COMMENTS:
Voted : The assimilation of the melting pot is better
Policies of multiculturalism are inferior. The manner in which multiculturalist state policies have been enforced would suggest this. Under the multicultural scheme ethnic groups are actively encouraged to keep their traditional ways and not to integrate. So it is that society becomes divided. Ethnic groups are to be officially recognised as 'different' and that they should be respected as such- the negative connotations of this is that individuals of other races are implicitly being recognised as 'different' and recognition of this 'difference' is recognition that people of other races are an 'other', thus they could never truly be seen as 'French', 'Dutch', 'Australian', etc. Furthermore, by officially recognising ethnic groups, one is generalising how individuals within each group should be, thus disregarding the value of the individual.
The American melting pot of assimilation is much better. People of all different backgrounds are theoretically all held to the same standards. There is much more integration of the differing ethnic groups in the US relative to other Western countries which have adopted multiculturalism. The US does recognise diversity, however, it recognises each ethnic group as subcultures, subordinate to the uniting cultural principles of the American Creed. Thus, in multicultural France, one of Asian background is simply "Asian" as a complete embracement and respect of their differing identity, whereas in melting pot USA they would be "Asian-American".
So it is that Muslims in Europe are increasingly turning to radicalism (the younger generation born in Europe more so than their parents born outside of it), while in the US, Americans who happen to be Muslim are not experiencing such a similar trend. The alienation in Europe is caused by its mutlicultural policies- as its promotion of completely respecting 'difference' implies an 'otherness' which separates ethnic groups from national identity, and so they look for other sources of identity. In the US, this does not occur so much at all. So it is that Europe had the Paris riots, the murder of Van Gough, the Danish cartoon reactionary riots, active terrorists born and raised in Europe, and so on. However, this is changing, as Europe is increasingly abandoning multiculturalism and embracing assimilation. European countries are more and more admitting that multiculturalism was "naive" and are demanding that all ethnic groups assimilate. Even European Greens are now pushing for this.
It seems thus clear to me, that assimilation is superior to Mutlicultural policies.
I think people should be encouraged to remember and understand their own culture and language, as well as American culture. Which culture they ultimately follow, if any, is a matter of individual preference.
The melting pot
by aya on Thu Apr 12, 07 7:18am
[+]
The melting pot concept might work only in the US. Europeans and the rest of the world find it more difficult to ignore national differences.
Voted : Multiculturalism is better
I do not believe assimilation works in the long run. I believe the more aggressive cultures would eventually obliterate the less agressive cultures--higher reproduction rates are a powerful form of cultural agressiveness, to name but one. I like the idea of multiculturalism VERY much, if it would work.
forgetmenot- but it hasn't worked, has it?
skylab- this is where the problem is. You are identifying other groups as definite separate nationalities. Under assimilation, ethnic minorities are absorbed into the nationality of the nation-state of which they are citizen of, and are not seen as different nationalities, but rather as subcultures of the same nationality, of which each subculture is expected to conform to the national culture. This can work in countries outside the US, I believe.
So 58% have voted that multiculturalism is better, but only one hardly any explained why? That's typical of pro-mutliculturalist people- they support it seemingly 'just because', which isn't very intellectual. However, you'd think they would be here defending it as loudly as possible in comments considering that pretty much every single multicultural nation-state is now abandoning multiculturalism as is opting instead for some kind of assimilation.
"but only one hardly any explained why"
I meant to say only one explained why they felt that way.
Sorry if I didn't explain better. Multiculturalism (my but that's a big word) works where it works, which is in most of the world outside the US. Whether that should be true in a perfect world isn't the issue, only whether it works better in most places on earth, all else being equal. On that basis, it's the best way to avoid needless wars outside the US.
Voted : Multiculturalism is better
Multiculturalism doesn't rule out holding all people to the same standards. Recognition of differences is different from making them sacred.
