# "Melting pot" Assimilation, Multiculturalism



## cuchuflete

Read a few of the recent threads here, or a newspaper or blog.

Look out the window!   There are lots of immigrants around.

Immigration is not going away.  

Some people are unhappy about that, while others like it, and many are indifferent.

When immigrants move to a new country, they may follow one or more paths---
One is the so-called 'melting pot' assimilation seen in the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in which native cultures were largely abandoned or greatly diminished over time, in favor of the host country culture.

Another is to gradually adapt to and adopt host country culture, while consciously striving to maintain native culture, obviously including language.

In reality, these are areas on a continuum.  Nearly all immigrants adapt to new country culture, while holding on to some of what they brought with them.  The difference is in degree, and the rate at which they learn or embrace the new.

Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations?  It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country. 


Please note: The paragraph above is the thread topic. Other related topics can be discussed in other threads, hence, please don't offer ideas here about whether immigration is good or bad, or matters other than rates of assimilation.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations?  It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country.



If we're going to have immigrants in _______ (insert your own country here) then I think we had best assimilate some of their culture too.
This is best done by the first generation holding onto as much of their native culture as they can, and disseminating it to us, through their children and grandchildren. If they assimilate too quickly they run the danger of becoming more _______ (insert your own nationality here) than we are, and losing sight of the wealth of their own culture.

However, that being said, I think that there is a huge difference between migration nowadays and, say, 50 years ago. Back then the migrant was probably leaving their homeland for life, and cutting all ties except by letter and the occasional mailed newspaper. They were very likely leaving their food, music and literature also, unless they happened to be going to an already thriving community of their fellow nationals. This is not the case today, with the internet, cheap travel and with ethnic music, food and literature being almost ubiquitous.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Originally posted by* Cuchcuflete*
> Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country.


 


> As of 2000, the largest ethnic minority group in Britain are Indians (984,000 people). The next largest ethnic groups are those of Caribbean or African descent (969,000 people), and Pakistani and Bangladeshis (932,000 people).


 
From the three groups mentioned above, those who have most readily embraced British culture are the Afro-Carribeans.  While generally maintaining their own culture at home, in matters such as diet for example, they have integrated quickly with the indigenous people of the UK.  Inter-racial marriages are commonplace and becoming accepted.

Those from the Indian sub-continent appear to have maintained their culture and I don't think that they will assimilate easily into British culture - nor will future genertions.  However I don't claim to be a prophet.

The third group, from Pakistan and Bangladesh, generally find it unthinkable ever to give up their traditional culture.  There has been some evidence of breaking away by the younger generations but this is rare.  

Immigrants from Europe have readily adopted the British way of life while still maintaining their culture in the privacy of their homes.

It is beyond the scope of this thread for me to say why two of the ethnic groups are unwilling to be assimilated.




LRV


----------



## maxiogee

Are the Irish not an official ethnic group in Britain? I'd swear we outnumber the Asian contingent. Your source quotes 1.6 million alone in N.I. to say nothing of the southerners in England. 
Or is it that the powers-that-be don't want to go there? 
The southerners in England are definitely 'migrant', and fit meat for this thread. Terry Wogan alone must count as two people!


----------



## la reine victoria

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Are the Irish not an official ethnic group in Britain? I'd swear we outnumber the Asian contingent. Your source quotes 1.6 million alone in N.I. to say nothing of the southerners in England.
> Or is it that the powers-that-be don't want to go there?
> The southerners in England are definitely 'migrant', and fit meat for this thread. Terry Wogan alone must count as two people!


 



> According to the 2001 Census, there were 869,093 persons resident born in Ireland, resident in Britain - some 1.6 per cent of the population. In 1997 the Irish Government in its _White Paper on Foreign Policy_ estimated that there were around two million Irish citizens living in Britain, the majority of them British-born. Including Terry Wogan = 2


 
I can only conclude that many Irish people didn't return their Census form Tony. Over a million of them have disappeared since 1997, according to the Irish Government's estimation. Or does "British-born" rob them of their ethnicity? My husband was born in London, but was as Irish as could be.

To keep on topic, the Irish immigrants adapted very quickly to English culture. Likewise, those who emigrated to the USA soon started chewing gum and handing out nylons to bare-legged women.

However, I think all immigrants to any country will never totally give up certain aspects of their culture. They will assimilate, yes, but cling on to that which has always been familiar to them. I can't imagine Irish people abandoning their Guinness or traditional dancing. Stand by for the chopper Maxi.  


LRV


----------



## morpho

In terms of rates of assimilation, isn't there a "typical" pattern for immigrants?

1st generation: Immigrates, doesn't integrate much into host society, works potentially low-tiered jobs to support self and family

2nd generation: Born in host culture, heavily integrated in host society by 1st generation; some native culture transmitted from 1st generation, but also hugely encouraged to speak host culture language(s) and adapt host culture habits that 1st generation did not (viewed as essential for being successful in host society, at least by 1st gen)

3rd generation: Born in host culture, assimilated into host society, speaks language / adapts social norms of host society, seeks to rediscover fmaily heritage/language/culture rejected or lost by 2nd gen

Does this occur in the UK?

*NOTE: I had "typical" in quotes above. I'm not asserting all immigrants have this pattern. I'm just tossing out a thought here.*


----------



## maxiogee

morpho said:
			
		

> In terms of rates of assimilation, isn't there a "typical" pattern for immigrants?



Yes, but the question posed is should they do it at a certain speed.
And, as LRV has pointed out some communities try harder than others. "Is there an optimum speed/level for trying?" would probably be a subtext of cuchu's question.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> _Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country. _


 
I don't wish to stray from the topic of this thread but find it impossible to ignore the fact that some immigrants are from cultures of such long-standing tradition, (dress, religion, dietary regulations, social habits, etc.), which is totally at odds with the host country, that assimilation will take a very long time indeed, if it ever does. Such immigrants to the UK have created their own communities, driven out the indigenous people who have no wish to live among them, opened their own shops, built their own places of worship or taken over redundant (mainly English) churches and converted them. Their children are educated alongside others from their own ethnic group. They show no signs of wishing to integrate.

Obversely, many indigenous Brits are delighted to go to these areas to shop, especially for the wonderful variety of foodstuff which cannot be found elsewhere. From personal experience I know that such customers are always made very welcome. I have asked questions about food items which were totally alien to me, been told how to prepare them and enjoyed new culinary experiences.

It is important to distinguish, when speaking of immigrants, between those who have lived close to their chosen new country (South America>North America, Mainland Europe>UK) and those who have come from far away (Asia>UK). The latter have never experienced western culture from "close by". They simply know that better prospects await them in the west. But when they arrive they aren't prepared to behave like "decadent westerners" - they prefer to abide by their own principles. Can't say I blame them. 

Please feel free to delete this post.


LRV


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? .


 As someone who has been an expatriate and who works (and lives) with immigrants, I believe that it's better for society as a whole if an immigrant family assimilates more slowly.  

I agree with Tony that if the first generation throws off the home culture rapidly, the host society loses a lot of richness that the immigrant could bring with his culture's unique traditions and points of view.  Then you get second-generation immigrants who can't speak their parents' first language... a deficiency they usually come to regret when they're adults and looking to connect with their heritage.

I think that the first generation has a responsibility to themselves, to their children, to their host country and to their home culture to not assimilate too quickly, but to retain their language and the finer elements of their culture as long as they can, while assimilating enough to be successful in the host country.

In turn, the host country has the responsibility to accept the first generation with open arms and a grain of tolerance for the aspects of the immigrant's culture that are divergent from the host culture.


----------



## Papalote

Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country. 

Well, for once I fit the bill  , perhaps a little too well since not only am I a full-fledged permanent immigrant in Canada, I am also the daughter, grandaughter and great-grandaugther of immigrants to Mexico from Spain, France and what used to be Prussia. Do I still qualify?  
 
I`ve re-read myself and am afraid I`ve really rambled on. Feel free to skip most of this except for the last 3 paragraphs  .
 
Before I myself became an immigrant, I also thought assimilation was the sole responsibility of the newcomer. I mean, if they only put their minds to it, if only they truly observed how we behaved, if they really wanted to be part of our society, well, in no time they would be like us.  I couldn`t have been more wrong.
 
I arrived in my new country fairly young, fluently bilingual in both official languages, 2 university degrees (one from France, the other from the USA), fluent in 2 other languages, having studied in Mexican, American, British and French schools and universities, and look caucasian (how I feel inside is food for another posting  ). How could I not assimilate? I was even RC. Well, it wasn`t enough. When I spoke French, I was immediately identified as the `maususe de française` (the accursed Parisian), when I spoke English, I was asked when I had left California, when I spoke Spanish, well nobody could believe I spoke or wrote it well `cause I don`t look Mexican. Okay, it was a little more than 2 decades ago and I guess there weren`t many immigrants like me around. Still. 
 
What I`ve found hardest, is that we are expected to assimilate but nobody ever invites us into their houses to really share what being Canadian is like.  Unitl I married my Canadian husband, I had never been invited into a Canadian home, even though I had invited work and university colleagues to my house for suppers and barbecues and special occasions.
 
How fast have I tried to assimilate? Every day, I believe, for the past 26 winters. I married a Canadian (well, not so I could assimilate  , love had a lot to do with this  ), I`ve acquired a Master`s Degree in a Canadian university, I`ve participated in Canadian politics, I watch Canadian and Quebec t.v., I`ve learnt Canadian expressions to the point that my American and French cousins make fun of me.  I`ve learnt Canadian crafts, participated in Canadian activities like Cabane à sucre, dog-sleding, downhill and crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, canoeing, skiidooing; know all about Laura Secord and a lot about Canadian and Quebec cooking, studied and read about their history, literature, theatre, and music. I`ve camped from PE.I. to Dawson City. I respect the laws, have never lost any driving points, do charity work. I have spent endless hours in hospitals sharing the pain of my Quebec friends` wives and/or husbands when they`ve died. I truly believe *I live like a Canadian*, that I have shared in their pride of country and culture, in the pain of dead soldiers and environmental disasters.
 
And yet, at moments, it is so hard* to feel Canadian* when I know I am not accepted as one. I am still being asked to give up everything that makes my cultural `profile` (French, Spanish, American, British, and Mexican - humour, food, pride, knowledge) to become a real Canadian. I feel I am being asked to give up everything that made me who I am in exchange of becoming invisible, but never a born-in-Canada-of-English-or-French-ancestors Canadian.
 
So now I call myself, not a new-Canadian, but a multicultural one. I am richer for having lived more than half my life in Canada, but also for having lived in other cultures. I love Canada because it has made me into a richer person, more stable. I became and adult here. Canada has been very good to me, but it is true, I am not all Canadian and that also gives me a slight advantage, I like people from everywhere. I have become kinder, more patient. Walking in an immigrant`s shoes does that to one.
 
Thanks for reading me. My intention has not been to offend any Canadian who might read this, but to try to make others realize why it is so hard to assimilate.
 
Papalote


----------



## moodywop

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country.


 
A caveat: the impression I've formed (I haven't read the academic literature on the subject, which must be considerable) is based on my extensive socializing (over ten years, 76-86) with Italians who emigrated to the UK(mainly London and Bedford, where 10% of the population is of Italian descent, link) in the 50s and with their children. Most of them were from the South, like me.

1. The pattern outlined in a previous post is what I witnessed: first-generation Italian immigrants clung to their culture and language, while their children embraced the host culture and language more or less wholeheartedly, although they maintained a sense of their roots. Most of the second-generation Anglo-Italians I met were only imperfect bilinguals: English was their primary language but they could speak their parents' dialect more or less fluently.

2. I think that not only is it normal for first-generation immigrants not to become assimilated but that their clinging to their cultural/linguistic identity was the only way they could preserve their psychological identity and survive the culture shock. All of them came from small villages where the extended family they had now lost was the core of their lives. Their common Southern origin and the unifying focus provided by their strict Catholicism helped them develop a sense of community.

On the other hand I met some first-generation Italian immigrants in London who had become isolated from other Italians. Their sense of alienation was only too apparent. In a few, extreme cases I met some who could only speak a mixture of Southern dialect and broken English.

So I believe that not only is "assimilation"(whether speedy or slow) an unrealistic goal for first-generation immigrants but that their non-assimilation is a psychological survival strategy.

Some might object that the situation I've described is no longer relevant today but I think that many of today's immigrants are not all that different from the Southern Italians who went to work in the brick factories in Bedford in the 50s.


----------



## cuchuflete

Papalote,
Thank you for your eloquence is sharing facts and feelings.

cuchu


----------



## Bastoune

maxiogee said:
			
		

> However, that being said, I think that there is a huge difference between migration nowadays and, say, 50 years ago. Back then the migrant was probably leaving their homeland for life, and cutting all ties except by letter and the occasional mailed newspaper. They were very likely leaving their food, music and literature also, unless they happened to be going to an already thriving community of their fellow nationals. This is not the case today, with the internet, cheap travel and with ethnic music, food and literature being almost ubiquitous.



Why is that?


----------



## heidita

I think adapting is all what counts and the faster the better. You cannot expect a country to welcome you keeping your own language, own religion, own dress, own everything. 

I can speak as an immigrant myself and as coming from a country with a huge community of foreigners.

When I was like 20 the immmigation in Germany was Italian and Spanish and Greek. Especially the Italian adapted fast, possibly not easy as life in Germany for them surely wasn't easy, the language difficult. But as they adapted they were soon welcomed.

Then nowadays you have the vast Turkish community and I cannot see that they are accepted and I am sure this is because they do not adapt or even try to. They have their own churches, own food, don't try to learn the language, get on in their own communities, do not mix with Germans, have restaurants and shops sometimes with only their language announcing items. Young people , so the next generation is slightly different, but as adapting does not exist, even here you can see differences.

I have lived in Spain for 30 years. I have adopted this country as my second home and adapted immediately, so I was accepted with ease. I even got married, only 17 years ago, when I was already more "Spanish" than my husband.

As I am always saying: when you go to Rome, do as the Romans do.


----------



## cuchuflete

> ...keeping your own language, own religion, own dress, own everything.



I don't think you need to relinquish any of these, and that adaptation is a matter of adding the customs of the new home country, at whatever rate.  I cannot imagine most people changing religions as part of their adapation, though they may well want to become knowledgeable about the predominant religion(s) of a host country.


----------



## ElaineG

What would New York be if all of our immigrants gave up their culinary traditions?   A sad strip-mall affair in which seekers of a cheap meal would be forced to eat at McDonalds, Applebee's and the like, instead of feasting on tamales, soup dumplings, pad thai, roti etc. etc. etc.

That said, I have mixed feelings about the subject. I respect the slow process of assimilation as I have seen how it has played out in my family. I think Carlo was on the money when he asked how much the human spirit can be expected to bend in one lifetime. There are limits.

