Isn't the "Melting Pot" a good thing?

[Phi for All]

The US earned the title of the "melting pot", and for a time, we were proud of our heritage of assimilating immigrants into our society and benefiting from the strength it gave us. We understood that a blend, a mixture of peoples, ideologies, and cultures gave us a power few nations at the time had.

For-profit media practices simplify issues down to a single point. They need to get their messages across quickly in a way that locks in viewers. It seems to manipulate many people to identify themselves in those single aspects; conservative OR liberal, capitalist OR socialist, but never both, the way it really is. Did the media upend the melting pot?

 

Single ideologies don't work and we should know that. In a 100% capitalist society, you'd pay to walk on sidewalks or drive on streets, and pay for police or fire protection from private companies. 100% communism or socialism don't work either. But blend these ideologies together the right way and you can make a society where all have basic needs fulfilled, and all have access to accumulated human knowledge to use for the betterment of their society and themselves. Mostly middle class, with some wealthy and some poor, and very few extremely wealthy and extremely poor. That seems to be America's sweet spot, historically.

The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun control in specific instances (like banning those on terror watchlists), but too many in leadership on both sides aren't willing to represent that. Why? Most Americans want a single-payer healthcare system, including a lot of Republicans, but again the leadership doesn't want to do their jobs of representing that want. Why? More corporate influence seems to be at work here.

How did the concept of mixing the best ingredients to make something fantastic get lost? How can we intellectually grasp that the melting pot makes for a stronger society, yet emotionally so many are trying to yank us towards isolationism? Are there other influences affecting our judgement?

Do you agree? How can we generate not just tolerance, but reclaim the melting pot concept? Are our worst problems because our recipe ratios are out of balance? Do we have too much capitalism, and not enough effective socialism? Should we encourage immigration as a way to invigorate our economy and enrich our society as a whole?

Do you disagree? Is modern conservatism, driven by an increasingly higher ratio of capitalist policies, going to lead to economic stability and safety if we stay this course? Should the US increase its proportion of capitalist policies, and reduce regulation and taxation on corporations even further? Should we severely reduce our immigration commitments, sort of pull in the Welcome mat, in order to stabilize and take stock of our situation?

[Delta1212]

Can you pinpoint the period in American history where we lacked a strong nativist faction that insisted immigrants were destroying the country and undermining traditional American values? When "America First" isolationism wasn't a significant voice in political discourse?

 

We never lost any of the ideals that you're describing. As children, our education just tends to paper over the fact that there are lots of people in this country who simply disagree with all of them on a fundamental level, and so when we grow up and discover that those people exist, it seems like the ideals we were taught have suddenly started unraveling, when in fact they have always been rather threadbare and more aspirational than truly realized as a nation.

[dimreepr]

The US earned the title of the "melting pot", and for a time, we were proud of our heritage of assimilating immigrants into our society and benefiting from the strength it gave us. We understood that a blend, a mixture of peoples, ideologies, and cultures gave us a power few nations at the time had.

 

 

But with power comes the feeling of control and with that we loose humility; control is an illusion that's difficult to understand, we can demand others follow but without their compliance what value does that demand have?

[MigL]

I always understood it differently...

 

The American 'melting pot' was a system where upon landing in America, no matter where you were from, you became an American.

You weren't Mexican, Irish, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, etc. anymore. You left behind all your customs, morals and ideals and adopted American ones.

And if you ask these people what they are, they'll tell you, in no uncertain terms, "I'm an AMERICAN".

It seems a nationalistic, and so conservative, system.

 

Here in Canada, we have what we like to call Multiculturalism, in which the government encourages through financial support, that you keep your 'culture'/morals/ideals from your originating country. It makes for a very diverse population but, it sometimes encourages people to retain the bad aspects of their culture also. Sometimes these cultures, in the case of immigrants from war-torn countries ( who seek refugee status ) and where life is 'cheap', are the perpetrators of vile crimes on their fellow immigrants. Things like human trafficking/slavery, killing each other over 'turf', etc. In a way, its also nationalistic ( conservative ), but to the originating culture.

