this does not mean at all. We put them various identities and create as minority groups, not as a relative, but as an absolute one through the discrimination to them, for example.
It’s almost impossible to clear away minority groups from this world unless these activities of creation and recreation of minority disappear. However hard do I try not to make minority or majority group, we would intentionally do. But it would still be important to ask ourselves that “on what point can we say so?” when we see some people, or group, as minority or majority.
At some time, maybe I’m either minority or majority, but other times I’m both or neither.
JAPANsociology 
This post is absolutely impressive, especially the phrase “Both or neither”.
The post insists the sense of meaningless to categorise poeple in the “traditional” minority/majority ways. Even if people categorise somebody because they want to stand on a better position, it might be (must be) a worse position from somebody else.
Then, I want to add one question. The reasons why those “majority” people are willing to identify them as majority seem to be because of their will to gain higher status or legitimacy to have dependent class, etc.
On the other hand, in this context, to claim that they are “minority” seems to be in a negative way. Then, is there any positive meaning to IDENTIFY themselves as “minority”? Though the categorisation itself seems to be quite meaningless, there might be some positive ways for those groups categorised in a negative side.
I appreciate your comment and would like to respond to it. I did not intend to say that creation of the idea of majority or minority is meaningless, but tried to make the audience notice that “minority”or “majority” are not always what they believe to be. I’m not trying to deny categorization. What I wanted to say in this post is that we should not see “minority” or “majority” as a absolute one. Higher status or other superiority complexes do not precede the creation of “majority”, but we just put these ideas after we create “majority”. As you mentioned, being a “minority” intentionally sometimes can break negative images, which means that positive sides can be found even in “minority”.
I believe your post is a good trigger to make audience have a internal question about the idea of minority and majority with themselves.