However, I find myself resenting (perhaps unfairly) those groups who take the practice of non-assimilation so far (usually for religious reasons -- I'm thinking mostly of certain Muslim groups, and the ultra-orthodox and Hasidic Jews, although I know Hindu immigrant families from India who have also remained rigorously non-assimilated) that they deny the possibility of choosing assimilation to their children.

When a community as a whole refuses to send its children to the public schools, particularly when that refusal is based around that community's attitudes towards gender and the appropriate education for women, thereby _preventing_ its sons and particularly _daughters_ from becoming "real" Americans, that upsets me. It seems to me that each generation should be able to make its own decisions, but that certain parents make decisions that foreclose their children's options.

Similarly (kick me if I've bored you with this before) but in law school I had the opportunity to participate in some fascinating research on the Hmong practice of marriage by capture and the (largely North African) practice of female circumscision. Immigration has brought both of these delightful practices to our shores, and some extreme liberal legal scholars have proposed lighter penalties for practitioners of these practices (which in our culture are straight-up rape and mutilation, respectively) on the grounds that they are important parts of the originating cultures. I have no tolerance for that.

If you do something that harms others (I'm not talking popping a little peyote here and there), I don't care if it's part of your culture. Leave it at the door. But I know others who think that's an intolerant position.


----------



## GenJen54

ElaineG said:
			
		

> However, I find myself resenting (perhaps unfairly) those groups who take the practice of non-assimilation so far (usually for religious reasons -- I'm thinking mostly of certain Muslim groups, and the ultra-orthodox and Hasidic Jews, although I know Hindu immigrant families from India who have also remained rigorously non-assimilated) that they deny the possibility of choosing (or rejecting assimilation) to their children.


Many Amish and similar Christan sects do the same thing, yet they are not "new" immigrants. If they chose to live in their own enclaves, I feel it is to their detriment, and theirs alone. I don't agree with it, but it is not harming anyone outside of their community.



			
				ElaineG said:
			
		

> If you do something that harms others (I'm not talking popping a little peyote here and there), I don't care if it's part of your culture. Leave it at the door. But I know others who think that's an intolerant position.


 
I agree with you here 100%. Individuals seeking to immigrate to a new country should be able to do so provided they follow the laws of that host country, even if it means giving up certain cultural norms to do so. 

For my town, one of the most homogenous, conservative and rather "ma and pa" places in the country, immigration has brought us great color and vitality. Not everyone believes this is a good thing. I personally cannot imagine what my town would be like without the countless fabulous Mexican, Vietnamese and/or Korean restaurants and shops. 

Our city leaders have recognized the importance of this assimilation as well, and are working with the leaders of these communities not only to facilitate "integration" of the immigrant communities into our greater community, but are also working to weave the special cultural traditions of these immigrant groups and make them a part of our city's cultural fabric.

It's one thing about this city of which I'm extremely proud.


----------



## maxiogee

Bastoune said:
			
		

> Why is that?



If you read the piece you quoted from my earlier posting, you will see I explain why.


----------



## heidita

Elaine, just as a matter of course, In Spain we had the same problem with African immigrants who had the girls mutilated on religious believes. The government in the end had to impose serious penalties to cut these practises short. These practices were finally considered as mutilation and thus forbidden.


----------



## Chuck Mac

This is my first post. I have been reading the forum for a month or so, however. I enjoy this forum very much, because the discussions are so informative. I am trying to learn Spanish & have taken 3 formal classes. Because of this, the immigration issue is of great concern to me. With that said, I can't help but wonder how the immigrant feels when he/she hears of the great "democracy" in the US. That great "democracy" becomes contradicting once the immigrant arrives in this country. Upon arrival the immigrant learns that democratically it is not okay to maintain "self", but it becomes more prudent to adapt a new culture. It seems to me that in a democracy I have the choice to take on the new culture or not, to maintain who I am, & if I feel like I may lose myself in the process, then I have the choice to adjust as I see appropriate.

But to have a democracy dictate whether I maintain self, & everything that goes with that, doesn't seem democratic. If I'm in your home, do I have to behave like you, or may I choose to act like me? Will I be accepted in your home? Will I be accepted or will you encourage me to take on your ways? If I'm not offending anyone by being myself, what harm is done? I'm from the orientation that an immigrant must feel accepted on the simplest of terms before assimilation becomes important. If I can't be accepted the way I am right now, then what's my hope of being accepted once I assimilate?

I think that once any immigrant feels the acceptance in both directions, then the rates of assimilation may increase.

Sorry for rambling, & I am hopeful that I'm going in the direction of this thread.


----------



## heidita

Chuck Mac said:
			
		

> This is my first post. I have been reading the forum for a month or so, however. I enjoy this forum very much, because the discussions are so informative. I am trying to learn Spanish & have taken 3 formal classes. Because of this, the immigration issue is of great concern to me. With that said, I can't help but wonder how the immigrant feels when he/she hears of the great "democracy" in the US. That great "democracy" becomes contradicting once the immigrant arrives in this country. Upon arrival the immigrant learns that democratically it is not okay to maintain "self", but it becomes more prudent to adapt a new culture. It seems to me that in a democracy I have the choice to take on the new culture or not, to maintain who I am, & if I feel like I may lose myself in the process, then I have the choice to adjust as I see appropriate.
> 
> But to have a democracy dictate whether I maintain self, & everything that goes with that, doesn't seem democratic. If I'm in your home, do I have to behave like you, or may I choose to act like me? Will I be accepted in your home? Will I be accepted or will you encourage me to take on your ways? If I'm not offending anyone by being myself, what harm is done? I'm from the orientation that an immigrant must feel accepted on the simplest of terms before assimilation becomes important. If I can't be accepted the way I am right now, then what's my hope of being accepted once I assimilate?
> 
> I think that once any immigrant feels the acceptance in both directions, then the rates of assimilation may increase.
> 
> Sorry for rambling, & I am hopeful that I'm going in the direction of this thread.


 
I found your post very interesting. And very informing of how many immigrants think.they have to be accepted without assuming that they are NOT in their own country.

this is very interesting. Why should you expect to be accepted living in my home if you don NOT  want to behave like you were in my home? why should I accept your burping( for example) just because this is part of your culture? I expect from you to behave in my home like I would in yours, that is accepting the rules and adapting to the new place you have chosen to live. 

Why do you feel that democracy means to accept any kind of behaviour?

I think that is what it is all about, that immigrants expect the host country to accept them as they are, and I think this cannot be done.

I don't think I can go around scolding everybody for being late; I cannot be  "liked" if I think that everything has to be spic and span; I cannot expect the people to eat at 12 and have dinner at 6.....

I especially like your sentence that a democracy means  you have to be prudent and adapt. Is that supposed to be funny?
I wonder.....


----------



## maxiogee

heidita said:
			
		

> Why should you expect to be accepted living in my home if you don NOT  want to behave like you were in my home? why should I accept your burping( for example) just because this is part of your culture? I expect from you to behave in my home like I would in yours, that is accepting the rules and adapting to the new place you have chosen to live.


Were you to come to *my* home, heidita, I would like to think that you felt comfortable enough for you to behave as if you were in your own home.
That, I think, is the essence of hospitality, making someone feel at home when they are not - be that in my house or in my country.
Yes, I expect them to be _somewhat_ circumspect, just as they would be in their house if I were their guest. One behaves slightly differently when one has guests.


----------



## moodywop

heidita said:
			
		

> Why do you feel that democracy means to accept any kind of behaviour?


 
I can't find this statement in Chuck Mac's post. What he did say is:



> *If I'm not offending anyone by being myself*, what harm is done?


 
This is actually an extremely mild statement, which I can't see anybody disagreeing with.



			
				heidita said:
			
		

> I think that is what it is all about, that immigrants expect the host country to *accept them as they are*, and I think this cannot be done


 
How else can you accept anyone except as they are? The attitude displayed in your statement, pushed to its extreme, led to the mass slaughter of Jews, gypsies, gays and mentally ill people in your native country.


----------



## cuchuflete

When I started this thread, I offered two distinct views for discussion...assimilate quickly, or assimilate more slowly.  I also mentioned that there were many ways for immigrants to adapt, not just those two opposities.  It's a continuum of choices and styles.

We have now heard from advocates of the two end points.
What seems to have received less attention is that in most countries that are large recipients of immigrants, there are dozens or hundreds of points on that continuum. 

 Look, for example, at the US, Argentina, Mexico...three nations with a history of substantial immigration.  In the US, we have had quick, slow, and every class of medium paced assimilation, and are none the worse off for it.  To the contrary, much of our cultural and even economic richness comes from immigrants, including quick and slow assimilators.

I'll ask the Mexican and Argentine foreros to speak for themselves.  However, I am aware of Asturian and Gallego clubs in Mexico, and I don't believe the practice of immigrant Spaniards who stay close to their first home country culture has done Mexico any harm.  

This discussion is clearly--to me at least--not a dispute that can be won with a single 'right answer'.  It would be more interesting, and enlightening, to discuss immigrant groups in the same host country, including both those quick and slow to assimilate, and see the benefits and detriments of each rate of adaptation.


----------



## heidita

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Were you to come to *my* home, heidita, I would like to think that you felt comfortable enough for you to behave as if you were in your own home.
> That, I think, is the essence of hospitality, making someone feel at home when they are not - be that in my house or in my country.
> Yes, I expect them to be _somewhat_ circumspect, just as they would be in their house if I were their guest. One behaves slightly differently when one has guests.


 
I do not think this would be the case if I were to come to your home for a long time, that is to live in your home. Then would you be willing to adapt to me? So we would eat a three, dinner at 10, go out for a beer every day, music at full speed (so to speak), MANY friends coming along at all times, no more sleep for anybody.... 



I do not think anybody has a problem with "bearing" another person's _special things_ for a short time, but not for a long period of time, not even being close friends.


----------



## heidita

moodywop said:
			
		

> How else can you accept anyone except as they are? The attitude displayed in your statement, pushed to its extreme, led to the mass slaughter of Jews, gypsies, gays and mentally ill people in your native country.


 
Here, here, look who is talking. One does live in glass houses..... and if you live in one, don't throw with stones.


----------



## Vanda

> It would be more interesting, and enlightening, to discuss immigrant groups in the same host country, including both those quick and slow to assimilate, and see the benefits and detriments of each rate of adaptation.


 
Well, I think I may say without sounding hyperbolic my country has one of the biggest registered miscegenations and as far as I know this process of miscegenation and assimilation hasn´t been _that _difficult. 
 Vera Lúcia Soares, from The Fluminense Federal University, an expert in literature says the immigrants integration into Brazilian society has been relatively tranquil.   


> "O Brasil é um ‘caldeirão de culturas’, onde se misturam raças, comidas, religiões, com resultados sempre imprevisíveis, o que explica, de certa maneira, a *integração relativamente tranqüila dos imigrantes na sociedade brasileira", *


 source 
Some immigrants look like having the best of two worlds: they maintain at home their original habits and outside home they try to adapt themselves to the local habits. 
Japanese, for example, are very attached to their eating and family customs and it seems they are the slowest people to shift to our society way of life. A friend of mine was raised in a home where only Japanese was spoken, and where they cultivated all Japanese habits. However, I don´t see no problem with their particular way of living. They, the Japanese, are well integrated into society, being great agriculturists, having brought new techniques and thus enriching our methods, besides presenting us to their delicious food.
The Italians came, at first, to replace the newly freed slaves on the coffee agriculture and were vigorous farmers. It seems they were faster to adapt to a new culture. My father tell us about growing in an Italian family with grandma cooking as a truly Italian mamma, but the whole family living their lives like all other neighbors.
The Arabs also seemed to adapt very fast. I was raised in a town where those who aren´t from Italian origin are from Arab one (mainly Syrian and Lebanese). I still remember my Arab neighbors´behaving as if they were natives - well , I was veeery young then and didn´t know anything about immigration. All I knew was they were Arabs and that was enough for a little girl- made no difference!
The Germans also brought their techniques, their laboriousness to the new country. In the south states, till nowadays, some of them live in special colonies- also there are Italians and some other Europeans smaller ethnic groups- speaking, teaching and living according to their parents´ languages and yet integrated into the country life.  
This integration happened for some at a quicker and for others at a slower pace, but in the end we all, natives and immigrants, have benefitted -and continue to - from this melting. I think it adds color to a already colorful people!


----------



## Brioche

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> I can only conclude that many Irish people didn't return their Census form Tony. Over a million of them have disappeared since 1997, according to the Irish Government's estimation. Or does "British-born" rob them of their ethnicity? My husband was born in London, but was as Irish as could be.
> LRV


 
The Irish are a special case. 
The Republic of Ireland is officially _not a foreign country_. [Ireland Act, 1949, s 2 (1)]

Ireland and UK have no immigration restrictions in either direction.

Republic of Ireland citizens have the right to vote in UK elections, join the civil service &c, &c.

As for "ethnicity", how far back does it go? 

Sean Connery has an obviously Irish surname, and an great-grandfather from Wexford, but he's a Scottish nationalist now. Bob Geldof manages to be Irish, despite his Belgian "ethnicity".


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Read a few of the recent threads here, or a newspaper or blog.
> 
> Look out the window!   There are lots of immigrants around.
> 
> Immigration is not going away.
> 
> Some people are unhappy about that, while others like it, and many are indifferent.
> 
> When immigrants move to a new country, they may follow one or more paths---
> One is the so-called 'melting pot' assimilation seen in the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in which native cultures were largely abandoned or greatly diminished over time, in favor of the host country culture.
> 
> Another is to gradually adapt to and adopt host country culture, while consciously striving to maintain native culture, obviously including language.
> 
> In reality, these are areas on a continuum.  Nearly all immigrants adapt to new country culture, while holding on to some of what they brought with them.  The difference is in degree, and the rate at which they learn or embrace the new.
> 
> Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations?  It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country.
> 
> 
> Please note: The paragraph above is the thread topic. Other related topics can be discussed in other threads, hence, please don't offer ideas here about whether immigration is good or bad, or matters other than rates of assimilation.



I think it is very difficult for first-generation immigrants to assimilate into a new culture; they should certainly try to learn the language and the customs and folkways of their adopted country, and have respect and gratitude for it.  However, their children usually do that, and I think that works out well enough.  At the same time, I believe that the children, grandchildren, and ancestors should not forget where they came from, while at the same time recognizing that the U.S. (or whatever country they immigrated to) is now _their_ nation.  An example; most people in Northern Minnesota trace their roots here back to some time around the turn of the century, when their great- or great-great-grandparents emigrated from countries Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Ireland, (French) Canada,  modern-day Poland, etc..  I teach CCD (the Catholic equivalent of Sunday School), and I  once asked my students where their ancestors came from.  Some could answer and some....didn't know!  That saddens me.  Although they are now American, they still have a past, a distant origin, which they should at least know and take pride in.  Some immigrant groups in the U.S., such as the Italian-Americans, seem to me to be very good at balancing pride in their ethnicity and pride in their country.  I find it disconcerting and sad however, that one would not even know their heritage.