I know people who speak better Spanish than English, and are more distincly Mexican than American. I'm fairly certain we won't be declaring any wars against each other any time soon, nor are we going to develop radical behavior toward each other because we come from different areas of the world.
I agree, though, that multiculturalism can be taken too far and that ideals that are the direct opposites of the most basic Western ones should be discouraged in favor of ours. But desiring for all ethnic groups, not matter how different or independent, to "conform to the national culture" in ways beyond upholding basic moral principles is taking assimilation way too far, IMO.
When I look at America's problem with race relations that are constantly cropping up in the news I think that the melting pot may have something to do with it. Here in Canada we done have these problems. We could never imagine a radio or television reporter or personality making fun of another persons race. It simply would never happen. People here don't find racist humour funny just ignorant. I am branching off from the original question, I know. People in America or anywhere for that matter don't want to "lose" their culture because that's who they are and there is nothing wrong with that.
I dont believe in multiculturalism in Britain basically because its a myth. Britan isn't multicultural- for the vast majority of the county it is monocultural, and pretending this isn't the case just leads to racial tension. Waht gets me is that you rarely hear ethnic minorities talking about multiculturalism. Its usually upper middle class white people who are obsessed with it, who say things like 'the union jack ooffend muslims' despite never having asked a muslim person his or her opinions. They are just as ignorant as the racist meat heads.
himself- other than the Spanish language- is American and Mexican (in fact more broadly Latin American and Western) culture really all that different? And I believe Mexican-Americans should have to learn to speak English as fluently as possible. I oppose the idea of the US officially and politically becoming bilingual. This is more of a matter of practicality than sentimentality. Certainly, as you say, there probably won't be more ethnic violence because of the self-imposed segregation of the Mexicans that don't speak English as well, however, they are cutting themselves from the rest of American society, and as such the nation becomes divided and shattered.
"to "conform to the national culture" in ways beyond upholding basic moral principles is taking assimilation way too far, IMO."
- Like the head-scarf ban in France? I agree that that sort of thing is taking assimilation too far. What I am calling for is simply an assimilation into Western cultural creeds of individual rights, women's rights, tolerance of homosexuality, learning the official language as well as possible of the land, mutual tolerance, blending into the cultural dream of realising the Enlightenment philosophies. Diversity of cuisine, clothing, civilised religious practice, and such is fine with me- other cultures should be brought in and recognised as sub-cultures and not separate cultures, as they would be subordinated to the same Western cultural creeds I mentioned above.
"Recognition of differences is different from making them sacred."
- Melting pot US does recognise difference.
Closet- I believe problems in the USA's race relations has more to do with economic characteristics, and not culture clashes. There is a very distinct difference. And last time I checked Canadians did find racial humour to be funny- with American films such as 'White Chicks' being big hits.
"People in America or anywhere for that matter don't want to "lose" their culture because that's who they are and there is nothing wrong with that."
- No, any cultural tradition that violates the Western cultural creeds should be abandoned if they are to live in the West. Caste system, female genital mutilation, overt and unashamed aggressive patriarchy (eg,Confucian forms of), honour killings, violent intolerance of homosexuality, forced marriages, cannibalism, non-recognition of private property, theocratic attitudes and such- these things are barbaric, wouldn't you say?
chomsky- I disagree. For example, the London Sunday Telegraph reported that 40% of Muslims living in Britain want sharia law enforced in local districts with majority populations of Muslims. Sorry, but that is unacceptable. They should assimilate. See ballot #91267.
The assimilationist melting pot is like a soup- in which all the ingredients truly get attempted to get mixed together. Multiculturalism is segregationist- it is like a pizza- with each slice being a different type of pizza. The mixing and blending approach is better.
^I believe in assimilation aswell. I just think alot of this PC crap actually comes form guilt ridden white people in Islington and places. I'm dont trust polls much either. Having said that the younger generation of muslims seem to be more inclined to all that sharia business than the older generation, so doesn't that prove that multiculuralism doesn't work?
|
