British Freedom of Speech withered, dying

[crazy canuck]

No, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same.  A quick wiki check on the use of the term in American history confirms my observation.  Here is an early quote desribing the melting pot "process"

It doesn't make individuals the same, it just makes them part of the same culture. For evidence that it does work to a great extent, I present Tim, Yi, Katmai, Jaron, Garbon etc.(not to mention that "Irish-Americans" "German-Americans" "Polish-Americans" etc are utterly indistinguishable.)

Yes we are talking about culture here so the reference to sameness means the same culture   but of course Americans dont share the same culture.  America is an incredibly culturally diverse country.  In Canada we like to think we are culturally diverse because we have french speakers amongst us but the amount of difference across the US is really something to experience.

[crazy canuck]

Of course not - but you are wrong when you claim the "melting pot" metaphor is a myth because it "didn't make all people the same".

If I had claimed that I would indeed be wrong.  My claim is that the melting pot metaphor was and is a nation building myth that is flawed for a number of reasons.  A quick review of wiki will lead you on the road of discovery if you but take the first step.

[Valmy]

Mulitculturalism obviously means different things to different people.  Reading this thread makes me think that Vancouver, along with London and perhaps other places, have moved to a kind of post multicultural model where the fabric of society is very much a creation of the contributions of a variety of ethnic communities and yet those communities are also able to keep their distinctive qualities.

Wow that sounds like central Texas in the 19th century.  Yeah that is so very post modern and new.

The distinctive communities will remain for as long as they are needed.  We had tons of very distinctive Italian and German communities for as long as Italian and German immigrants were coming.  Over time as immigration from a particular place went away those communities gradually faded.

I also object to the bizarre idea that somehow everybody ends up the same.  That strikes me as a strawman to scare immigrants from joining the culture and keeping them separate.  That they will somehow lose themselves.  Nonsense.

[crazy canuck]

Mulitculturalism obviously means different things to different people.  Reading this thread makes me think that Vancouver, along with London and perhaps other places, have moved to a kind of post multicultural model where the fabric of society is very much a creation of the contributions of a variety of ethnic communities and yet those communities are also able to keep their distinctive qualities.

Wow that sounds like central Texas in the 19th century.  Yeah that is so very post modern and new.

The distinctive communities will remain for as long as they are needed.  We had tons of very distinctive Italian and German communities for as long as Italian and German immigrants were coming.  Over time as immigration from a particular place went away those communities gradually faded.

I also object to the bizarre idea that somehow everybody ends up the same.  That strikes me as a strawman to scare immigrants from joining the culture and keeping them separate.  That they will somehow lose themselves.  Nonsense.

You are right.  The melting pot analogy is bizarre. 

[Berkut]

Of course not - but you are wrong when you claim the "melting pot" metaphor is a myth because it "didn't make all people the same".

If I had claimed that I would indeed be wrong. 

No, but the claim is that the melting pot makes everyone the same.

Glad we cleared up that you are indeed wrong.

My claim is that the melting pot metaphor was and is a nation building myth that is flawed for a number of reasons.

It isn't a myth, it is a metaphor, nor is it "flawed" because it is a metaphor, and doesn't perfectly or literally describe what is and has happened.

  A quick review of wiki will lead you on the road of discovery if you but take the first step.

A quick review of your posts will show that you are babbling about something that you do not understand. The wiki articles you posted prove MY point, rather than your own.

[crazy canuck]

Bonus points for snipping out of context.  Bravo. *golf clap*

I am really surprised that Americans would deny that the their theory of the melting pot was a foundational nation building myth.  But it is not the first time I have been surprised by the comments made here.

[Eddie Teach]

Yes we are talking about culture here so the reference to sameness means the same culture   but of course Americans dont share the same culture.  America is an incredibly culturally diverse country.  In Canada we like to think we are culturally diverse because we have french speakers amongst us but the amount of difference across the US is really something to experience.

It's debatable whether we have different cultures or just different takes on the same culture*, but they are *new* cultures either way. Our immigrants come and become like the people around them and the people around them become a little bit like the immigrants. It's a good metaphor for what's happened in our experience imo.

*There are plenty of people who listen to rock, country and hiphop, who watch NASCAR and Woody Allen movies, who eat pizza, tacos, and General Tso's chicken.

[Berkut]

Bonus points for snipping out of context.  Bravo. *golf clap*

I am really surprised that Americans would deny that the their theory of the melting pot was a foundational nation building myth.  But it is not the first time I have been surprised by the comments made here.

Ahhh, so somehow if your quote was "in context" it would mean something entirely different? Please, provide this context that will change the meaning of your words.