----------



## Daniel4802

I can give my father and others like him as an example. The area where I live was inhabited by a large French population following the Civil War - that being South Louisiana. Today, many communities still utilize the French language - as you can see by the countless bi-lingual street signs - and experience French culture when it comes to music and food.

My father's first language was French. But just like everyone else his age, he had to learn English early. It was school policy back then for English to be the only language spoken in class unless it was a foreign language course. My father told me that teachers would slap pupils hands with a ruler if they didn't speak English.

For them, it was a matter of survival as well as advancement to learn English as quickly as they could. Although they could trade and do business with others locally who predominantly spoke French, they could not do anything outside of those communities if they didn't know English. That meant employment opportunities were very limited.

For example, my father was the first in my family to attend college. He studied to be an airplane mechanic at Northrop so he could follow his dream as well as provide a better future for his family, which at that time lived on a small ranch. He later worked at a local airport until he became self-employed and did his own private work. Now he is retired.

If my father, and others his age in that community, weren't forced to learn English, a larger pressure would have been placed on us. What my father went through allowed us to begin our lives at a much better spot than him.

So yes. It is a lot better for the first generation to assimilate as quick as possible. It not only will improve the life of that first generation who is learning the host language, but that of his or her family. The quicker they can assimilate, whether it is with a new language or customs, the better the chances are that following generations will prosper.


----------



## maxiogee

Daniel4802 said:
			
		

> I
> It was school policy back then for English to be the only language spoken in class unless it was a foreign language course. My father told me that teachers would slap pupils hands with a ruler if they didn't speak English.



Aaah yes, the old story of the dominant imposing their language on others.
We all 'know' that when people who can speak a different language than the authorities do speak that language they are invariably, constantly and uncontradictably plotting the overthrow of the authorities.   

All those guys hanging around on street corners - who in any other set-up would be shirking work and eyeing up the opposite sex; talking about racehorses or foootball; and recovering from the last, or planning the next, night's drinking - must be talking revolution and sedition.


----------



## lamariposita88

*TO ALL OF YOU "THIS IS AMERICA, SPEAK ENGLISH" AMERICANS*

Being that I am from Miami, Florida, I have a lot of insight into the immigration of individuals into a new country. My parents immigrated here from Puerto Rico about 20 years ago, and although the culture shock is not as harsh as say, a person moving from Peru, there is still some difficulty. 
Imagine you, as an English-native, lost your job, your house, and most of your money. The economy in your country had failed, and you had no where to turn except to try your life in a new country, so as to give your family a better place to survive. You pack what little possessions you have, and you make a long journey into a completely different culture. 
You have no knowledge of the language, the customs, or the people. You simply work to gain your visas, and find a job. 
To whom would you gravitate? Of course, the people of your culture. They are who will give you the strength and the resources to continue your journey into better livelihood, because they understand you. And most importantly, you understand them. 
In this manner, the immigrant family is slowly adapted into their new culture. Creating sort of a mix in the areas in which their culture thrives in the new country. 
So tell me, if you, an american, were forced to move to China after you spent 25 to 30 years in America, would you never eat a hamburger again, never say an English word again, and pretend you were Chinese for the rest of your life?
Sounds proposterous, huh? 
Then why do you ask the hispanics, who are forced into our country by poverty and unstable governments, to pretend they were never hispanic?
If you were an immigrant in China, and you learned Chinese as much as you could, but you were simply walking down the aisle of the grocery store with your family, would you speak Chinese to your family or English?
English, right? And if a Chinese person walked up to you, in that grocery store, and meanacingly told you "You're in China, Learn to speak Chinese you stupid American.", how do you think you would feel?

So if you contiue to tell hispanics, "Learn English, Spick."
I hope that you will be forced to move to China. And I hope they torture you just as you have tortured the hispanic culture here.


----------



## natasha2000

I wouldn't be so extreme as some of the foreros here. Not in either direction.

Assimilation - yes. But not a "melting pot" type.
Abandoning your own customs - no, if it does not molest directly the hosting country. And it depends on the customs you have, of course. For sure the ablation or sex discrimination is absolutely out of the question. But if I am used to have dinner at 7pm and my hosting country at 10pm, what harm is done to hosting country if I have dinner AT MY HOME at 7pm??? Of course, I cannot go around being mad at restaurants because they open at 9pm... But these things are noncense to discuss about. 

I really identified myself with the post written by Papalote. No matter how hard you try to "integrate", including that you are not coming from a country so different from your hosting country, you will always be "a foreigner" "an immigrant", unless you "melt", and not even then, sometimes. 

One should accept the customs of a hosting country, but one shouldn't forget where they come from. It is very sad to see a person with a Serbian name living in USA or Canada or wherever, and not speaking Serbian, or speaking it with a strong English accent...


----------



## djchak

lamariposita88 said:
			
		

> *TO ALL OF YOU "THIS IS AMERICA, SPEAK ENGLISH" AMERICANS*
> 
> Being that I am from Miami, Florida, I have a lot of insight into the immigration of individuals into a new country. My parents immigrated here from Puerto Rico about 20 years ago, and although the culture shock is not as harsh as say, a person moving from Peru, there is still some difficulty.
> Imagine you, as an English-native, lost your job, your house, and most of your money. The economy in your country had failed, and you had no where to turn except to try your life in a new country, so as to give your family a better place to survive. You pack what little possessions you have, and you make a long journey into a completely different culture.
> You have no knowledge of the language, the customs, or the people. You simply work to gain your visas, and find a job.
> To whom would you gravitate? Of course, the people of your culture. They are who will give you the strength and the resources to continue your journey into better livelihood, because they understand you. And most importantly, you understand them.
> In this manner, the immigrant family is slowly adapted into their new culture. Creating sort of a mix in the areas in which their culture thrives in the new country.
> So tell me, if you, an american, were forced to move to China after you spent 25 to 30 years in America, would you never eat a hamburger again, never say an English word again, and pretend you were Chinese for the rest of your life?
> Sounds proposterous, huh?
> Then why do you ask the hispanics, who are forced into our country by poverty and unstable governments, to pretend they were never hispanic?
> If you were an immigrant in China, and you learned Chinese as much as you could, but you were simply walking down the aisle of the grocery store with your family, would you speak Chinese to your family or English?
> English, right? And if a Chinese person walked up to you, in that grocery store, and meanacingly told you "You're in China, Learn to speak Chinese you stupid American.", how do you think you would feel?
> 
> So if you contiue to tell hispanics, "Learn English, Spick."
> I hope that you will be forced to move to China. And I hope they torture you just as you have tortured the hispanic culture here.




If the economy in my country had failed, or wasn't performing, and I wanted to move to Germany...the first thing I would do is learn German! It's common sense!

If I found a job, and knew I could stay, I would want to live among other Germans, not isolate myself to a segregated community forever...

If it was my choice to move to China, I would learn chinese and bring the best of my traditions with me, while accepting my new adopted homeland.

Let me ask you something. Why is self segregation good? Why is learning to speak english and wanting to live with people of other nationalities "torture"?


----------



## djchak

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> One should accept the customs of a hosting country, but one shouldn't forget where they come from. It is very sad to see a person with a Serbian name living in USA or Canada or wherever, and not speaking Serbian, or speaking it with a strong English accent...



Why is it sad? A tall serbian guy sold me my last car. Is he "sad" becuase he speaks english with a serbian accent? Will his children be "sad" becuase they speak serbian and english with an american accent?


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> Why is it sad? A tall serbian guy sold me my last car. Is he "sad" becuase he speaks english with a serbian accent? Will his children be "sad" becuase they speak serbian and english with an american accent?


 
Just a little correction. THEY will not be SAD because of this, IT will be sad. There is a big difference, at least for me.
As far as the father is concerned, not at all. He speaks English as you say, and I am very sure he tries to immerge and melt with American culture and way of life, since I know how are my people as immigrants. But as far as his children are concerned, in a way, yes. But it doesn't have to happen, if he gives his best and try that his children speak Serbian with a Serbian accent and English with an Engliah accent, and if they speak some other language, better. One should embrace the culture of a new homeland and follow the rules of behaviour of a hosting country, but one should never forget where his roots are... As a matter of fact, I think it is cool to have two cultures that you can call as yours, the more you know, the more diverse is your own personal culture, the richer a person is...
At the end, this is ONLY my personal opinion, and this is what was asked for in this thread, not final truths. Or I am wrong again?


----------



## Bastoune

lamariposita88 said:
			
		

> *TO ALL OF YOU "THIS IS AMERICA, SPEAK ENGLISH" AMERICANS*
> 
> Being that I am from Miami, Florida, I have a lot of insight into the immigration of individuals into a new country. My parents immigrated here from Puerto Rico about 20 years ago, and although the culture shock is not as harsh as say, a person moving from Peru, there is still some difficulty.
> Imagine you, as an English-native, lost your job, your house, and most of your money. The economy in your country had failed, and you had no where to turn except to try your life in a new country, so as to give your family a better place to survive. You pack what little possessions you have, and you make a long journey into a completely different culture.
> You have no knowledge of the language, the customs, or the people. You simply work to gain your visas, and find a job.
> To whom would you gravitate? Of course, the people of your culture. They are who will give you the strength and the resources to continue your journey into better livelihood, because they understand you. And most importantly, you understand them.
> In this manner, the immigrant family is slowly adapted into their new culture. Creating sort of a mix in the areas in which their culture thrives in the new country.
> So tell me, if you, an american, were forced to move to China after you spent 25 to 30 years in America, would you never eat a hamburger again, never say an English word again, and pretend you were Chinese for the rest of your life?
> Sounds proposterous, huh?
> Then why do you ask the hispanics, who are forced into our country by poverty and unstable governments, to pretend they were never hispanic?
> If you were an immigrant in China, and you learned Chinese as much as you could, but you were simply walking down the aisle of the grocery store with your family, would you speak Chinese to your family or English?
> English, right? And if a Chinese person walked up to you, in that grocery store, and meanacingly told you "You're in China, Learn to speak Chinese you stupid American.", how do you think you would feel?
> 
> So if you contiue to tell hispanics, "Learn English, Spick."
> I hope that you will be forced to move to China. And I hope they torture you just as you have tortured the hispanic culture here.


 
A little dramatic, _n'est-ce pas_?

Maybe I'd still eat my poutine and pate' chinois but I would dress as the Chinese did and speak their tongue.

No one is "torturing" Hispanics in the U.S.  _Au contraire_, the U.S. is giving them everything _en espanol_ so they can just assume they can speak it wherever they want.

And yeah, sadly the Cajuns have suffered a lot at the hands of English-speakers but even without slapping the hands, Louisiana was turned over to the Americans anyway thanks to Napoleon, so learning English would eventually have to happen.  

There's no reason one can't retain one's own language and learn a new one.  GASP!  It happens every day!

I only have to question why it bothers people that the inhabitants of a country would expect immigrants to learn their language?


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:
			
		

> If the economy in my country had failed, or wasn't performing, and I wanted to move to Germany...the first thing I would do is learn German! It's common sense!


 Would you learn German before you moved there and started working?  How would you pay for classes and what would you do for work until you moved there?


----------



## djchak

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Would you learn German before you moved there and started working?  How would you pay for classes and what would you do for work until you moved there?



Yes, you can teach yourself some basics with Books and CD's. If only classes worked, then there wouldn't be any Books or CD's teaching language.

Once I was there, I would be able to make better, as everyone speaks german. So once you have little choices, the paradox is you learn to speak the basics very quickly.

And this isn't an issue of speed or profieciency, it's  "why do they not learn it if they have been here for years, and want to stay here for years."

How is it that people from countries much farther away learn english more quickly than people who from countries right next to us? Could it be they feel that learning it is optional?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

djchak said:
			
		

> Could it be they feel that learning it is optional?


Well, isn't it? It is in the US.

Is there a law that says you have to learn English when you move to the United States? Is learning English obligatory for immigrants to the UK, Australia, Canada? Anyone?


----------



## maxiogee

LOL



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Is there a law that says you have to learn English when you move to the United States?


The following is a joke and is not true! 
Please don't over-react! 
Yes - but as it's only published in English, who cares, or knows?


----------



## djchak

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Just a little correction. THEY will not be SAD because of this, IT will be sad. There is a big difference, at least for me.
> As far as the father is concerned, not at all. He speaks English as you say, and I am very sure he tries to immerge and melt with American culture and way of life, since I know how are my people as immigrants. But as far as his children are concerned, in a way, yes. But it doesn't have to happen, if he gives his best and try that his children speak Serbian with a Serbian accent and English with an Engliah accent, and if they speak some other language, better. One should embrace the culture of a new homeland and follow the rules of behaviour of a hosting country, but one should never forget where his roots are... As a matter of fact, I think it is cool to have two cultures that you can call as yours, the more you know, the more diverse is your own personal culture, the richer a person is...
> At the end, this is ONLY my personal opinion, and this is what was asked for in this thread, not final truths. Or I am wrong again?



I understood your sentance the first time. As in, "IT will be sad". What you didn't explain is "WHY IT is SAD". Why does it matter if they can speak serbian in an american, canadian, austrailian, or UK accent? 

Are you saying that american accents and dialects are "sad"?


Why does it matter if someone speaks english in the US with a serbian accent? As long as their command of english, serbian, spanish, or gujrati is correct, why the long faces for differnt accents or dialects?

You know, I think I appreciated the US more and more as I travelled to other places, and came back and compared attitudes. Different is GOOD. The world would be a boring place if everyone had the exact same dialect and accents.

I never said you were "wrong" about anything by the way. I just want to hear why you think it's "sad".


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:
			
		

> Yes, you can teach yourself some basics with Books and CD's.


 Assuming that the severance package that you received when you were fired from your job was enough to meet expenses and to afford books and CDs.

Many immigrants do not have the resources (time, money, opportunity, etc.) to study the language of their host country -- they're too busy working, for too little money.   Assimilation isn't cheap.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Assuming that the severance package that you received when you were fired from your job was enough to meet expenses and to afford books and CDs.
> 
> Many immigrants do not have the resources (time, money, opportunity, etc.) to study the language of their host country -- they're too busy working, for too little money.   Assimilation isn't cheap.


This reminds me of a story my friend told me when she was a child. She asked her mom to buy her a doll and her mom said she didn't have any money. Not having quite yet grasped the concept of money, my friend then suggested her mother just write a check.

Some people who come here don't have money for CDs, and some don't even have a CD player to play it on if they did. And some have no use for books for they can barely read or read at all. Some, gasp, don't have a Giant-Chain Book/Coffee Shop store in the village where the live!

