http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=T&Id=6216

I mean how dare anyone ever expects someone to assimilate into a culture that they freely move into, that has to be the most racist concept ever according to liberal land.

because true education is limited to those who accept all the truth ... and all the truth is limited to those who accept their own truth of origins as well

Show me the part in the constitution where is talks about assimilating into a culture.

Ok when somebody moves to a country and refuses to learn the official language and act far outside the "normalness" of the customs, don't cry foul when no one really wants to hire you or anything else, excepting your fellow immigrants.

I wish everyone was lightbrown/beige or even powder coated black - the same color. It would be interesting to see what people would generally "say" they hate each other for after that...

For myself, I find far better reasons to hate certain people...

I mean how dare anyone ever expects someone to assimilate into a culture that they freely move into, that has to be the most racist concept ever according to liberal land.

Your insistent use of the word "assimilate" in relation to the "melting pot" is one potential source of your confusion. The word "assimilate", in this context, means "to absorb into the culture or mores of a population or group (http://m-w.com/dictionary/assimilate)". Thus I can only reiterate my response to your prior address of the melting pot (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1711453&postcount=9).

Full assimilation over the years would mean that, no matter what color we are or where our ancestors came from, we would all have names like Thomas, Benjamin, and George, and would all be Protestant Christians. Everyone would listen to country or bluegrass music (both derived from Scots-Irish influences).

Or, even more appropriately, the Europeans who arrived on this continent would have assimilated into the indigenous tribes they encountered, which probably would have brought a better outcome for everybody involved.

Understand, Angrybellsprout, that the melting pot is not about assimilation, but, rather, transformation and adaptation. You would do yourself much good to stop confusing the ideas.

Because, yes, assimilation is a racist concept.

Tiassa:

Understand, Angrybellsprout, that the melting pot is not about assimilation, but, rather, transformation and adaptation.


From what I have read, that is false. The melting pot analogy involves migrants having to relinquish some of their native homeland characteristics in order to assimilate into their adopted homeland.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot:

United States

The melting pot idea is most strongly associated with the United States, particularly in reference to "model" immigrant groups of the past. Past generations of immigrants to the United States, it is argued by some, became successful by working to shed their historic identities and adopt the ways of their new country. Typically immigrants absorbed the ways of the "host" society, while loosening to varying degrees their connection to their native culture. This "Ellis Island" version of the "melting pot" narrative, equating the melting pot with the mixing of Euro-American immigrants, has been criticized because it overlooks the history of African-Americans, who came to North America mainly as slaves through the Atlantic slave trade, and Native Americans, who were wiped out, displaced or enslaved during the European colonization of the Americas.

The "melting pot" process has been equated with cultural assimilation and acculturation.


It's made clear that in the melting pot analogy, at least partial assimilation must occur on behalf of the migrant group. They may retain a fragment of their native culture which adds to the overall culture of their adopted homeland, but the overall 'flavour' remains of the adopted homeland remains the same. A pinch of salt does not radically alter the flavour of an Irish stew.

Since you assert that the expectation of immigrants to assimilate is racist, then the melting pot analogy is racist.

This in turn leads us to the 'tossed salad' analogy, where all migrant groups retain their own culture, and no assimilation occurs. This results in a society of very clearly defined cultures and ethnicities, a sort of self-imposed cultural apartheid.

It's made clear that in the melting pot analogy, at least partial assimilation must occur on behalf of the migrant group. They may retain a fragment of their native culture which adds to the overall culture of their adopted homeland, but the overall 'flavour' remains of the adopted homeland remains the same. A pinch of salt does not radically alter the flavour of an Irish stew.This is not a very good interpretation of what a melting pot is and does. You pour any amount of anything into it, and it all melts and gets homogenized. That's not the same thing as staying the same.

Our national food has become pizza during my lifetime. Hardly anybody had heard of it outside the cities with huge Italian populations. Nobody played soccer. Now we have a widespread phenomenon called "soccer moms." Jazz is an amalgamation of music from several ethnic groups, not all of which are northern European. Rock and roll, which is now regarded as the heartbeat of America by the rest of the world, was the result of the music of African-Americans being legitimized by the Italian-American community in Eastern cities, who twenty years previously were not even regarded as "white." The dominant musical form in Latin America is salsa, and it was invented in New York City by a smorgasbord of immigrants.