 

Only in Canada do you see people refer to themselves as Italo-Canadian ( my case ), French- Canadian, Polish-Canadian, etc., and flying their 'home' country flag during Euro and World cup competitions ( I admit being guilty of that too ).

No-one is simply a CANADIAN.

 

I've often pondered which is the better system.

[Delta1212]

Well it would be weird for someone from a country other than Canada to refer to themselves as an X-Canadian.

 

As someone who lives in New Jersey, though, I know a fair number of people who refer to themselves as Italian-American, going on third or fourth generation.

[CharonY]

I always understood it differently...

 

The American 'melting pot' was a system where upon landing in America, no matter where you were from, you became an American.

You weren't Mexican, Irish, Dutch, Italian, Chinese, etc. anymore. You left behind all your customs, morals and ideals and adopted American ones.

And if you ask these people what they are, they'll tell you, in no uncertain terms, "I'm an AMERICAN".

It seems a nationalistic, and so conservative, system.

 

Here in Canada, we have what we like to call Multiculturalism, in which the government encourages through financial support, that you keep your 'culture'/morals/ideals from your originating country. It makes for a very diverse population but, it sometimes encourages people to retain the bad aspects of their culture also. Sometimes these cultures, in the case of immigrants from war-torn countries ( who seek refugee status ) and where life is 'cheap', are the perpetrators of vile crimes on their fellow immigrants. Things like human trafficking/slavery, killing each other over 'turf', etc. In a way, its also nationalistic ( conservative ), but to the originating culture.

 

Only in Canada do you see people refer to themselves as Italo-Canadian ( my case ), French- Canadian, Polish-Canadian, etc., and flying their 'home' country flag during Euro and World cup competitions ( I admit being guilty of that too ).

No-one is simply a CANADIAN.

 

I've often pondered which is the better system.

 

I think the differences are really just skin deep in practice. For non-visible groups I found that in both countries people rarely refer to themselves as XXX-American or XXX-Canadian in most situations. However, after realizing I came from Germany, many Canadians as well as US-Americans have mentioned that they have some German ancestry and sometimes vaguely remember the regions. Other than that they do refer themselves as Canadian or American. It could be that among Canadians/Americans it is more a thing as it helps to create subdivisions. But I doubt that there are a lot of differences there between Canadians and US Americans. Now with visible minorities I think you will find that the US system is not as much melty as you may think it is. The big difference are successful individuals, in the US success can in fact erase these differences to some degree.

 

However, especially along the broader ethnic lines, all may refer to themselves as Americans, but the experience of specific group and how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others can be quite different. It would be foolish that these issues do not exist in the US and there is also quite a bit of crime that is limited to specific groups, which includes gangs and other criminal organizations. And I should stress that these are not limited to (visible) minorities (although they are often over represented).

It just appears that Canada people are more cognizant about the differences and perceptions thereof beneath the surface. I would be interested to see whether there are studies that actually have found quantifiable differences, if they exist. However, based on personal interactions with US Americans and Canadians (i.e. anecdotes) I have not found that to be the case. The actual main differences seems to be that Canadians (regardless of background) seem to get slightly annoyed when mistaken for US Americans.

[MigL]

I don't get annoyed CharonY.

I spent a lot of time ( almost every weekend ) in bars and clubs in the western New York area in the 80s and 90s. Our bars closed at 1am, theirs at 3 or 4am, and before 9/11, all you needed was proof of Canadian citizenship to cross the border. You're right,, we are very much alike.

In my home town in Italy, that I left in 1968, whether Canadian or American, all are called 'Americano'.

[CharonY]

That was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment, actually, Sorry, that did not came through properly.

[Ten oz]

Diversity is a huge benefit. Humans sharing knowledge is what has propelled our understand of science and the world. It is not a coincidence that once transportation allowed more cultures to engage each other the industrial revolution exploded. No one culture is unique responsible for knowledge. Isolated nations are nations that far more often than not are behind in technology, healthcare, services, and etc.