If _*I*_ were an economic migrant looking for work in France I would buy tapes, books, attend the Alliance Française, hire a private tutor, and take a University course in French or two. I mean, who wants to live in France and not being able to communicate with the French? Why some immigrants in France don't speak French is beyond me. Why don't they just write a freaking check.


----------



## djchak

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Assuming that the severance package that you received when you were fired from your job was enough to meet expenses and to afford books and CDs.
> 
> Many immigrants do not have the resources (time, money, opportunity, etc.) to study the language of their host country -- they're too busy working, for too little money.   Assimilation isn't cheap.



Wow. Apparently there are no "how to learn english" books and CD's in Mexico, Central America, South America, Asia..... only the rich europeans and americans can afford those luxuries with a hefty severance package.

What a crock. Do you have any idea how insulting that assumption is? Do you honestly think that only well off legal immigrants can "afford" to learn english?

What about the MILLIONS that came here knowing no english, but gradually learned enough, and earned enough to buy a place here?


----------



## djchak

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> This reminds me of a story my friend told me when she was a child. She asked her mom to buy her a doll and her mom said she didn't have any money. Not having quite yet grasped the concept of money, my friend then suggested her mother just write a check.
> 
> Some people who come here don't have money for CDs, and some don't even have a CD player to play it on if they did. And some have no use for books for they can barely read or read at all. Some, gasp, don't have a Giant-Chain Book/Coffee Shop store in the village where the live!
> 
> If _*I*_ were an economic migrant looking for work in France I would buy tapes, books, attend the Alliance Française, hire a private tutor, and take a University course in French or two. I mean, who wants to live in France and not being able to communicate with the French? Why some immigrants in France don't speak French is beyond me. Why don't they just write a freaking check.



Ah, so I see. These people are victims, not knowing you can LEARN english on your own with cheap study aids. Apparently only the ELITE can learn english to a point that is understandable. Despite the fact that millions have done it, when the original language they spoke is completely different from any latin based language.

Learning english to Spanish / Spanish to English is probably one of the easiest language changes anyone would ever have to do. Your "facts" don't add up.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

djchak said:
			
		

> Ah, so I see. These people are victims, not knowing you can LEARN english on your own with cheap study aids. Apparently only the ELITE can learn english to a point that is understandable. Despite the fact that millions have done it, when the original language they spoke is completely different from any latin based language.
> 
> Learning english to Spanish / Spanish to English is probably one of the easiest language changes anyone would ever have to do. Your "facts" don't add up.


No importa. La realidad es que hay millones de personas que viven en los Estados Unidos y no hablan inglés. Muchos tienen los medios para estudiar inglés pero les falta otras cosas: tiempo, talento, la edad edecuada, la necesidad, etc. No todo el mundo tiene la misma capacidad de hacerlo. Aprender inglés es como dejar una pareja: siempre es fácil cuando eres tú que le dices o otra persona que lo haga pero no sabes lo que es hasta que te toca a ti. La cosa más fácil de mundo es botar a un mujer ajena.

Muchos tratan de aprender inglés y no pueden por muchas, muchas, razones, que tú no podrás jamás entender. Todos, todos, saben que les iría mucho mejor si aprendieran inglés. Hasta los que no piensan quedarse saben que es un idioma muy útil que te sirve en cualquier país.

Además, aprender inglés no engorda.


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> I understood your sentance the first time. As in, "IT will be sad". What you didn't explain is "WHY IT is SAD". Why does it matter if they can speak serbian in an american, canadian, austrailian, or UK accent?
> 
> Are you saying that american accents and dialects are "sad"?
> 
> I think you don't want to understand me. Let me rephrase it. It is sad hearing someone with Serbian name speaking Serbian with the accent of some foreign language. Is that clear enough? I have nothing against English, Chinese or Swahili, it is sad FOR ME to hear someone speaking his mother tongue (or tongue of his parents or grandparents) with an accent.
> 
> Why does it matter if someone speaks english in the US with a serbian accent? As long as their command of english, serbian, spanish, or gujrati is correct, why the long faces for differnt accents or dialects?
> It depends on who is the speaker. If it is the first generation immigrant lets, say in US, and speaks English with an accent, BUT HE SPEAKS IT, and he speaks it OK, there is no problem. But if he is of let's say, second generation immigrant (well, technicaly, he wouldn't be an immigrant any more, would he?) and he speaks English with an accent, it is a little bit, odd, and i would dare to say, rather impossible, considering he spent whole life in the US. It simply draws attention, since it is not usual thing to find. But if this very same "immigrant" of the second generation does not speak or speaks with the strong accent or speaks broken tongue of his parents or grandparents, it is sad.  For me. This means in a way, he forgot his roots. It's OK. There is nothing WRONG in it. C'est la vie. But it is sad.
> 
> You know, I think I appreciated the US more and more as I travelled to other places, and came back and compared attitudes. *Different is GOOD.*
> I agree with you, a 100%. That is why I say one shouldn't forger where they come from. That is why I think one should emmerge, but not melt.
> 
> The world would be a boring place if everyone had the exact same dialect and accents. This is not the issue of this thread. Nobody said that everyone should have the same dialect and accent. I would like to repeat what I've said in my last poster:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I think it is cool to have two cultures that you can call as yours, the more you know, the more diverse is your own personal culture, the richer a person is...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this saying enough what is my opinion on diversity of cultures?
> I never said you were "wrong" about anything by the way. I just want to hear why you think it's "sad".
Click to expand...

 
Hope I explained enough.

I would like to add something. There is no law that an immigrant should learn the language of the country where they go to start a new life. But it is in their interest to learn it, if necessary. I live in Catalonia, and I don't speak Catalan, because I am doing just fine with knowing only Spanish. Yes, I would like to learn Catalan, too, but I am not FORCED to do it in order to survive, so I postpone it in a way, I don't have time, and deep inside, I am just lazy. But I am sure that I would have learnt it very quickly if my existence depended on it.
On the other hand, I understand people - natives, when they, let's use the eufemism, - protest because some immigrants do not learn the language of the country they are. It is not the protest because they do not speak it when they come, or because they have a bad accent or they never learn to speak it correctly or fluently. It is directed towards those who come to their country, make their own cities within the cities, their wn societies within the societies and never even try to adapt not a little bit to the hosting country. In my opinion, in this way they are not "opening the way for their children to the new homeland, they are only making it more difficult for them. Children are ok while they have contact only with their parents, family and neighbours of the same nation, until they don't have to go to school, and to make friends with other children. But when it happens, if a child is not adapted and prepared to meet the outside world (and that would be, at least, to speak, and to speak as good as it is possible the language of the hosting country) it will be different. And children in general can be very cruel, we all know that, because we all had or maybe of us even were "the freak" of the class... 

Adapt and learn about your new home as much as you can, but don't forget who you are. Cherish in the same way the new and the old culture, in a way that it does not bother anyone. Learn and teach at the same time. I think this is the best thing to do, but also the hardest one.

PS: One question, just for curiosity. Why don't you write names of languages in capital letters? Is it just carelessness or there is some reason for it?


----------



## djchak

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> No importa. La realidad es que hay millones de personas que viven en los Estados Unidos y no hablan inglés. Muchos tienen los medios para estudiar inglés pero les falta otras cosas: tiempo, talento, la edad edecuada, la necesidad, etc. No todo el mundo tiene la misma capacidad de hacerlo. Aprender inglés es como dejar una pareja: siempre es fácil cuando eres tú que le dices o otra persona que lo haga pero no sabes lo que es hasta que te toca a ti. La cosa más fácil de mundo es botar a un mujer ajena.
> 
> Muchos tratan de aprender inglés y no pueden por muchas, muchas, razones, que tú no podrás jamás entender. Todos, todos, saben que les iría mucho mejor si aprendieran inglés. Hasta los que no piensan quedarse saben que es un idioma muy útil que te sirve en cualquier país.
> 
> Además, aprender inglés no engorda.



It is in thier best intrest,and I fully support free english language classes if they will help.  (to anyone who can't afford them) I just think that you guys are exagerating the difficulty of learning english. It's not an "elite" skill as your posts sarcasticly seem to suggest.

Well, getting back to the original question. I think "melting pot" assimilation is a good thing. I don't view it as a problem, or a failure of a society to keep thier culture seperate. It will have more ups and downs then a homogenous society (like japan, norway), but it also has it's strengths.


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:
			
		

> What a crock. Do you have any idea how insulting that assumption is? Do you honestly think that only well off legal immigrants can "afford" to learn english?


 You need to chill out a little.  I'm not insulting you or being rude to you -- I'm asking what you would do if you were a poor immigrant, so you can empathize a little.  

I can't count the number of immigrants that I have worked with, especially in small towns, but also in big cities, who barely have a basic education in their native language, who work long hours for low pay, who live far from schools and people who could be resources to them in learning English.

I have also met immigrants who frustrated me because they did not make any effort to learn English, instead relying on family and friends to translate for them.  But for every one of these, I've met 10 people who honestly want to learn English but don't have the wherewithal to start.


----------



## lamariposita88

djchak said:
			
		

> If the economy in my country had failed, or wasn't performing, and I wanted to move to Germany...the first thing I would do is learn German! It's common sense!
> 
> If I found a job, and knew I could stay, I would want to live among other Germans, not isolate myself to a segregated community forever...
> 
> If it was my choice to move to China, I would learn chinese and bring the best of my traditions with me, while accepting my new adopted homeland.
> 
> Let me ask you something. Why is self segregation good? Why is learning to speak english and wanting to live with people of other nationalities "torture"?


 
First of all, I never said "learning to speak english and wanting to live with people of other nationalities "torture""...I am simply stating that the ignorant people who insult the immigrants for speaking their own language in their own homes and private conversations is ridiculous. 

I am a firm believer that immigrants SHOULD learn to command the language of the country they are settling. Most definitly. But to make them completely leave their culture is the torture.

Please read more carefully before you attack.


----------



## djchak

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Hope I explained enough.
> Adapt and learn about your new home as much as you can, but don't forget who you are. Cherish in the same way the new and the old culture, in a way that it does not bother anyone. Learn and teach at the same time. I think this is the best thing to do, but also the hardest one.
> 
> PS: One question, just for curiosity. Why don't you write names of languages in capital letters? Is it just carelessness or there is some reason for it?



OK, I think I understand your opinion better, and while I might disagree (or really, don't understand what is so wrong about someone who is serbian american speaking serbian with a texas accent) I would never say that it is "wrong" to have this opinion.

Fenix, i'm just responding to (perceived)sarcasm with sarcasm. I did not mean to be rude either. 

Re: PS. I usually don't capitalize the names of languages.


----------



## heidita

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> You need to chill out a little. I'm not insulting you or being rude to you -- I'm asking what you would do if you were a poor immigrant, so you can empathize a little.
> 
> I can't count the number of immigrants that I have worked with, *especially in small towns, but also in big cities, who barely have a basic education in their native language*, who work long hours for low pay, who live far from schools and people who could be resources to them in learning English.
> 
> I have also met immigrants who frustrated me because they did not make any effort to learn English, instead relying on family and friends to translate for them. But for every one of these, I've met 10 people who honestly want to learn English but don't have the wherewithal to start.


 
Even though I'm a true defender of  integration and adaptation which I find absolutely necessary to live with other people especially from a different background and culture, one must agree to the very low possibility of some people to learn a language, as the immigrants we can find here in Spain, and I suppose in Germany and the US, are people from such a low cultural standard that they have real great difficulty in learning the language. For them it must be really quite a task, as for an Italian to learn German must be like learning Chinese for me who has a gift for languages. 

One must take the cultural background into consideration. At least here in Spain, there are so many immigrants, in Germany too, who cannot read or write, that it sounds incredible. For them to learn a language properly or not properly must be just out of the question. There is no excuse though for second generation. And also the elders have to at least try to make themselves understood. That's the least the host country and its people might expect from them. 

I wonder sometimes if it is a question of just the Hispanics not willing to adapt?! Here in Spain, we have had the so called "efecto llamada" through massive legalization of immigrants and you can see immigrants, especially Hispanics, everywhere.
They do not adapt to the host country, work at "their speed" which in Europe is veeeeeery slow, do not adapt to the (only slightly different) language, ..... I mean for them it is so easy, as they do not have to learn any other language here,just adapt to the Spanish spoken here,  nevertheless they expect the natives to understand "se me cae el cuero" ( se me esta pelando la piel), "mi miga no se enseñó aquí" ( se volvió a Ecuador por que no le gustó España), en fin....

So, I do not know your experience in the US, but the things you see here are like this.


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> OK, I think I understand your opinion better, and while I might disagree (or really, don't understand what is so wrong about someone who is serbian american speaking serbian with a texas accent) I would never say that it is "wrong" to have this opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Fenix, i'm just responding to (perceived)sarcasm with sarcasm. I did not mean to be rude either.
> 
> Re: PS. I usually don't capitalize the names of languages.


As I already said: IT IS NOT WRONG. I personally consider it sad. To me it is sad, which does not mean that there are other people, immigrants or not, who don't think so.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Re: PS. I usually don't capitalize the names of languages.


 Coming from someone who identifies themself as a native English speaker, and who is insistent that
immigrants find the time and the means to learn English when in the US....this is perplexing.   If you are a native speaker, and just don't bother to follow the grammar of your own language, who are you to lecture others about learning English?

Please try harder to set a good example for the immigrants.
If you do not, they may think you are just busting their chops for the fun of it.


----------



## heidita

Cuchuflete, I couldn't agree more. If you critizise others for not learning your language you must set an example, djchak. This is a cultural thread and there are no corrections made, but in _English only_ this would quite reasonably not be allowed. Also very confusing for the non-English natives on the forum.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

djchak said:
			
		

> It is in thier best intrest,and I fully support free english language classes if they will help.  (to anyone who can't afford them) I just think that you guys are exagerating the difficulty of learning english. It's not an "elite" skill as your posts sarcasticly seem to suggest.
> 
> Well, getting back to the original question. I think "melting pot" assimilation is a good thing. I don't view it as a problem, or a failure of a society to keep thier culture seperate. It will have more ups and downs then a homogenous society (like japan, norway), but it also has it's strengths.


The *reality *is that many people can't afford it. The *reality *is that many people feel the barely have enough time to do what they already do. The *reality *is that for many people who are of a certain age, it *is *very difficult no matter how much money or time they have. The *reality *is that many immigrants do self-segregate and don't feel they need to learn the language of the host country. The *reality *is that many people are shy, lazy, paranoid, etc.

One of the big complaints I heard about the Chinese communities in France was precisely that: they huddle into their closed societies and don't speak the language of their host country. I don't think it's good to do that, I don't do that and discourage every immigrant I know from doing that, I always have, but I do think it's important for us to understand why people do that and what steps we could take to remedy that.

If you are upset that too many immigrants are not learning English, volunteer to teach English as a second language. You don't have to know Korean in order to teach a chinese person some English, French, Spanish, or any other language except Korean. That's more useful, I think, than complaining about it. Most people want to learn English. Hect, most people would be thrilled to learn English who don't even live here. It's a pretty hot commodity!