How about beer? Ever notice that all of our breweries have German names? Schlitz, Pabst, Anhaeuser-Busch, Blitz, Coors (Kurz), Yuengling, etc.? We'd be drinking something else if it weren't for the huge wave of German immigration during the collapse of their economy 150 years ago. How about our comedy? Many of the people who gave us the one-liners that define American culture, from Groucho Marx to Jon Stewart, were Jewish.

Each of these may seem like a trifle, but in aggregate, over the years, they add up. America is not at all the same country it was 200 years ago, and Americans are not at all the same people. That's what the melting pot is all about.

Again that is quite different from what the advocates of multiculturalism are pushing.

They want their salad to where the lettuce and carrots never melt together, but remain wholy independant of each other. Actually, they'd rather the carrots impose theirselves onto the lettuce.

They think that the most disgusting thing that a parent could ever do is to speak to their child in English, and to allow them to grow up as an American. They think that it is offensive to demand that when you move into a new country that you should change a single thing about your life. After all, it isn't as if you moved into the new country because you gave any sort of a damn about that new country, but because you wanted to force yourself onto your new country.

Again that is quite different from what the advocates of multiculturalism are pushing.

They want their salad to where the lettuce and carrots never melt together, but remain wholy independant of each other. Actually, they'd rather the carrots impose theirselves onto the lettuce.

They think that the most disgusting thing that a parent could ever do is to speak to their child in English, and to allow them to grow up as an American. They think that it is offensive to demand that when you move into a new country that you should change a single thing about your life. After all, it isn't as if you moved into the new country because you gave any sort of a damn about that new country, but because you wanted to force yourself onto your new country.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
UR SAVAGE

Fraggle:

This is not a very good interpretation of what a melting pot is and does. You pour any amount of anything into it, and it all melts and gets homogenized. That's not the same thing as staying the same.


It's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of those who coined and promoted the term, as the wikipedia article makes clear. Migrant groups may add in some small way a tiny bit of their culture to the 'melting pot', but on the whole, they are expected to surrender a significant proportion of their cultural identity in order to assimilate into their adopted homeland. That isn't my opinion, or me inventing my own definition, it's what the analogy was originally intended to represent.

All your examples show is that the level of assimilation in American society over the past 100 years has decreased, and hence is no longer as faithful to the melting pot analogy as it once was. As this link explains:

http://www.learningdesign.com/Portfolio/museum/museumschool.html

The "melting pot" -- that vision in which "foreigners" eagerly flock to American shores and willingly assimilate into one superior "American" culture -- is dead. It probably only truly existed in the wishful thinking of early twentieth-century reformers trying to make sense of the greatest wave of human migration in history. The melting pot analogy assumed that for a society to function peacefully and effectively, cultural differences must be eliminated. In fact, however, social scientists have pointed out that the melting pot was never an apt description of the United States. Many groups have not assimilated, either by their own choice or because of prejudice against them.

Census projections show that the United States is becoming more, rather than less, culturally diverse. The term "mosaic" is now used to describe this state of affairs and to symbolize the ideal of unity in diversity, in contrast to the "melting pot" ideal of cultural assimilation. In the American "mosaic" (the terms "tapestry" and "salad bowl" are also used), the nation's culture derives its beauty and strength from many distinct cultures maintaining their own identities as they come together with a common purpose.


Another explaination of the 'melting pot' analogy, stressing that the immigrants are expected to adapt to the dominant culture:

http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/hohonu/writing.php?id=91

The melting pot theory, also referred to as cultural assimilation, revolves around the analogy that "the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their discrete identities and yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor, which is quite different from the original inputs" ("Melting Pot"). This idea differs from other analogies, particularly the salad bowl analogy where the ingredients are encouraged to retain their cultural identities, thus retaining their "integrity and flavor" while contributing to a tasty and nutritious salad ("Melting Pot"). Yet another food analogy is that of the ethnic stew, where there is a level of compromise between integration and cultural distinctiveness (Laubeova).

What these food analogies have in common is an appreciation that each of these ethnicities has something to contribute to the society as a whole. By comparing ethnic/cultural groups to ingredients in a recipe, we start with the assumption that each ingredient is important and the final product would not be the same if some distinct ingredient were missing. However, in the melting pot analogy, this premise is the least apparent and can be criticized for its dismissively simplistic social theories. This is one appropriate evaluation of the weaknesses of the melting pot and the tossed salad analogies:
In the case of the melting pot the aim is that all cultures become reflected in one common culture, however this is generally the culture of the dominant group - I thought this was mixed vegetable soup but I can only taste tomato. In the case of the salad bowl, cultural groups should exist separately and maintain their practices and institutions, however, Where is the dressing to cover it all? (Laubeova).