 

More specifically directed at the U.S., during segregation the South was not a industry leader or econimic driver for the nation. The opposite is true. California and New York drove industry and lead the coiuntry. They were and are two of the most diverse states in the country. Foriegn investment, immigrant workers, international joint projects, and etc only increases technology and education. It is all a net positive. Those who imply otherwise and merely opposing progress in favor of their own biases.

[Phi for All]

Diversity is a huge benefit. Humans sharing knowledge is what has propelled our understand of science and the world. It is not a coincidence that once transportation allowed more cultures to engage each other the industrial revolution exploded. No one culture is unique responsible for knowledge. Isolated nations are nations that far more often than not are behind in technology, healthcare, services, and etc.

 

More specifically directed at the U.S., during segregation the South was not a industry leader or econimic driver for the nation. The opposite is true. California and New York drove industry and lead the coiuntry. They were and are two of the most diverse states in the country. Foriegn investment, immigrant workers, international joint projects, and etc only increases technology and education. It is all a net positive. Those who imply otherwise and merely opposing progress in favor of their own biases.

 

Modern conservative movements seem intent on denigrating knowledge, especially scientific knowledge. "Intellectual" is now another charged media buzzword, like "welfare" or "abortion", designed to polarize people across a fence with just two options: 1) Smarter doesn't make you better than me, and 2) What's wrong with being smart?

 

We're seeing a real trend among conservative politicians to emphasize the importance of feelings over facts, to the point of giving them equal emphasis in discussions about the real world. Newt Gingrich recently tried to argue that if a certain group of Americans feel that crime is up, that's just as relevant as the statistical reality that shows it's actually down overall. Surely this type of thinking will lead us to spend resources simply because that group fears they're necessary, despite what reality shows? And doesn't that mean that anyone with a few television stations could affect the emotions of their viewership and cause costly reactions unsupported by reality ("If you don't feel safe, despite the fact that you are, we should spend more on law enforcement")?

 

If diversity is strength, then we need a way to show that everyone is needed. But is the fear needed? Is the emotional reaction at a time when level heads should prevail really helping? Or is the fear being misused, being channeled in ways that only help a few?

[dimreepr]

When the rich fear the future, they take the antipodean path to the answer; the right path is to enrich the poor, so they don't envy the rich for being sheltered and fed.

 

Instead they protect and increase their wealth with ever more fervor; as if it were some sort of impermeable shield.

And by "rich" I mean those that actually have food and shelter.

Edited July 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

It does not help when politicians say things like this:

 

 

In response, Mr. King said: “This whole ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie. I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?”

“Than white people?” Mr. Hayes asked.

Mr. King responded: “Than Western civilization itself that’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America, and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That’s all of Western civilization.”

[dimreepr]

Scape goats just create targets for the hate and fear.

Edited July 27, 2016 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

I think it's clear that many people are showing the stress of being afraid for so long. The standard Western "old white people" business formula of inducing chaos into a system in order to exploit it's resources requires the indigenous to remain fearful of losing even more, and it seems to work at home at least as well as it works abroad. I think it's a big part of why diversity is being attacked, to break up its strength, to leave various peoples alone without support, and turn them against each other.

[waitforufo]

I think it's clear that many people are showing the stress of being afraid for so long. The standard Western "old white people" business formula of inducing chaos into a system in order to exploit it's resources requires the indigenous to remain fearful of losing even more, and it seems to work at home at least as well as it works abroad. I think it's a big part of why diversity is being attacked, to break up its strength, to leave various peoples alone without support, and turn them against each other.

You think in conspiracies comrade. Business people just want prosperity. They make more money when there is prosperity. They could care less about the melting pot.

Edited July 27, 2016 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

You think in conspiracies comrade. Business people just want prosperity. They make more money when there is prosperity. They could care less about the melting pot.

 

At your level, at my level, that's more or less true. Business people will always try to profit, hopefully within the bounds of decency.

 

But at a certain level, the highest levels, gaining a constantly growing piece of the pie HAS to come at the expense of those below, often unethically. There's only so many corners you can cut, and then the biggest businesses start messing with tax incentive lobbying, and cutting benefits and salaries of people too afraid of losing their jobs to cry foul. Exploitation isn't something you can just dismiss as a conspiracy, unless you can explain away all the known misdeeds.