----------



## djchak

lamariposita88 said:
			
		

> Please read more carefully before you attack.



It's ironic that you say that.

" If you are upset that too many immigrants are not learning English, volunteer to teach English as a second language."

I would, but apparently becuase I don't capitalize every "Language" out there, I shouldn't bother, as my "English" is not perfectly up to standard. 

I mean, what a hypocrite I would be by volunteering to do such a thing? Judgement has been passed down from the WordReference board members...


----------



## cuchuflete

Sarcasm is a lame excuse. You promote immigrants learning English, or english if you prefer. A sincere suggestion is made to guide you towards achieving your own stated goal, and instead of giving it a reasoned, sincere reply, you demonstrate that in addition to your right to ignore what you claim to value, you haven't yet read the forum rules with comprehension. 

From the WR forum guidelines and rules:



> Moderators are also forum members. Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members.


How nice it is to avoid practicing what one preaches. Is that another value you would impart to immigrants, in their remaining spare time? Or would you rather just lecture them on what's right and wrong?


This approach to analysis and assertions about what other people ought to do is reminiscent of that famous radio talk show host who declaims--with great authority--about behaving morally and legally, and how he and his political allies are so much better at it than the opposition.  He was caught making illegal drug purchases in a parking lot.  

Nearly every participant in this thread has agreed that

--It would be very good for all concerned if immigrants were able to acquire language skills in their new place of residence;

--that this usually takes at least a generation for most members of most immigrant groups;

--that some people have the means, the education, the motivation to learn rather quickly;

--that some people lack the means, the time, the energy, and the need for such language learning to be accomplished quickly, and...

--that for some, it is not a high priority.  Little things like day-to-day survival take precedence.  

It seems that those who make the biggest fuss about the immigrants who assimilate more slowly really don't have the interest of the immigrants at heart.  Rather, they are concerned with the inconvenience of having to deal with someone whose language skills, or lamentable lack of same, require the interlocutor to try a little harder to communicate.



All the moralizing is bunk.  No doubt immigrants have among them many, many very hard-working people, just as "natives" do.  Doubtless there are some immigrants who are lazy, just as the natives of the place they immigrate to.  To generalize
that those who learn a new language slowly are shiftless or otherwise 'flawed' is plain silly.  

Assimilation means so much more than just language learning.  Read Papalote's and Heidita's posts.  Language is an important piece of the assimilation process, but far from the only one.


----------



## lizzeymac

djchak said:
			
		

> Ah, so I see. These people are victims, not knowing you can LEARN english on your own with cheap study aids. Apparently only the ELITE can learn english to a point that is understandable. Despite the fact that millions have done it, when the original language they spoke is completely different from any latin based language.
> 
> Learning english to Spanish / Spanish to English is probably one of the easiest language changes anyone would ever have to do. Your "facts" don't add up.


 
I hope no one means to say Hispanic immigrants are not as intelligent or motivated as other immigrants - that would be asinine. 
I believe that in many places in the US it is harder to find affordable ESL classes & the time to take them than than many people in this forum may be aware of.  Just as a comparison another forero/a mentioned Alliance Francaise - a 5-week beginners course costs $525 in New York City. 
You refer to "cheap study aids" - language CDs cost about US$10 here in NYC, about US$5 secondhand if you can find them. 
A very inexpensive CD player is about US$18 and batteries are US$3.
Legal minumum wage in New York State is US$6.75 per hour & I assure you that new immigrants are not paid that much, at most about US$5 per hour. 
1 trip on public transportation is US$2 or you can buy a monthly unlimited pass for US$74.
A very cheap very small apartment in a bad neighborhood would be at least US$300 per month.
Now add on food, laundry, warm clothes, & the money you send home to your family. Most immigrants I know have at least 2 full time jobs.  It doesn't leave much time or money for studying. 

What I do know is that in NYC the availability of free ESL classes has been greatly reduced in the past 10 years because of Government budget cuts.  Most classes here are held in the early evening which is in conflict with prime working hours in many service industries like resturants & bars.  
The cheapest ESL classes I know about cost US$125 for 1 month of classes, 1 night plus 1 Saturday a week, and you must pay in advance.  This program can educate 40 people per session & they have a long waiting list.  Most of the free Government sponsored classes do not give out text books or grammar books and hae 30-40 persons in each class.  These classes are mostly oriented towards simple phrases for daily living - shopping, working, telephone calls - not true fluency in English. 
While government sponsored ESL classes are available in most large American cities they are not easy to find in most suburban & agricultural areas where many immigrants live.  Many suburban areas purposefully do not have these classes because they don't like having immigrant day laborers in their towns and have passed restrictive laws to discourage immigrants from seeking work or living there.  

This thread confuses me because it seems that many of the posters who believe Hispanic immigrants are not trying to learn English when they come to America are not native born Americans & many do not appear to be living in the US at all.  Do you find this issue annoying because you worked so hard to become fluent in a new language when you moved to a new country? 

As a New Yorker, I think that if I have had to learn a few phrases in Spanish (and Korean, Creole, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, etc) in order to do my daily errands more quickly it is a fair trade for all the wonderful things that immigrant communities have brought to New York. Eventually most immigrants learn enough English to do what they need to do and attain at least semi-fluent spoken English.  I am more concerned that they register to vote & pay taxes & send their kids to school than if it takes them 5 or 6 years to learn to speak English semi-fluently.  

-


----------



## djchak

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Sarcasm is a lame excuse. You promote immigrants learning English, or english if you prefer. A sincere suggestion is made to guide you towards achieving your own stated goal, and instead of giving it a reasoned, sincere reply, you demonstrate that in addition to your right to ignore what you claim to value, you haven't yet read the forum rules with comprehension.
> 
> From the WR forum guidelines and rules:
> 
> 
> How nice it is to avoid practicing what one preaches. Is that another value you would impart to immigrants, in their remaining spare time? Or would you rather just lecture them on what's right and wrong?
> 
> 
> This approach to analysis and assertions about what other people ought to do is reminiscent of that famous radio talk show host who declaims--with great authority--about behaving morally and legally, and how he and his political allies are so much better at it than the opposition.  He was caught making illegal drug purchases in a parking lot.
> 
> Nearly every participant in this thread has agreed that
> 
> --It would be very good for all concerned if immigrants were able to acquire language skills in their new place of residence;
> 
> --that this usually takes at least a generation for most members of most immigrant groups;
> 
> --that some people have the means, the education, the motivation to learn rather quickly;
> 
> --that some people lack the means, the time, the energy, and the need for such language learning to be accomplished quickly, and...
> 
> --that for some, it is not a high priority.  Little things like day-to-day survival take precedence.
> 
> It seems that those who make the biggest fuss about the immigrants who assimilate more slowly really don't have the interest of the immigrants at heart.  Rather, they are concerned with the inconvenience of having to deal with someone whose language skills, or lamentable lack of same, require the interlocutor to try a little harder to communicate.
> 
> 
> 
> All the moralizing is bunk.  No doubt immigrants have among them many, many very hard-working people, just as "natives" do.  Doubtless there are some immigrants who are lazy, just as the natives of the place they immigrate to.  To generalize
> that those who learn a new language slowly are shiftless or otherwise 'flawed' is plain silly.
> 
> Assimilation means so much more than just language learning.  Read Papalote's and Heidita's posts.  Language is an important piece of the assimilation process, but far from the only one.



A "sincere suggestion". Uh no, it was more an observation pointing out the "error of my ways". As if that wasn't enough, you just compared me to Rush Limbuagh. But since i've been told to "chill out", I guess I shouldn't voice my opinion at all, even though I didn't object to anyone else doing the same.

Is this board about cultural "discusssions" that are open, or is it about forming guidelines based on disagreeing with someone elses opinion?


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak, I told you to chill out not because I disagree with your opinion, but because the tone of your posts is not in line with the culture here at WR. Please, by all means disagree with me, but please do it in a civil -- not a snide -- manner. 

Maybe you (mis)interpreted a sarcastic tone from my posts and the posts of others because that's the way *you're* approaching this topic, not the way I am. If you have been trying to be playfully sarcastic or to use "friendly" jibes, it hasn't worked because we can't see you. Irony does not type well.

By the way, I haven't said one sarcastic thing yet.... in _this_ thread.  (see, _that_ was sarcasm) .


----------



## djchak

OK, irony doesn't translate well, fair enough.

I still don't understand what the "culture here at WR" is. I DID read the rules, and although certain people have accused me of "breaking them", I really don't see what I did "wrong". 

I have certainly tried to put thought into my discussion, but seem to be getting angry replies, so perhaps it's just better to put a lid on it.


----------



## maxiogee

My understanding of the culture here, djchak, is something I would sum up in the following way…

…politeness to others;
…no chatspeak, or other non-language;
…correct use of language;
…assistance and guidance to those who request it;
…an overall awareness that many here are not native speakers of whatever language one is writing in and may need to be assisted to understand one's message. This explains the need to capitalise languages when writing in English (whether one does it normally, or not) and the need to compose one's posts grammatically.

(and finally, one of my own cultural preferences here … fun!)

I would sum this up in 
*AEIOU*
…Amuse, 
……Enjoy, 
………Inform, 
…………Oblige, 
……………Understand
(None of the moderators would agree with the order that those are in. I probably don't either, I haven't decided. But I just made it up and it needs polishing.)


----------



## Poetic Device

I believe that immigrants should keep their culture and such (if they so choose to).  The only thing that I will not negotiate on is this:  if you are moving to a country where the native language is not a language that you speak, then learn that language.  It's fine if you want to speak your language in the comforts of your own home, but if you are out and about don't talk in your language and expect the natives to either understand you or bend over backwards for you.  Sorry if that sounds aweful.


----------



## vince

Are there really people in your area who assume you speak Spanish and talk to strangers and businesses in Spanish?

The way it is here is, many immigrants don't bother to learn English, and even if they do, they only speak their native language. They therefore try to stick to ethnic neighborhoods where they can deal exclusively with people of their own ethnic group, so they don't ever have to use English. However, if they MUST go into the larger community, they will usually speak in their bad unpracticed English or bring their children to translate for them.

My parents know English but they don't speak it. Although they don't live in an ethnically Chinese neighborhood, they have exclusively Chinese friends and place business ads only in Chinese so they only have to deal with Chinese-speakers.

So it actually isn't necessary for people to speak English in public.


----------



## Poetic Device

vince said:
			
		

> Are there really people in your area who assume you speak Spanish and talk to strangers and businesses in Spanish?
> 
> The way it is here is, many immigrants don't bother to learn English, and even if they do, they only speak their native language. They therefore try to stick to ethnic neighborhoods where they can deal exclusively with people of their own ethnic group, so they don't ever have to use English. However, if they MUST go into the larger community, they will usually speak in their bad unpracticed English or bring their children to translate for them.
> 
> My parents know English but they don't speak it. Although they don't live in an ethnically Chinese neighborhood, they have exclusively Chinese friends and place business ads only in Chinese so they only have to deal with Chinese-speakers.
> 
> So it actually isn't necessary for people to speak English in public.


 
That is good that your parents were able to do that.  The immigrants in the parts or NY and NJ that I go to are very crude.  They don't care about the natives of America and just talk in whatever language that they were brought up with.  When you try to convey that you don't understand them they start to have a fit and curse at you.  This is the way that I see things (and I am probably wrong):  if you want to come to my country that is fine.  I will welcome you with open arms.  However, if you try to pull a fast one, take me for an arse or curse me out because you refuse to speak the native language of my country because it is not convenient for you then you have no business being here and I want you out.

Once again, I am sorry if I seem hostile.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In reality, these are areas on a continuum.  Nearly all immigrants adapt to new country culture, while holding on to some of what they brought with them.  The difference is in degree, and the rate at which they learn or embrace the new.



I'm glad that you say that both assimilation (the melting pot myth) and acculturation (the salad bowl metaphor) are on a continuum. The melting pot myth is just that: a myth. You can throw some type of metals into a pot, crank up the temperature, and they will definitely melt. But human beings ain't metals. If you put them into a melting pot --any type of pot--, they will die physically or culturally. 

The melting pot imagery is a political and oppressive tool that we have designed to enforce quality control on immigration issues in the US. It's purpose is to show that some people who have immigrated to the US (mainly those from Northern Europe) have become "one of us" faster and easier. But why have they "succeeded?" Yes, you got it right: because they are as white as milk and live up to our unacknowledged racist quality control standards. This is the type of people we like to welcome in a country with a predominatly WASP tradition. On the other hand, you have these Latinos who have been around forever and they keep speaking in Spanish and eating tacos. If they don't whiten exteriorly, at least they should make some effort to whiten interiorly. Right? 

On the other hand, acculturation is a process that could last at least 3 generations. It's gradual. It doesn't happen overnight. People should not be expected to leave their culture behind at customs when they arrive in America. For a couple of generations, immigrants will love and feel allegiance to their country of origin and their adopted country simultaneously. And that's ok. Gradually, they will resolve the natural ambivalence and become more acculturated. But even then, it won't mean that they don't have or shouldn't have any connections to their past in other lands. Second- and third-generation immigrants can continue to honor and celebrate their cultural heritage. A great example of this is what happened in Boston's North End the day Italy won the World Cup. American Italians of all ages took to the streets and celebrated Italy's victory and no one has put in doubt their "Americanness." However, if Mexican Americans take to the streets in LA celebrating a victory of Mexico, many people frown upon them and whisper to one another: "If they love their country so much, why don't they go back to Mexico. America is for Americans." In sum, immigrants shouldn't be expected to commit cultural suicide and disown the culture of their country of origin in order to fit in. 

The goal should be to become multicultural and not monocultural (another American myth). If you ask someone from another country to describe what an American is, there's a strong likelihood that the Marloboro man (or Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and the list goes on) would come to their minds almost immediately. And if you noticed, the Marlboro man is a guy and he is white. How many people would think of a black or a Latino woman as your prototypical American? Well, that's because most Americans are not black or Latino women? It has to do with numbers. Right?

So how many Lebanese died while reading this post? The only good thing about dying is that you don't need to worry about the challenges of some of the topics we are discussing, especially assimilation and acculturation. They don't apply to you anymore.


----------



## vince

The thing about melting pots is that they will only work if there is no racism. But the fact is there is racism in America, so it is not a true melting pot. The cultures blend into a homogeneous mixture, but only along racial lines. The thing I've noticed in America that does not exist in Canada is pan-Asianism. I find that there often exists an independent culture of English-speaking Asian-Americans as distinct from European-Americans and African-Americans. Whereas here in Canada where we have a true mosaic of ethnicities, different Asian "ethnic groups" do not interact: Chinese, Korean, and Japanese stay within their own groups and speak together in Chinese, Korean, or Japanese.