This criticism that the melting pot produces a society that primarily reflects the dominant culture instead of fusing into a completely new entity is reiterated by other sociologists, anthropologists, and cultural geographers as "Anglo-conformity" (Kivisto 151). This type of assimilation was seen as working like a one-way street and it was viewed as something that depended primarily on the cooperativeness of immigrants to be reoriented towards the dominant culture. The idea that the dominant culture would be infused with new energy through the influences of ethnic groups retaining their distinctive cultural attributes and thereby forging a new, stronger America due to their divergent cultural contributions was not given much weight by early researchers (Kivisto 152-154).


So yes, the Melting Pot analogy expects at least partial assimilation. And apparently such an expectation is 'racist'.

I wish the Europeans has assimilated with the Native Americans or at least allowed an equal exchange of cultures.
It set a bad precedent, which the Europeans now whine about when others come to the US and act like they did. Well, like they did but without all the killing and forced deculturalization activities. God, it really is whining when you think of it.

"Better stop eating that falafel, you ingrate."

Most Europeans are not complaining about new immigrants. New LEGAL immigrants are ok. It's the criminal aliens they're so mad about.

Most Europeans are not complaining about new immigrants. New LEGAL immigrants are ok. It's the criminal aliens they're so mad about.

Latino's are the new King makers in America. Neither party wants loose that voting block. I can't believe Democrats won't confront illegal immigration. They're a trojon horse for the conservative movment. Once they reach the middle class, they all vote Republican.

Latino's are the new King makers in America. Neither party wants loose that voting block. I can't believe Democrats won't confront illegal immigration. They're a trojon horse for the conservative movment. Once they reach the middle class, they all vote Republican.

The GOP is not pandering to them like Hillary and Obama. The dems just see the short-term benefit of letting criminal aliens vote for them.

It's the legal immigrants that vote for politicians with a humanitarian position on illegal immigration.

The GOP is not pandering to them like Hillary and Obama. The dems just see the short-term benefit of letting criminal aliens vote for them.


Oh yes the GOP is pandering to Illegals. Just ask John Mccain, Lindsey Graham, and the 22 other Republicans who backed the Amnesty bill. And thanks to Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, she put an admendment in the Federal Budget Bill to kill the border fence. Republicans are all talk when it comes to the border fence. The only Republican that follows through is Duncan Hunter.

Show me the part in the constitution where is talks about assimilating into a culture.

what constitution?

Ok when somebody moves to a country and refuses to learn the official language and act far outside the "normalness" of the customs, don't cry foul when no one really wants to hire you or anything else, excepting your fellow immigrants.

I wish everyone was lightbrown/beige or even powder coated black - the same color. It would be interesting to see what people would generally "say" they hate each other for after that...

For myself, I find far better reasons to hate certain people...

I'm the other way around. I like the diversity of what we collectively call the human species. Sameness is blahness whether among ice cream flavours, dogs or humans.

Unlike many, I don't buy into the 'equality' of people. That is a spritual or religious concept and not scientific. All humans are different genetically and the more removed from each genetically...the greater the differences. This is in everything including genes that determine the physical,the mental and behaviour. We are products of physical evolution. The racism kicks in when we impose values on the differences not based on evidence but rather based on 'opinion'. And the 'opinion 'kicks in' on both sides of the ideological specturm...folks saying we are all 'equal' even though they haven't met most groups in the world and those on the other who assign terms like inferior and superior.

It's the legal immigrants that vote for politicians with a humanitarian position on illegal immigration.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/29/briefs.on/english.only/index.html
PHOENIX (CNN) -- A voter-approved English-only measure


Why are liberals such liars, or are you going to try and claim that Arizona doesn't have many hispanics that are legal immigrants?

Oh yes the GOP is pandering to Illegals. Just ask John Mccain, Lindsey Graham, and the 22 other Republicans who backed the Amnesty bill. And thanks to Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, she put an admendment in the Federal Budget Bill to kill the border fence. Republicans are all talk when it comes to the border fence. The only Republican that follows through is Duncan Hunter.

Never liked that idiot, but to claim the only Republican that follows through is Hunter is to deny Tancredo or even Dr. Paul.

Hopefully in the next senate election that crap gets her booted out of office.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/29/briefs.on/english.only/index.html



Why are liberals such liars, or are you going to try and claim that Arizona doesn't have many hispanics that are legal immigrants?

What's the lie?