 

More prosperity for all would solve a lot of our problems. But the last 60 years have shown a marked growth in the extremes of wealth in our society, and a shrinking of prosperity for all. I think when we were prouder of the melting pot concept, we had fewer extremely wealthy and extremely poor people, and more people in the middle class. It can never be perfect, but this seems to be a key for perceived prosperity at least.

[waitforufo]

 

But at a certain level, the highest levels, gaining a constantly growing piece of the pie HAS to come at the expense of those below, often unethically. There's only so many corners you can cut, and then the biggest businesses start messing with tax incentive lobbying, and cutting benefits and salaries of people too afraid of losing their jobs to cry foul. Exploitation isn't something you can just dismiss as a conspiracy, unless you can explain away all the known misdeeds.

 

More prosperity for all would solve a lot of our problems. But the last 60 years have shown a marked growth in the extremes of wealth in our society, and a shrinking of prosperity for all. I think when we were prouder of the melting pot concept, we had fewer extremely wealthy and extremely poor people, and more people in the middle class. It can never be perfect, but this seems to be a key for perceived prosperity at least.

I have worked in corporations for 35 of those 60 years. In that time I have worked for 6 corporations. Never have I seen anyone at any level do anything at the "at the expense of those below." I have seen them provide education benefits, run fund raisers for food banks, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, blood drives, children's hospitals, etc. I know because I have received those education benefits, contributed to those fund raisers, help build homes for habitat for humanity homes, and participated in almost every one of those blood drives. Yes, I have seen top officers earn million dollar salaries and receive large stock grants. These salaries and stock grants are approved by the shareholders of the company who demand profits. The shareholders want these profits because there middle class standard of living, retirement, children's education, and many other good things in their lives depend on those officers making decisions which drive those profits. Those corporations have also provided products and services demanded by the government and the general population. Products and services that make everyone's life better. If you are looking for villains, look elsewhere.

[John Cuthber]

I have worked in corporations for 35 of those 60 years. In that time I have worked for 6 corporations. Never have I seen anyone at any level do anything at the "at the expense of those below." I have seen them provide education benefits, run fund raisers for food banks, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, blood drives, children's hospitals, etc. I know because I have received those education benefits, contributed to those fund raisers, help build homes for habitat for humanity homes, and participated in almost every one of those blood drives. Yes, I have seen top officers earn million dollar salaries and receive large stock grants. These salaries and stock grants are approved by the shareholders of the company who demand profits. The shareholders want these profits because there middle class standard of living, retirement, children's education, and many other good things in their lives depend on those officers making decisions which drive those profits. Those corporations have also provided products and services demanded by the government and the general population. Products and services that make everyone's life better. If you are looking for villains, look elsewhere.

I guess you never worked for this guy- or any of the many like him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3709379/The-unacceptable-body-capitalism-Shirtless-Sir-Shifty-catches-sun-relaxes-100million-superyacht-despite-MPs-damning-report-BHS-collapse.html

 

Well,lucky you.

But to pretend that these people don't exist is unhelpful.

[Phi for All]

I have worked in corporations for 35 of those 60 years. In that time I have worked for 6 corporations. Never have I seen anyone at any level do anything at the "at the expense of those below." I have seen them provide education benefits, run fund raisers for food banks, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, blood drives, children's hospitals, etc. I know because I have received those education benefits, contributed to those fund raisers, help build homes for habitat for humanity homes, and participated in almost every one of those blood drives. Yes, I have seen top officers earn million dollar salaries and receive large stock grants. These salaries and stock grants are approved by the shareholders of the company who demand profits. The shareholders want these profits because there middle class standard of living, retirement, children's education, and many other good things in their lives depend on those officers making decisions which drive those profits. Those corporations have also provided products and services demanded by the government and the general population. Products and services that make everyone's life better. If you are looking for villains, look elsewhere.

 

The corporations you mention exist. I don't pretend they don't.