But I believe that multiculturalism à la salad bowl / mosaic is not much better. It only leads to an "enlightened racism" as opposed to the standard skin-color based racism. No matter how much you toss the salad, the ingredients stay distinct. Once a piece of lettuce, forever a piece of lettuce. You can never become a tomato. Likewise, born into an Indian family, forever Indian. You are marked at birth to be an Indian, you are assigned a culture by your ethnic group, which is based on race since it is due to "descent".

The shortcomings of mosaic multiculturalism could perhaps be avoided if Canadians/Americans (i.e. those born in Canada/USA as opposed to immigrants) were free to associate with any of the surrounding mosaic of cultures instead of being assigned at birth. This would necessitate dissociating culture from ethnicity. What this would encourage is that everybody is free to incorporate whatever elements of whatever culture they choose into their own personal culture. In this way, everyone becomes unique and ethnic segregation becomes illogical. You would have more than a multicultural country at the level of society: you would have a multicultural country at the level of the individual. Perhaps this is the best way, in that it incorporates the most freedom compared to both the Canadian mosaic model and the American semi-meltingpot model.


----------



## Everness

vince said:
			
		

> The thing about melting pots is that they will only work if there is no racism. But the fact is there is racism in America, so it is not a true melting pot. The cultures blend into a homogeneous mixture, but only along racial lines. The thing I've noticed in America that does not exist in Canada is pan-Asianism. I find that there often exists an independent culture of English-speaking Asian-Americans as distinct from European-Americans and African-Americans. Whereas here in Canada where we have a true mosaic of ethnicities, different Asian "ethnic groups" do not interact: Chinese, Korean, and Japanese stay within their own groups and speak together in Chinese, Korean, or Japanese.
> 
> But I believe that multiculturalism à la salad bowl / mosaic is not much better. It only leads to an "enlightened racism" as opposed to the standard skin-color based racism. No matter how much you toss the salad, the ingredients stay distinct. Once a piece of lettuce, forever a piece of lettuce. You can never become a tomato. Likewise, born into an Indian family, forever Indian. You are marked at birth to be an Indian, you are assigned a culture by your ethnic group, which is based on race since it is due to "descent".
> 
> The shortcomings of mosaic multiculturalism could perhaps be avoided if Canadians/Americans (i.e. those born in Canada/USA as opposed to immigrants) were free to associate with any of the surrounding mosaic of cultures instead of being assigned at birth. This would necessitate dissociating culture from ethnicity. What this would encourage is that everybody is free to incorporate whatever elements of whatever culture they choose into their own personal culture. In this way, everyone becomes unique and ethnic segregation becomes illogical. You would have more than a multicultural country at the level of society: you would have a multicultural country at the level of the individual. Perhaps this is the best way, in that it incorporates the most freedom compared to both the Canadian mosaic model and the American semi-meltingpot model.



First, I agree with your statement, "The cultures blend into a homogeneous mixture, but only along racial lines." But if the cultural blending is along racial lines, is the mixture really homogenous?  

Second, you state, "No matter how much you toss the salad, the ingredients stay distinct. Once a piece of lettuce, forever a piece of lettuce. You can never become a tomato." And why would a piece of lettuce want to become a tomato. What's wrong with being a piece of lettuce? Some people criticize certain ethnic groups because they say they never assimilate. E.g.: Chinese, Indians, Latinos, etc. It's impossible not to assimilate or to get acculturated. These ethnic groups don't live in a vacuum. However, what critics are actually saying is that they don't like the color of their skin, facial traits, and their weird language and customs. It's simply unacknowledged racism. 

Third, you state, "This would necessitate dissociating culture from ethnicity." It's true but impossible. Race, culture and ethnicity come together and should stay together. Let's not make life easier to racism and racists.


----------



## Chuck Mac

I totally agree with what you're saying Everness. Additionally, for me, we have to factor in the notion of "privilege". Privilege enjoys power, and both in this society determine what a tomato is or is not, what color is good or not, what language is good or not. Racism is an institution that was carefully planned & built into this society. Privilege requires the power to box everything. In those boxes all things are defined by the privileged with power who are racists. 

Privilege puts a lot of propaganda into convincing a gullible society that racism does not exist. However, racism cannot still itself long enough, nor can it be boxed. It comes out in subtle ways & suggests to a gullible society that things have gotten better for those with no privilege or power. We talk about "victims" in this society. We wonder whether certain people will forever claim the victim status. Television & other media sources continue to serve as pawns to racism.

Privilege, power, and racism (not necessarily in that order) will continue to dupe this society, & subtly unleash something to prevent this thing referred to as a melting pot. As long as people deny that this exists, or falls for the notion that it doesn't exist, assimilation & multiculturalism will continue to be problematic for various groups of people. If I don't have privilege like those that do have privilege, why would I want to assimilate? Assimilation is a means that privilege has to determine "you're not okay the way you are." So if various groups already know that privilege, power, and racism work against them outside the pot, why would they want to go into the pot?

People already know that Privilege, Power, & Racism rejects anything that is different. Privilege, Power, & Racism dictate that people should aspire to be more like those with privilege, power, and are racist. However, one dilemma remains, as long as skin color (dark) is a factor, certain groups will never enjoy privilege nor power. Racism requires power. Therefore certain groups will never be racists. If the skin is dark, it doesn't matter what that individual or group does. Acceptance by privilege & power will never happen.

This "Melting Pot" notion is an institution. When the institution was created, the notion that dark people may be in the mix was never considered. Now that dark people are part of that mixture, privilege, power, and racism become afraid of what's going to happen to the human race. The RACE is going to somehow be ruined. Power recognizes that as dark people become more-and-more, that the privileged become less-and-less. That's scary to those who have enjoyed privilege & power all their lives.

The privileged & powerful are the individuals who determine what "should be", "ought to be", "must be", "needs to be", & "has to be" for all people, as if the DIVINE RIGHT is only given to the privileged & powerful. So many events have taken place in this world because the privileged, powerful, and racist people determine that whatever they want to do is for the benefit of the people being oppressed. Privilege, Power, & Racism use terms like divine right, savages, the need to civilize, the need to make life better as terms to justify whatever atrocity is being entertained at the time. Who is effected or how they are effected do not matter, because this society helps to perpetuate whatever atrocity Power, Privilege, & Racism wish to pull off.

As I read through this, I can tell who enjoys privilege, who thinks they have privilege, & how everything we're talking about emerged and evolved to where it is in society today. You can probably determine where I am with this matter as well. There's a lot of documented information out there about how this institution started, as well as the need to prevent the notion of melting pot. Nothing can possibly change until racism is undone, until the privileged no longer denies what is truly happening, & power is shared by the masses, if power has to exist.


----------



## vince

Everness said:
			
		

> First, I agree with your statement, "The cultures blend into a homogeneous mixture, but only along racial lines." But if the cultural blending is along racial lines, is the mixture really homogenous?
> 
> Second, you state, "No matter how much you toss the salad, the ingredients stay distinct. Once a piece of lettuce, forever a piece of lettuce. You can never become a tomato." And why would a piece of lettuce want to become a tomato. What's wrong with being a piece of lettuce? Some people criticize certain ethnic groups because they say they never assimilate. E.g.: Chinese, Indians, Latinos, etc. It's impossible not to assimilate or to get acculturated. These ethnic groups don't live in a vacuum. However, what critics are actually saying is that they don't like the color of their skin, facial traits, and their weird language and customs. It's simply unacknowledged racism.


But guess what? Some cultures have inherently inferior traits. Some cultures practice genital mutilation on women. Would condemning this aspect of a culture as backwards be racist against anybody? No.



> Third, you state, "This would necessitate dissociating culture from ethnicity." It's true but impossible. Race, culture and ethnicity come together and should stay together. Let's not make life easier to racism and racists.


Associating race/ethnicity and culture is itself racist, because you are assigning someone a culture (a sociological construct rather than a biological one) to someone based on their appearance rather than on their free will. At birth, people are _tabula rasa _(excuse my bad Latin). My view is that cultures are not equal, but races and ethnicities are (because I don't believe they exist). The most popular multiculturalist view is that races/ethnicities are equal, and their _corresponding_ cultures are all equal, just different and should be tolerated and celebrated. Traditional racists believe that races/ethnicities are not equal, and their _corresponding_ cultures have a hierarchy that matches the hierarchy of races.

The problem with traditional salad-bowl multiculturalism is: how do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve?


----------



## Outsider

"Ethnicity" should not be confused with "race". Races are supposedly biological -- 100% biological -- except that they don't really exist. Ethnicities may have tangential biological overtones, but they are fundamentally a matter of culture.

Most people today would laugh at the idea of an "Irish race" separate and biologically distinct from the "English race". But to speak of an "Irish ethnicity" _socially and culturally_ distinct from an "English ethnicity" is not unreasonable.

The difference is that when we say "ethnicity" we tend to accept that it's something which can, in principle, be changed or shaped through upbringing, and that different ethnicities may coexist in the same individual; but when we say "race" it's implicit that we're thinking of something which is innate, unique, and unchangeable.


----------



## djchak

"It's impossible not to assimilate or to get acculturated."

If that was the case, then why would we be here talking about it? And the sucesses and failures of it.

When assimilation fails, and people don't have to communicate with other cultures...it leaves a dangerous vacum for ignorance and racism to creep in.

Better for people to communicate, have misunderstandings, then resolve them....than to not try to assimilate at all.


----------



## vince

Outsider said:
			
		

> "Ethnicity" should not be confused with "race". Races are supposedly biological -- 100% biological -- except that they don't really exist. Ethnicities may have tangential biological overtones, but they are fundamentally a matter of culture.
> 
> Most people today would laugh at the idea of an "Irish race" separate and biologically distinct from the "English race". But to speak of an "Irish ethnicity" _socially and culturally_ distinct from an "English ethnicity" is not unreasonable.
> 
> The difference is that when we say "ethnicity" we tend to accept that it's something which can, in principle, be changed or shaped through upbringing, and that different ethnicities may coexist in the same individual; but when we say "race" it's implicit that we're thinking of something which is innate, unique, and unchangeable.



Ethnicity is an artificial concept, it is based on a group of people having (supposedly) similar genetics and origin, sharing a unique culture. IMO, it is  a dubious and arbitrary concept because all "ethnic groups" are genetic mixtures of people from all over, and the distinction between two different "peoples" is arbitrary.

I think you are confusing ethnicity with nationality. To feel a part of the Irish nation, one only needs to affiliate with it culturally and (perhaps) politically. Anyone can join the Irish nation, but no one can choose to be or not be of Irish ethnicity (I don't agree with this statement, but that's the definition).

In this way, tying ethnicity with culture is racism, because people can't choose their ancestors. Basically, you should not judge what kind of music, food, and customs someone likes based on their appearance and "blood", that's the principle behind dissociating ethnicity from culture.


----------



## Outsider

vince said:
			
		

> Ethnicity is an artificial concept, it is based on a group of people having (supposedly) similar genetics and origin, sharing a unique culture.


"Ethnicity", as defined by anthropology, has absolutely nothing to do with genetics, _a priori_. That's "race", not ethnicity. And, by the way, ethnicity is far less artificial than race.


----------



## vince

It has everything to do with genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

Then what do you call the definition I posted in the previous thread?

What does it mean to be a "Jew"? What does it mean to be half-Chinese, half-Dutch? These people are talking about genetics, not about culture.


----------



## Outsider

vince said:
			
		

> What does it mean to be a "Jew"?


Excellent example! Why don't you look it up? It's actually pretty complicated. 
Here's a funny thing: according to *one* traditional definition, if your mother is a Jew and your father isn't a Jew, then you are a Jew. But if your father is a Jew and your mother isn't a Jew, then you are _not_ a Jew. Where does that leave genetics? Out the window, perhaps?



			
				vince said:
			
		

> What does it mean to be half-Chinese, half-Dutch?


Normally, that's a shorthand way of saying that "one of the person's parents is Chinese/Dutch". Neither of which is determined by genetics, obviously.

I posted this explanation of ethnicity a while ago in this thread, which was also an interesting discussion. Here's a quote from the Overview section:



> In the final analysis, it is clear that people, not nature, create our identities.  *Ethnicity and supposed "racial" groups are largely cultural and historical constructs.*  They are primarily social rather than biological phenomena.


----------



## vince

Outsider said:
			
		

> Excellent example! Why don't you look it up? It's actually pretty complicated.
> Here's a funny thing: according to *one* traditional definition, if your mother is a Jew and your father isn't a Jew, then you are a Jew. But if your father is a Jew and your mother isn't a Jew, then you are _not_ a Jew. Where does that leave genetics? Out the window, perhaps?



I also believe ethnicity is an arbitrary construct, the way some people determine whether people are of a certain ethnic group (e.g. the Jewish example) is unscientific.

Also how in the U.S., anyone with one "drop" of black blood (whatever that's supposed to mean) is considered Black, while in Latin America, one has to have purely "Black" ancestors to be considered black. It all depends on the ambient society's perception of who you are, but their judgement, although it differs depending on the place, is usually based on racial/genetic criteria.

But by and large, ethnicity is generally considered to be a subset of race. If I suddenly decide to move to Portugal and convert completely to Portuguese customs, language, and traditions, people would still identify me as "Portuguese, of Chinese ethnicity", as opposed to "Portuguese, of Portuguese ethnicity" (or even "Portuguese, of Canadian ethnicity").



> Normally, that's a shorthand way of saying that "one of the person's parents is Chinese/Dutch". Neither of which is determined by genetics, obviously.



What's funny is that Kristin Kreuk, a Canadian actress, is considered to be half-Chinese, half-Dutch

even though her father is Canadian (Peter Kreuk), and her mother is Indonesian (Deanna Che). Where is the Dutch and Chinese coming from?


----------



## panjabigator

Outsider said:
			
		

> Excellent example! Why don't you look it up? It's actually pretty complicated.
> Here's a funny thing: according to *one* traditional definition, if your mother is a Jew and your father isn't a Jew, then you are a Jew. But if your father is a Jew and your mother isn't a Jew, then you are _not_ a Jew. Where does that leave genetics? Out the window, perhaps?


There is one type of DNA which is Inherited by the mother's side only...mitochondrial. But I doubt anyone knew that back then....


----------



## Poetic Device

To be, or not to be...a Jew.  



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vince*
> What does it mean to be a "Jew"?
> 
> Excellent example! Why don't you look it up? It's actually pretty complicated.
> Here's a funny thing: according to *one* traditional definition, if your mother is a Jew and your father isn't a Jew, then you are a Jew. But if your father is a Jew and your mother isn't a Jew, then you are _not_ a Jew. Where does that leave genetics? Out the window, perhaps?
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vince*
> What does it mean to be half-Chinese, half-Dutch?
> 
> Normally, that's a shorthand way of saying that "one of the person's parents is Chinese/Dutch". Neither of which is determined by genetics, obviously.
> 
> I posted this explanation of ethnicity a while ago in this thread, which was also an interesting discussion. Here's a quote from the Overview section:
> 
> Quote:
> In the final analysis, it is clear that people, not nature, create our identities.  *Ethnicity and supposed "racial" groups are largely cultural and historical constructs.*  They are primarily social rather than biological phenomena.