I am not at all surprised that you would take a metaphor, re-define it to mean something nobody else agrees that it means, then proudly inform us all that it is a "myth" like you've been talking to the burning bush and our enlightening all us ignorant savages. But this is not the last time you won't surprise us, I am sure.

[Jacob]

The way I've had it described to me is as follows:

Originally, immigration was only desired from Anglo countries, with some allowances for other North Europeans who weren't too culturally different and who could be assimilated into the dominant Anglo culture without too much difficulty.

Later, a "melting pot" approach to immigration became the ideal - it's okay that you're from some far off place and you're not white, but you have to adopt the cultural values of the dominant Anglo culture on a fairly broad basis.  Whatever you do that diverges from the dominant culture is seen as ranging somewhere from quaint to offensive.

The most recent approach is that as long as you adopt a few core values (mainly related to individual rights and mutual respect and tolerance) the rest of your cultural values are your own business.  Whatever you do that diverges from the dominant culture is seen as ranging somewhere from a strength to quaint (as long as it doesn't offend against core principles listed above).  This has been termed "multiculturalism" or a "mosaic" or even the "salad bowl" metaphor.

I think Canada and the US have moved along that same trajectory roughly at the same pace, with local variations.  There was a moment (under Trudeau) where Canada explicitly embraced the "multicultural" approach while the US was still officially following the "melting pot" approach and thus, in Canada, those two terms have very distinct meanings and sometimes also become a marker of national differences between us and the US.

In reality, I believe the US has continued along the trajectory outlined above using different terms so that "melting pot" (if it's still used) means something different in the US than it did in the 70s and that it does in a Canadian context.

I think there are significant differences between the approaches I term "melting pot" and "multiculturalism" above and while those two terms are fairly clearly defined in a Canadian context there is no inherent value in those specific definitions.  If you want to call what I call "multiculturalism" the "melting pot" and reserve "multiculturalism" to mean "pointless exercise by overweening authority figures" then I'm in favour of the "melting pot" and that's cool.

[Valmy]

You are right.  The melting pot analogy is bizarre. 

I think it is half-right.  It missed the key point that the host culture changes as the immigrants "melt" into it, suggesting instead that they work to give up their old ways conciously.   I do not believe that is necessary or helpful.  It happens on its own to the extent it happens at all.  Also you talk about the cultural diversity in the US well that already existed, more so I would say, when the melting pot idea was in full force and there was no percieved contradiction.  A culture can be inclusive.  For instance the Jew or the Italian guy is about as American an image as exists.  There practically has to be one in every single American TV show especially when New York is involved (which is about 90% of our TV shows).

There exists such a thing as Indian culture even though India is as ridiculously diverse as you will find anywhere.  Their languages are even incomprehensible to each other in many cases.

[Jacob]

And to add, the definitions I'm used to of "the melting pot" resources spent by or on recent immigrants to preserve or celebrate their original cultures was seen as being counterproductive while under "a multiculturalist" approach they're seen as a good thing ("strength in diversity" and all that).

That affects both the pace and tenor of the natural and inevitable integration.

But again, I'm not wedded to the terms "melting pot" and "multicultural" even though those are the most common definitions around these parts.

[Berkut]

You are right.  The melting pot analogy is bizarre. 

I think it is half-right.  It missed the key point that the host culture changes as the immigrants "melt" into it, suggesting instead that they work to give up their old ways conciously.   I do not believe that is necessary or helpful.  It happens on its own to the extent it happens at all. 

While I generally agree, I do think the metaphor was helpful, in that it established an ideal for tolerance and acceptance of immigration, and a pretty new concept of what it means to be an American - where it doesn't matter (at least in theory) where you come from, only where you are now. This was a pretty original idea in the time of heavy US immigration.

The idea that someone could "become" an American was very useful, and a great strength to the country, IMO.

Obviously the reality was much more mixed, with plenty of intolerance, fighting, and generally not as melty as the theory would suggest, but as a guiding principle it was extremely useful - and still is.

[garbon]

The melting pot term has now been replaced. The new term is a salad bowl or mixed salad or something to the like.

[Jacob]

I agree with Berkut on this - the idea that anyone could become American no matter where they're from was pretty damn progressive (but probably also very necessary) compared to what went before, but I think both the US and Canada (and the UK) have moved beyond that.  It seems like large parts of Europe is still stuck with the once progressive idea that "if you adopt our values and behaviours you can become part of our society" (which is much better than "you have to be mostly like us already before you can become part of our society"), while large parts of the UK, Canada and the UK are now somewhere in the vicinity of "adopt a few core values and you're good to go, the rest is tasty flavour and your choice".

[Jacob]

The melting pot term has now been replaced. The new term is a salad bowl or mixed salad or something to the like.

That's what I thought, but luckily that hasn't stopped people from arguing heatedly about it.