 

So do the ones I mentioned. Why do you pretend they don't?

[Ten oz]

 

Modern conservative movements seem intent on denigrating knowledge, especially scientific knowledge. "Intellectual" is now another charged media buzzword, like "welfare" or "abortion", designed to polarize people across a fence with just two options: 1) Smarter doesn't make you better than me, and 2) What's wrong with being smart?

 

We're seeing a real trend among conservative politicians to emphasize the importance of feelings over facts, to the point of giving them equal emphasis in discussions about the real world. Newt Gingrich recently tried to argue that if a certain group of Americans feel that crime is up, that's just as relevant as the statistical reality that shows it's actually down overall. Surely this type of thinking will lead us to spend resources simply because that group fears they're necessary, despite what reality shows? And doesn't that mean that anyone with a few television stations could affect the emotions of their viewership and cause costly reactions unsupported by reality ("If you don't feel safe, despite the fact that you are, we should spend more on law enforcement")?

 

If diversity is strength, then we need a way to show that everyone is needed. But is the fear needed? Is the emotional reaction at a time when level heads should prevail really helping? Or is the fear being misused, being channeled in ways that only help a few?

In my opinion with regards to those whom are against or don't appriciate diversity fear is what drives the most well intentioned amongst them. However for many of them there is a stubborn angriness rooted in an unhealthy over appreciation for their own ideology. A burn the whole thing down and lord over the ashes approarch. If it can't be the way they invision it than it shouldn't be at all. Ther are not affraid of change, afraid of others, but rather don't like or want things to be anyway but the way they choose. Perhaps it is partially inspired by monotheism? If one ascribes to a single God than they belief in a thing truth and a single way of things.

I have worked in corporations for 35 of those 60 years. In that time I have worked for 6 corporations. Never have I seen anyone at any level do anything at the "at the expense of those below." I have seen them provide education benefits, run fund raisers for food banks, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, blood drives, children's hospitals, etc. I know because I have received those education benefits, contributed to those fund raisers, help build homes for habitat for humanity homes, and participated in almost every one of those blood drives. Yes, I have seen top officers earn million dollar salaries and receive large stock grants. These salaries and stock grants are approved by the shareholders of the company who demand profits. The shareholders want these profits because there middle class standard of living, retirement, children's education, and many other good things in their lives depend on those officers making decisions which drive those profits. Those corporations have also provided products and services demanded by the government and the general population. Products and services that make everyone's life better. If you are looking for villains, look elsewhere.

I don't agree with what you said. However you don't make a terrible point. I was recently listening to Laurene Powell Jobs discussing an education program she donates her time and resources to and something she said struck me. When asked about how philanthropy could transform education across the country she quipped that it wasn't philanthropy job to do so. That we have a Gov't and that gov't has a Department of Education. People merely need to pay attention and participate in their Gov't to see to it they get the changes that are needed. Philanthropy can shine a light ky things but not replace the real work of Gov't.

 

She was right in my opinion. While I wish my corperations operated in a manner that was more beneficial to society at large I understand it is not their purpose to do so. While the Gov't in the U.S. does allow far too much corperate lobbying the system isn't broken beyond the point of no return. If people chose to care, chose to vote in the right people as their representatives at the local, state, and federal level that would actually govern and believed it was their role to do so we could right the ship. Unfortunately we have fallen into a apathetic death spiral where on one side we elect people to Gov't specific to destory Gov't and on the other side elect people to office specifically to protect it. No one seems to actually be managing it or progressing it forward.

[Delta1212]

I have worked in corporations for 35 of those 60 years. In that time I have worked for 6 corporations. Never have I seen anyone at any level do anything at the "at the expense of those below." I have seen them provide education benefits, run fund raisers for food banks, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, blood drives, children's hospitals, etc. I know because I have received those education benefits, contributed to those fund raisers, help build homes for habitat for humanity homes, and participated in almost every one of those blood drives. Yes, I have seen top officers earn million dollar salaries and receive large stock grants. These salaries and stock grants are approved by the shareholders of the company who demand profits. The shareholders want these profits because there middle class standard of living, retirement, children's education, and many other good things in their lives depend on those officers making decisions which drive those profits. Those corporations have also provided products and services demanded by the government and the general population. Products and services that make everyone's life better. If you are looking for villains, look elsewhere.