 
I can answer this one!!!!!  (Yay! I feel so special!!!)  
Okay, the first thing that you need to remember is that there are two seperate things when it comes to this topic:  Jewish, 99% of the time, means the religion, and if you are talking about a nationality or what have you then it is Hebrew.  A lot of people get the confused.  It's hard to keep track of.  Now, as far as the mother and father thing is concerned, this is why the rules are like that:
     In The Jewish religion/tradition it is customary for the children to become whatever religion the mother is, seeing as she is the one that bore them.  However, depending on the sect of Judiasm, this is very rarely a problem.


----------



## Everness

vince said:
			
		

> But guess what? Some cultures have inherently inferior traits. Some cultures practice genital mutilation on women. Would condemning this aspect of a culture as backwards be racist against anybody? No.



Some cultures have inherently inferior traits. Some cultures invade sovereign countries, kill thousands of innocent people in the process, and then torture many others. Would condemning this aspect of a culture as backwards be racist against anybody? No. 



			
				vince said:
			
		

> Associating race/ethnicity and culture is itself racist, because you are assigning someone a culture (a sociological construct rather than a biological one) to someone based on their appearance rather than on their free will. At birth, people are _tabula rasa _(excuse my bad Latin). My view is that cultures are not equal, but races and ethnicities are (because I don't believe they exist). The most popular multiculturalist view is that races/ethnicities are equal, and their _corresponding_ cultures are all equal, just different and should be tolerated and celebrated. Traditional racists believe that races/ethnicities are not equal, and their _corresponding_ cultures have a hierarchy that matches the hierarchy of races.
> 
> The problem with traditional salad-bowl multiculturalism is: how do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve?



First, biological constructs are as cultural as cultural constructs. Second, you are confusing natural and normal group generalizations with stereotypes.


----------



## vince

_"First, biological constructs are as cultural as cultural constructs. Second, you are confusing natural and normal group generalizations with stereotypes."_

Care to explain what you mean?

I don't think there's a biological link between hair color/eye-shape and the use of chopsticks

Stereotypes ARE generalizations. But sentences like "Chinese culture uses chopsticks" is not a generalization, it is a description. It becomes a generalization when one says "All Chinese people only use chopsticks" because you are applying it over everyone in the group. I don't know what you mean by me "confusing them"


----------



## Everness

vince said:
			
		

> Associating race/ethnicity and culture is itself racist, because you are assigning someone a culture (a sociological construct rather than a biological one) to someone based on their appearance rather than on their free will. At birth, people are _tabula rasa _(excuse my bad Latin). My view is that cultures are not equal, but races and ethnicities are (because I don't believe they exist). The most popular multiculturalist view is that races/ethnicities are equal, and their _corresponding_ cultures are all equal, just different and should be tolerated and celebrated. Traditional racists believe that races/ethnicities are not equal, and their _corresponding_ cultures have a hierarchy that matches the hierarchy of races.
> 
> The problem with traditional salad-bowl multiculturalism is: how do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve?



I'm reacting to the above post. 

First, you state that culture is a sociological construct rather than a biological one. My point is that all constructs, even biological ones, are cultural constructs. We, human beings, come up with them to make sense of reality. Biology per se doesn't exist. You are trying to separate things that can only be separated in an ideal world. 

Second, you argue that associating race/ethnicity and culture is itself racist, because you are assigning someone a culture to someone based on their appearance rather than on their free will. Who assigns someone a culture? We have no control over acculturation. Acculturation doesn't care about free will. It's not like you go into a store and pick this or that outfit. The problem isn't that people in this world are externally different (color pigmentation, facial traits, etc.) and culturally different (customs, languages, etc.) All racial, ethnic and cultural differences aren't right or wrong. They simply are. That's evolution's design. The problem is when we create racist standards (whiter is better than... or Christianity is better than... or etc. etc.) and measure people against them. The color-blindness myth is the most racist and dangerous of all current myths. 

Third, you state that cultures are not equal, but races and ethnicities are (because you  don't believe they exist). Why would you say that races and ethnicities are equal if you don't believe they exist? Why care mentioning these categories? Apparently you think that only culture and/or particular unequal cultures exist. It's confusing...

Fourth, you state that the problem with traditional salad-bowl multiculturalism is: how do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve. That would be the wrong question. The goal should be to preserve the other cultures around me and not try to transform them into my likeness (eg. the melting pot myth). The ideal is to become multicultural at an individual level, that is, you kind of absorb and relate to all cultures. We need to move toward a non-racist and more inclusive society. We need to kill the racist gnome living in all of us....


----------



## djchak

Everness said:
			
		

> Some cultures have inherently inferior traits. Some cultures invade sovereign countries, kill thousands of innocent people in the process, and then torture many others.



Yeah, but all Mongolians are NOT like Genghis Khan. Every country has done that at some time... invade, kill innocents, torture them. 

But that's not a "Mongolian trait". It's a "human  trait"


----------



## Outsider

I do believe in violent cultures; or subcultures, to be more exact. For example, I think that war makes soldiers act more violently than they normally would. So, I think it makes sense to speak of violence as partly a result of culture. 

What I question is whether violent behaviour is inherited through one's genes. Maybe a small fraction of it, a predisposition to violence, is inherited, but I don't believe that violent behaviour is caused mostly by genetics. And I also don't believe that the fraction of the predisposition to violence which is inherited, if there is one, follows the borders of what we call "cultures".

Why am I talking about this? In part as a reaction to the previous posts, and in part in an attempt to explain how "culture" (hence "ethnicity") can be a meaningful notion, even though "race" is not.


----------



## Everness

djchak said:
			
		

> Yeah, but all Mongolians are NOT like Genghis Khan. Every country has done that at some time... invade, kill innocents, torture them.
> 
> But that's not a "Mongolian trait". It's a "human  trait"




I was just reacting to Vince's statement: 

"But guess what? Some cultures have inherently inferior traits. Some cultures practice genital mutilation on women. Would condemning this aspect of a culture as backwards be racist against anybody? No."

I agree with you that these traits have more to do with our human capacity to make beautiful gestures of love while also inflicting severe pain on others. If we are going to condemn mutilation, let's not stop with genital mutilation performed in black Africa but also include the mutilation that sophisticated white Western culture has carried out in Iraq...


----------



## vince

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm reacting to the above post.
> First, you state that culture is a sociological construct rather than a biological one. My point is that all constructs, even biological ones, are cultural constructs. We, human beings, come up with them to make sense of reality. Biology per se doesn't exist. You are trying to separate things that can only be separated in an ideal world.
> 
> Second, you argue that associating race/ethnicity and culture is itself racist, because you are assigning someone a culture to someone based on their appearance rather than on their free will. Who assigns someone a culture? We have no control over acculturation. Acculturation doesn't care about free will. It's not like you go into a store and pick this or that outfit.



If one grows up in a monocultural environment, then it is difficult to adopt another culture, e.g. it is difficult for a Spaniard to adopt Chinese culture. In that case there is not a lot of control over acculturation.

But in a multicultural environment, there are many cultures one is exposed to, and one should be able to choose whichever culture they find most appealing and not pick one based on their genes.



> The problem isn't that people in this world are externally different (color pigmentation, facial traits, etc.) and culturally different (customs, languages, etc.) All racial, ethnic and cultural differences aren't right or wrong. They simply are. That's evolution's design.



I don't understand what you mean by "evolution's design". We are discussing on an anthropological level, not talking about the grand universe and how we are all composed of fundamental particles interacting. On the level of human beings, I believe some customs are just wrong.



> The problem is when we create racist standards (whiter is better than... or Christianity is better than... or etc. etc.) and measure people against them. The color-blindness myth is the most racist and dangerous of all current myths.



How is it a myth and how is it dangerous?



> Third, you state that cultures are not equal, but races and ethnicities are (because you  don't believe they exist). Why would you say that races and ethnicities are equal if you don't believe they exist? Why care mentioning these categories?



What I mean is that I acknowledge the idea of ethnicity/race but I believe that it is arbitrary and useless since it doesn't determine anything.

Here's an analogy. Let's say someone starts a language-classification scheme. Languages are grouped into families based on what letter they start with in their English name. e.g. French would be grouped with Finnish and Farsi but not with Occitan or Wallon. Someone says that each of these language "alphabet families" are better than others. But I disagree. I acknowledge the idea and definition of alphabet families but I believe they are arbitrary and hence useless.

Why must I mention it? Because I need to refer to a concept my interlocutors are using. e.g. in the above, I believe all alphabet families are equal.



> Fourth, you state that the problem with traditional salad-bowl multiculturalism is: how do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve. That would be the wrong question. The goal should be to preserve the other cultures around me and not try to transform them into my likeness (eg. the melting pot myth). The ideal is to become multicultural at an individual level, that is, you kind of absorb and relate to all cultures. We need to move toward a non-racist and more inclusive society. We need to kill the racist gnome living in all of us....



I agree, this would be a better multiculturalism, as I detailed in an above post. But state-sanctioned multiculturalism has been focused not on making individuals multicultural, but only in making communities multicultural. The individuals stay monocultural, and often drift toward a culture based on their physical appearance, which I believe is racism.

Canada wants me to preserve my own culture instead of assimilating. How do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve.


----------



## Outsider

Those circumstances you speak of are what I'm calling "culture", here.


----------



## vince

Looks like we have to agree on common definitions for culture, nationality, ethnicity, and race before we continue to debate

For all we know, we might all have the same opinions but only appear to be disagreeing due to different understandings of what the terms mean! Haha.


----------



## Outsider

I've begun to suspect that terms like "ethnicity", "culture", and "multiculturalism" have different emotional resonances for each of us.


----------



## Everness

vince said:
			
		

> If one grows up in a monocultural environment, then it is difficult to adopt another culture, e.g. it is difficult for a Spaniard to adopt Chinese culture. In that case there is not a lot of control over acculturation.
> 
> But in a multicultural environment, there are many cultures one is exposed to, and one should be able to choose whichever culture they find most appealing and not pick one based on their genes.
> 
> *You are making the assumption that monocultural environments exist. I think they don't. There are no monocultural societies. There are mulitcultural societies in denial.*
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by "evolution's design". We are discussing on an anthropological level, not talking about the grand universe and how we are all composed of fundamental particles interacting. On the level of human beings, I believe some customs are just wrong.
> 
> *There's a connection between evolution and culture.
> 
> Language is the biological link between culture and non-cultural aspects of human evolution both in its role in the development of the brain and cognition and in its continuing role, as part of brain organization and function, as the instrument for the preservation and transmission of culture from generation to generation. http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/evltcult.htm
> *
> 
> 
> How is it a myth and how is it dangerous?
> 
> *This is a short and good article on the color-blindness myth written by a psychologist.
> 
> In my research on the causes and effects of racism, I have come to realize that color-blindness uses "whiteness" as the default key to mimic the norms of fairness, justice and equity by "whiting" out differences and perpetuating the belief in sameness. The denial of power imbalance, unearned privilege and racist domination are couched in the rhetoric of equal treatment and equal opportunity.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_19_20/ai_111112046
> 
> *
> 
> What I mean is that I acknowledge the idea of ethnicity/race but I believe that it is arbitrary and useless since it doesn't determine anything.
> 
> Here's an analogy. Let's say someone starts a language-classification scheme. Languages are grouped into families based on what letter they start with in their English name. e.g. French would be grouped with Finnish and Farsi but not with Occitan or Wallon. Someone says that each of these language "alphabet families" are better than others. But I disagree. I acknowledge the idea and definition of alphabet families but I believe they are arbitrary and hence useless.
> 
> Why must I mention it? Because I need to refer to a concept my interlocutors are using. e.g. in the above, I believe all alphabet families are equal.
> 
> *I see your point. I agree that we have to define some terms. However, I think that if you don't use the words race and ethnicity, for instance, you'll eventually come up with other words. If you are black and I'm white and we both notice the difference, there's nothing wrong with our sight. We are simply different. Racism is to act upon those differences in order to oppress other people. *
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, this would be a better multiculturalism, as I detailed in an above post. But state-sanctioned multiculturalism has been focused not on making individuals multicultural, but only in making communities multicultural. The individuals stay monocultural, and often drift toward a culture based on their physical appearance, which I believe is racism.
> 
> Canada wants me to preserve my own culture instead of assimilating. How do I determine what my OWN culture is that I must preserve.
> 
> *What organized societies try to do or, at least, should try to do is to help people work on their racism. The problem is that they have to compete with families, the primary means of socialization and, in some cases, the most effective factory of racist individuals. Cultural competence is dealing with your own racist demons and putting them to rest. I'm still trying to figure out what Canada is trying to do with you but clearly it's not working. Could it be that your goal is to become the Canadian equivalent of an American male, white, middle-class individual? In America they created the yard stick against which other people --and even yourself!-- measure you. But if you happen to be a poor black or brown female with low self-esteem, you're kinda screwed. *


----------



## djchak

Shifting sands. 

I really don't see what the war in Iraq has to to with the original discussion.

American politics are often B.S., but that has nothing to do with assimilation, multiculturalism, and nationality.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:
			
		

> If you are black and I'm white and we both notice the difference, there's nothing wrong with our sight. We are simply different. Racism is to act upon those differences in order to oppress other people.


It seems you still don't understand what "Race does not exist" actually means.

If I am black and you are white, then we are really no more different, biologically, than any two random people. The "simple differences" between the two of us are really cultural -- i.e., ethnic.

The "fact" that I am black and you are white does not come from our eyesight; it comes from our culture.


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:
			
		

> The "fact" that I am black and you are white does not come from our eyesight; it comes from our culture.


 
So tha "fact" that I am more likely to get sun-induced skin cancer, and you are more likely to get sickle-cell anaemia comes from our respective cultures?


----------



## Outsider

1) Being black is not just about skin colour, is it?
2) Even if it were, where do you draw the line between black and white? Contrary to what we've been trained to believe, there is no sharp border between the two extremes. You will find people in this world with skin tones ranging from the blackest Sudan all the way to the palest Sweden, without interruption. Picking a point in the spectrum and saying "Here white stops and black begins" is a _subjective decision_ conditioned by _cultural preconceptions_, not an objective biological observation.
3) The correlation between race and certain medical conditions is exaggerated by people who want to believe in race. In actual fact, black people can get sunburn and skin cancer, white people can have sickle cell anemia (with a high prevalence, in some white populations), while some black people do not have sickle cell anemia (lower prevalence in some black populations than in some white ones).


