In a pluralistic society such as ours, we frequently find it necessary or convenient to discuss our fellow citizens in terms of ethnicity or religion. We categorize accordingly. Some categories contribute to constructive discussion; others not so much.

One category used a great deal these days, particularly on the left, is “racialized.” It is usually meant to include everyone who isn’t white. Used that way it is, as the definition says, divisive. We are all either white or not white, us and them. We are all stuffed into one of two racial boxes.

Applying an issue across all people who are not white assumes all are similarly affected. Important differences between non-white groups are erased, differences that may be greater than any particular group has with whites. It often also conveys the impression that whites are advantaged over everyone else when that is not the case.

Consider, for example, the average incomes of various ethnic groups. Many people, if asked what ethnic group has the highest incomes, would say whites. They would be wrong. According to Statistics Canada, over a 20-yeat period (1995 to 2014), Chinese men had total earnings 20 percent higher, and South Asian men 15 percent higher, than white men. Similar differences applied to women. Black men had about 20 percent lower cumulative earnings than white men; black and white women’s were similar.

The higher earnings for Chinese and South Asian men compared to white men was attributed mostly or entirely to their higher education levels, particularly their overrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The gap between black and white men could not be accounted for by differences in sociodemographic characteristics, job characteristics or work histories.

Similar results are shown by weekly earnings. Statistics for workers ages 25 to 44 showed that those of Korean, Japanese, Chinese and South Asian extraction tend to be the top earners while Latin-American and black people are often among the lowest. Whites are mostly in the middle of the pack on earnings and in the lower echelons of university education.

The above stats are for native-born Canadians. Often statistics are shown that include immigrants and native-born together even though the two groups have very different experiences. The portion of immigrants in ethnic groups varies widely so will affect the statistics for groups differently and render comparisons meaningless.

When considering why groups differ, it’s important to keep in mind people make different choices. Which groups are more inclined to choose STEM education for example.

Where they happen to live is also important. Whereas over 70 percent of Chinese, Korean and South Asian people in Canada live in just three cities (Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver) only a quarter of whites do. A third of whites live outside metropolitan areas, but less than five percent of Chinese, Korean and South Asian people do.

Urban areas offer much more educational opportunity and higher wages, so any comparisons between groups should take into where the subjects reside—town or country.

The above numbers graphically depict the folly of lumping Canadians into simple white vs racialized for discussing the relative status of ethnic groups. Unfortunately this divisive term is frequently used cavalierly or lazily to imply white privilege or discrimination which, as the data shows, is a highly questionable notion.

“Racialized” is essentially a meaningless term. Ethnic data must be disaggregated to offer meaningful information. We might even question lumping whites together, or blacks. They, like Asians, come from large and diverse continents with many peoples.

Groups deserve to be and must be considered uniquely, on their own terms and in the proper context, in order to achieve fair and instructive conclusions.