My girlfriend just left a company where everyone in her department was an "outside contractor" thus making them ineligible for overtime or benefits despite the fact that they all had to come into the office, work 40 hours a week and had all materials and equipment related to doing their job provided by the company. One guy was even expected to work weekends.

 

I can pretty much guarantee they all could have successfully sued the company because that's entirely illegal, but they all needed the job and who wants to hire someone that sued their last employer?

[StringJunky]

I think the commercial wold was a better place when individuals or families owned tthe large companies and not legions of faceless investors who create uncertainty and the need for ever-increasing profits by the companies they invest in to keep them investing in them; it has become so very short-teminist.and too volatile. This is so very evident in the pharmaceutical world.where they can see billions of dollars moved away overnight and thousands lose their jobs in a very short space of time.

[Phi for All]

I think the commercial wold was a better place when individuals or families owned tthe large companies and not legions of faceless investors who create uncertainty and the need for ever-increasing profits by the companies they invest in to keep them investing in them; it has become so very short-teminist.and too volatile. This is so very evident in the pharmaceutical world.where they can see billions of dollars moved away overnight and thousands lose their jobs in a very short space of time.

 

I could be off on the timeline, but I think the whole "efficiency expert" trend of the 1960s kicked off this obsession with the bottom line. It started off well-intentioned, saving companies tons of money where they were being sloppy. But you can only target so much actual waste, and eventually these companies started cutting where they shouldn't, like wages and benefits. When your experts tell you the company can spend X in lobbying to save X+1 in taxes, you start negatively affecting your country's revenue and its ability to maintain the infrastructure that your company uses so much of. Efficiency has driven record excess profits straight to the top execs and shareholders, people who keep skimming prosperity away from those below them. It's only going to get worse if it isn't regulated.

 

I think bottom line has always been the #1 priority of most businesses, but I don't think it's ever been so far above the #2, #3, and #4 priorities before. Business has moved to models that remove the importance of the blend of employees you have, in order to make employees easily replaceable. They've replaced the melting pot in their culture with a bland bubble of processed, uniform Cheese Whiz. It fills basic requirements while ignoring any richness of depth of character.

[StringJunky]

 

I think bottom line has always been the #1 priority of most businesses, but I don't think it's ever been so far above the #2, #3, and #4 priorities before. Business has moved to models that remove the importance of the blend of employees you have, in order to make employees easily replaceable. They've replaced the melting pot in their culture with a bland bubble of processed, uniform Cheese Whiz. It fills basic requirements while ignoring any richness of depth of character.

Yes, there is no, or very little, company culture anymore where people invested themselves and companies in inested in them for a long term relationship. Analogously, Instead of a looking to get married, employers and employees are treating each other like punters and hookers; exploitatively and transiently.

Edited July 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Yes, there is no, or very little, company culture anymore where people invested themselves and companies in inested in them for a long term relationship. Analogously, Instead of a looking to get married, employers and employees are treating each other like punters and hookers; exploitatively and transiently.

 

It does seem like an extension of the desire of many of the wealthy to limit their contact with less well-off people, to avoid having to invest any resources in people who somehow managed NOT to amass a personal fortune, for always inadequate reasons. There seems to be no way to quantify qualities like loyalty and dedication, enjoyment of being part of something big and meaningful, and willingness to give up personal wishes to help their employer. The efficiency experts don't bother because they can make the numbers work without it.

 

We've lost the formula, or have been led to believe this new formula is better. Business owes certain considerations to the country that issues the corporate charters that allow the business to tap into that country's market. They should pay their fair share of taxes to maintain infrastructure and social benefits for their workers. They should do everything possible to hire workers from their charter country. They should be more concerned with long range environmental plans that assure their country and their workers that breathing and drinking and being safe and healthy for the many is only a little less important than profits for the few.