----------



## cuchuflete

Just to remind those who have totally forgotten the thread topic...



> Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country.
> 
> 
> Please note: The paragraph above is the thread topic. Other related topics can be discussed in other threads, hence, please don't offer ideas here about whether immigration is good or bad, or matters other than rates of assimilation.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> I've begun to suspect that terms like "ethnicity", "culture", and "multiculturalism" have different emotional resonances for each of us.



Yes, you're right. Actually some of us even use the words "assimilation" and "acculturation" as synonyms. Someone should come up with a list of definitions so we can really communicate!


----------



## Poetic Device

As defined by the webster dictionary:

*ethnicity*
Pronunciation: eth-'ni-s&-tE
Function: _noun_
Inflected Form(s): _plural_ *-ties*
*1* *:* ethnic quality or affiliation <aspects of _ethnicity_>
*2* *:* a particular ethnic affiliation or group <students of diverse _ethnicities_> 

*culture*
Pronunciation: 'k&l-ch&r
Function: _noun_
Etymology: Middle English, cultivated land, cultivation, from Anglo-French, from Latin _cultura,_ from _cultus,_ past participle
*1* *: CULTIVATION, TILLAGE*
*2* *:* the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education
*3* *:* expert care and training <beauty _culture_>
*4 a* *:* enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training *b* *:* acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills
*5 a* *:* the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations *b* *:* the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; _also_ *:* the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time <popular _culture_> <southern _culture_> *c* *:* the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate _culture_ focused on the bottom line> *d* *:* the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print _culture_> <changing the _culture_ of materialism will take time -- Peggy O'Mara>
*6* *:* the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; _also_ *:* a product of such cultivation http://webster.com/images/pixt.gif

*multicultural*
Pronunciation: "m&l-tE-'k&lch-r&l, -"tI-, -'k&l-ch&-
Function: _adjective_
*:* of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures <a _multicultural_ society> <_multicultural_ education> <a _multicultural_ menu> 

*as·sim·i·la·tion* 
Pronunciation: &-"si-m&-'lA-sh&n
Function: _noun_
*1 a* *:* an act, process, or instance of assimilating *b* *:* the state of being assimilated
*2* *:* the incorporation or conversion of nutrients into protoplasm that in animals follows digestion and absorption and in higher plants involves both photosynthesis and root absorption
*3* *:* change of a sound in speech so that it becomes identical with or similar to a neighboring sound <the usual _assimilation_ of \z\ to \sh\ in the phrase _his shoe_>
*4* *:* the process of receiving new facts or of responding to new situations in conformity with what is already available to consciousness 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





*ac·cul·tur·a·tion* 
Pronunciation: &-"k&l-ch&-'rA-sh&n, a-
Function: _noun_
*1* *:* cultural modification of an individual, group, or people by adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture; _also_ *:* a merging of cultures as a result of prolonged contact
*2* *:* the process by which a human being acquires the culture of a particular society from infancy


----------



## vince

ethnicity links to ethnic, so here's its definition:

*Webster's Dictionary:

ethnic
* Main Entry:	*1eth·nic*


Pronunciation:	'eth-nik
Function:	_adjective_
Etymology:	Middle English, from Late Latin _ethnicus,_ from Greek _ethnikos_ national, gentile, from _ethnos_ nation, people; akin to Greek _Ethos_ custom  -- more at SIB
*1* *: HEATHEN*
*2 a* *:* of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <_ethnic_ minorities>   <_ethnic_ enclaves> *b* *:* being a member of a specified ethnic group   <an _ethnic_ German> *c* *:* of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics   <_ethnic_ neighborhoods>   <_ethnic_ foods>

---
From the definition, you can see how arbitrary ethnicity is
sometimes it's defined by race, sometimes it's defined by nation, sometimes by culture, sometimes by background.


----------



## vince

Everness said:
			
		

> *
> In my research on the causes and effects of racism, I have come to realize that color-blindness uses "whiteness" as the default key to mimic the norms of fairness, justice and equity by "whiting" out differences and perpetuating the belief in sameness. The denial of power imbalance, unearned privilege and racist domination are couched in the rhetoric of equal treatment and equal opportunity.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...0/ai_111112046
> *


*
*
This is not the color-blindness I am talking about. Of course it is wrong to say that society is color-blind. Because that would be akin to closing one's eyes and muttering "nothing can burn me" while placing one's hand on a hot stove. The problem of racism does not disappear just because you don't acknowledge its existence. One cannot deny the "power imbalance, unearned privilege, and racist domination" inherent in many elements of today's society.

I am color-blind in the sense that I try not to form assumptions and judgements of other people based on their skin color, however I remain keenly aware that others _*do*_ attach assumptions and judgements to individuals, both within their "racial/ethnic" community and outside of it.

In order for a melting pot to work, society itself as well as its people must be color-blind. Otherwise we will always be fractured into groups based on race/ethnicity.


----------



## Everness

vince said:
			
		

> *
> *
> 
> I am color-blind in the sense that I try not to form assumptions and judgements of other people based on their skin color, however I remain keenly aware that others _*do*_ attach assumptions and judgements to individuals, both within their "racial/ethnic" community and outside of it.
> 
> In order for a melting pot to work, society itself as well as its people must be color-blind. Otherwise we will always be fractured into groups based on race/ethnicity.



Vince, you state that you don't form assumptions and judgments of other people based on their skin color. Well, you're thinking like Martin Luther King, and in my dictionary that's pretty darn good. 

You also correctly state that others attach assumptions and judgments to individuals based on the racial or ethnic club you belong to. Well, Vince, those people have a name: racists. 

By the way, I have no problems with racists to the extent they don't act upon their prejudices in the community.


----------



## broud

Estoy impresionado por el contenido de este post :O

Y digo yo, si los americanos piensan en que hay que adaptarse a la cultura del país donde se establecen, ¿cómo  es que ellos no hablan alguna lengua aborigen? ¿Y de donde salen esas ropas? Según las películas ellos deberían llevar la cara pintada y plumas ... pero en vez de eso se dedicaron a erradicar la cultura original. Porque que yo sepa, la anglosajona es una "cultura transportada" en Estados Unidos.

Aún más, viendo la situación actual en algunas ciudades estadounidenses como Los Angeles: ¿no serán más bien los "americanos" los que deberán aprender español y adaptarse al grupo que está convirtiéndose( si no es ya) en el mayoritario? ¿No les sería útil para poder comunicarse con la gente de su comunidad que en su mayoría son hispanoparlantes?

Eh, pero espera un momento. ¿Por qué se llama Los Ángeles? ¿No era California territorio mexicano? ¿Por qué los norteamericanos que se establecieron ahí no aprendieron español? 

Es más: Utah, Nevada, Arizona, parte de Nuevo Mexico, de Colorado y de Wyoming también eran mexicanas. ¿Quién no sabe que estado me he "olvidado"? Y los americanos que se establecieron allí no pensaron ni por un momento en aprender español, yo creo. Más bien en romper los pactos que habían acordado para destruir la cultura originaria del lugar, la mexicana.

Así que por favor, no me hagan comulgar con ruedas de molino. En realidad,a mí también me molesta la gente que viene A VIVIR / MONTAR UN BAR EN LA PLAYA a España y nunca dice una sola palabra fuera de su lengua -- ya sea inglés, alemán o hasta finlandés( sorprende descubrir que hay tantos finlandeses en España). Pero entiendo que, en ese caso, tengo una posición tan estúpida nacionalista como las de ellos; algunos no te quieren atender en sus bares aunque les hables en inglés. 

¿Pero quién soy yo para decir que en un territorio la cultura dominante tiene que ser X y discriminar las demás? De hecho los norteamericanos son famosos en todo el mundo por esperar que les hablen en inglés en todas partes. Así que no entiendo por qué les sorprende que los hispanos (y recordemos que segun los últimos estudios del IPA hay más hablantes nativos de español que de inglés en el mundo) pudieran esperar lo mismo.


----------



## Poetic Device

As far as the racism is concerned, I think that the problem is that Jane had a number of bad experiences with the John race and because of that, since people are more prone to remember more bad than good, they form, racist, predjudice and sexist opinions.  I think that the problems are not only the people that cause the negative experiences but also the human mind in itself (I an not saying anything that is meant to be taken as an insult, and I am sorry if anyone feels that way).


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator Note:  The last two posts, while quite interesting, are at a considerable distance from the thread topic in post #1.

Before posting in this thread, please read the first post, and try to keep your remarks somehow related to the thread topic.

Thank you.


----------



## Tsoman

Poetic Device said:


> As far as the racism is concerned, I think that the problem is that Jane had a number of bad experiences with the John race and because of that, since people are more prone to remember more bad than good, they form, racist, predjudice and sexist opinions.  I think that the problems are not only the people that cause the negative experiences but also the human mind in itself (I an not saying anything that is meant to be taken as an insult, and I am sorry if anyone feels that way).



It probably has something to do with how some animals avoid other brightly colored animals because they could be poisonous


----------



## cuchuflete

Tsoman said:


> It probably has something to do with how some animals avoid other brightly colored animals because they could be poisonous



It probably has something to do with a topic completely distinct from the topic of this thread....


From thread starter, post #1:

Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country. 


Please note: The paragraph above is the thread topic. Other related topics can be discussed in other threads, hence, please don't offer ideas here about whether immigration is good or bad, or matters other than rates of assimilation.





http://forum.wordreference.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=915134


----------



## vince

broud said:


> Estoy impresionado por el contenido de este post :O
> 
> Y digo yo, si los americanos piensan en que hay que adaptarse a la cultura del país donde se establecen, ¿cómo  es que ellos no hablan alguna lengua aborigen? ¿Y de donde salen esas ropas? Según las películas ellos deberían llevar la cara pintada y plumas ... pero en vez de eso se dedicaron a erradicar la cultura original. Porque que yo sepa, la anglosajona es una "cultura transportada" en Estados Unidos.



La idea del "melting pot" no es la misma que asimilación. El escenario que describes es el de asimilación.



> Aún más, viendo la situación actual en algunas ciudades estadounidenses como Los Angeles: ¿no serán más bien los "americanos" los que deberán aprender español y adaptarse al grupo que está convirtiéndose( si no es ya) en el mayoritario? ¿No les sería útil para poder comunicarse con la gente de su comunidad que en su mayoría son hispanoparlantes?



No estás haciendo caso del racismo que existe en esa ciudad. Por no ser un "melting pot" perfecto, Los Angeles está dividida en zonas racialmente segregadas, por lo tanto no es necesario que la gente poderosa aprenda español.



> Eh, pero espera un momento. ¿Por qué se llama Los Ángeles? ¿No era California territorio mexicano? ¿Por qué los norteamericanos que se establecieron ahí no aprendieron español?



Esto es porque, cuando EEUU  conquistó  California, Los Angeles era un pueblo pequeño. Cuando se desarolló Los Angeles, fue los anglosajones que tenía el dinero y el poder y por conseguiente, la cultura anglosajona se estableció como la cultura dominante.



> ¿Pero quién soy yo para decir que en un territorio la cultura dominante tiene que ser X y discriminar las demás? De hecho los norteamericanos son famosos en todo el mundo por esperar que les hablen en inglés en todas partes. Así que no entiendo por qué les sorprende que los hispanos (y recordemos que segun los últimos estudios del IPA hay más hablantes nativos de español que de inglés en el mundo) pudieran esperar lo mismo.



Cuales paises son más desarrollados? Cuales tienen las economias más grandes?


----------



## broud

Vince,



> Esto es porque, cuando EEUU conquistó California, Los Angeles era un pueblo pequeño. Cuando se desarolló Los Angeles, fue los anglosajones que tenía el dinero y el poder y por conseguiente, la cultura anglosajona se estableció como la cultura dominante.



Realmente tienes razón en que el poder y el dinero lo tenían los anglosajones ... a los timos robos etc que usaron para tenerlo intentaré no referirme. Pero aunque el ejemplo de Los Angeles es demasiado específico y particular, si nos referimos a California como un todo, la cultura anglosajona desplazó a la hispana no debido a "lo poderosos que eran los norteamericanos" sino debido a los Enormes movimientos migratorios desde zonas más pobres de Estados Unidos (por ejemplo, ¿leíste grapes of wrath? - aun siendo acusado de ser poco realista, los documentos del relief service de California lo confirman) que al llegar a California estaban dispuestas a trabajar por salarios ínfimos y por tanto desplazaron a la mayoría de trabajadores que antes era de origen mexicano. 

Sobre que Los Angeles no es un melting pot perfecto ... por mi poca experiencia en EEUU, la idea del melting pot se sostiene dificilmente Hay barrios de judíos, de ecuatorianos, de afroamericanos, de mexicanos.  Pero entiendo que el idioma "estatal" no debería ser el que hablen los más ricos sino el mayor número de personas. Es como si me dijeras que el asturiano y el catalán deberían ser usados en vez del español en España porque , no se,  La Caixa y el Banco Santander son las mayores potencias.  Es un ejemplo absurdo y por eso lo pongo.

Entiendo que la gente que decía que los hispanos deberían hablar inglés y no hacerles gastar impuestos en traducir los impresos (un ejemplo flagrante de racismo por cierto) hablan de que la lengua mayoritaria es el inglés y no de que "como ellos son más ricos, son más importantes" (poca gente admitiría ser tan racista)

Así que el caso de Los Angeles me sigue pareciendo válido, si la lengua mayoritaria es el español,¿por qué molestarse en publicar los documentos oficiales en inglés?

Sorry cuchuflete I hadn't read you. I won't reply in this thread anymore (though I was replying to some statements in other messages ...)


----------



## Poetic Device

From thread starter, post #1:

Do you think it's better for immigrants to be speedy, to wholeheartedly embrace as much as possible about a new culture, or to progress more gradually, and leave, in large measure, the assimilation of new country culture to the next generations? It would be especially useful to hear from those who have immigrated--permanently--to a new country. 
[/quote]

By speedy, exactly what amount of time do you mean?  Speedy to one person may be slow to another.  Is there a specific time frame that you have in mind?


----------



## Outsider

This is a reply to a remark made in another thread.



mirx said:


> From all the interracial marriages I have seen in the UK and France -and I don't speak only about marriages of foreigners and locals, but many times of two foreigners with very different cultural backgrounds living in a host country-; it gets me thinking that these people don't know anymore where they stand. For me it seems very difficult, if not impposible to sort out all these cultural differences that many times are completely opposite to each other. And what about the kids, let's say a boy whose mother is Chinese, his father muslim and he was born and raised in England? Is it really that cool being multicultural? Is it a plus to have a mixed heritage? I doubt so.


Perhaps this can relaunch the debate: *Multiculturalism: is it good or bad, and what does it mean, anyway?*

My opinion is that we are all multicultural to greater or lesser extent, especially in these increasingly globalized times. Some people are just in denial about it.


----------

