Literally... by definition. multiculturalism means more than 1 group or culture... homogeneous means 1 group or culture... you cant have American culture... and Multiculturalism at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. So if multiculturalism is good, then a fractured society is also good, by extension. So then why do people get so bent out of shape that we are fracturing as a nation and a country, that not everyone wants to identify as a Merican and talk about muh freedoms etc. That old 1950s homogeneous way of thinking is at odds with the idea of having multiple cultures residing within a single nation. Right?
Multiculturalism = fracturing of society.
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
White anglo culture that permeated the USA pre 1965 Hart-Celler Act which was the last time the USA had what we could consider a homogeneous society/culture. Stereotypical 1950s' 60s Rockwell paintings. Thats Americana.
American culture = multiculturalism lol
And that's all I've got to say about this
And that's all I've got to say about this
Originally only people of Anglo-saxon stock were considered Americans. The Irish were seen as inferior and discriminated against. There was a trial to determine if Finish people are Asian or not. There are probably more ridiculous examples I could find.
What is supposed to be the original society? Anglo only? "White" only? Protestant/Christian only?
Yes these rivalries were imported with the settlers, but there were also Germans, Poles and Slavs who came in the 1600s to set up Americas 1st export which in Jamestown was glasswear. At the time the rivalries were what they were, but these people were essentially 1 culture with a well established hierarchy. It is true though that the owners were shareholders of the Virginia company and everyone else was their servant indentured or otherwise because they funded the colony which was meant for not only settlement but commercial purposes.
Do you know what subculture is? America has never been fully homogeneous. Even the founding political system is decidedly not homogeneous. You don't need to vote when you're homogeneous.
If you want to see what homogeneous looks like, look at North Korea.
If you want to see what homogeneous looks like, look at North Korea.
Only if you're revisionist and pretend that greasers, outlaws and beatniks didn't exist.
This is a bit of a red herring. Yes, multiculturalism does imply a certain kind of 'fracturing'. Suppose two cultures occupy the same country. If one culture values openness and freedom while the other does not, this can and probably will lead to conflict. But if you are alluding to conflict that exists in America today, then it's causes are more complicated than just the fact that we live in a multicultural society. I think bipartisanship is its main cause. Multiculturalism is just a term that has been successfully hijack by the media. It's used primarily as a tool to wage idiological warfare. In large part, the hijacking has worked perfectly. We are now discussing multiculturalism as if it is a huge problem when it isnt. American imperialism is a problem. The manufacturing of all misery in the world is also a problem. This topic here is a distraction.
This is simply factually incorrect. America was homogeneous. It was a Western European culture which is largely an extension of earlier civilizations which were also started by Western Europeans. I dont look at an Irishman vs and Englishman as any different ultimately, national origin is mostly BS. Those subcultures fit within a historical concept known as America, which was a western European colony.
Copied and pasted from the webs...
"A melting pot is a metaphor for a society where many different types of people blend together as one. America is often called a melting pot.
Some countries are made of people who are almost all the same in terms of race, religion, and culture. Then there are places like the United States, where there are many different types of people. A place like that is a melting pot, because the people — despite their differences — manage to coexist and live together as one nation. Anywhere diverse people are assimilated could be called a melting pot. In a melting pot, differences become less important than unity."
"Historically, it is often used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States. The melting-together metaphor was in use by the 1780s. The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name."
1780-ish is not post 1965
Also this... it's not far from my house. Think I'll check it out some time.
https://www.meltingpot.com/indianapolis-in/
I am speaking of an overarching culture rooted in western identity. Youre being pedantic by pointing out beatniks.
This is not true. Pre 1965 immigration was not as great as you think, and they only took in people from European nations. look into the http://www.history.com/topics/us-immigration-since-1965 act on it.
Multiculturalism means opening the borders and mass migrating millions of non western European people who come from different in many cases extremely incompatible cultures and diluting a white majority that has stood for 400+ years. Thats what multiculturalism in practice is in the USA and Europe. Bipartisanship is not the problem. the problem is that people are people not identity-less blobs of undifferentiated mass. They have feelings and traditions and belief structures which run the gamut. When you fill a nation with different tribes, eventually the tribes will fight for resources. India and Pakistan used to be 1 country, then multiculturalism happened. This is how human beings act. Also if you dont like talking about this topic you can feel free to start one of you own, I dont think this discussion is a distraction. Its much more important than the conversation about "bipartisanship" wow, what a snooze fest that would be.
Yeeeah ok.
If people talk different, eat different, wear different clothes, have different values and norms, then what else is there? Do you just want everybody to say they're a proud American? Because that's not hard to do. But it's also meaningless.
You tell me, whats similar about an Irishman and an Englishman. Your own example of a beatnik is weak. A beatnik is still a western European phenomenon. Now had you said Pygmies or Egyptians id say yes they are differnt, certainly not traditionally american.
Well that would depend on the Irishman and the Englishman now wouldn't it.