At one point, it was expected that immigrants to the US would eventually intermarry and share a unified culture. With changes in immigration policy in the 1960s, immigration demographics shifted dramatically. Recent immigrants also tend to identify more with their home-country's culture rather than merging ala "the melting pot". Is this a good or bad thing?
My parents came here in the mid/late 50s. The rules they lived under no longer apply. Trump tried to bring some of those rules back (they are still on the books). But the #1 problem with immigration, especially illegal immigration, is the lack of assimilation into the American culture. Something the Left strongly opposes.
If you don't have a national culture that everyone buys into, including newcomers, then you have a fragmented society that is dysfunctional. It is called cultural literacy....
I agree with Theodore Roosevelt, who famously said that, “There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.” The article below helps to bring out some of what he meant, and it helps to explain what is meant in the Preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion (of which I am a member), which states that one purpose for which we associate ourselves together is “To foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism.”
Teddy Roosevelt: “No Room in This Country for Hyphenated Americans”
“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.”
“This is just as true of the man who puts ‘native’ before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.”
“But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.”
“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.”
“The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.”
Address to the Knights of Columbus
New York City- October 12th, 1915
For a full text of the speech see: [the-american-catholic.com]
See also: [centennial.legion.org] [“The early American Legion feels compelled to stand as ambassadors of U.S. national identity, unity, legal citizenship and naturalization. And they are steadfast opponents of ideologies that threaten U.S. democracy, having known what it was like to serve in Europe alongside troops who did not necessarily understand exactly what they were fighting for.”]
Diversity CAN be a strength, but only when each culture respects their differences and is willing to work cooperatively. Forced diversity just creates the situation the U.S. is gripped with today.
If you look around in 2021 at the countries that have the things we wish we had, they are almost exclusively homogenous in culture and thought, and are starting to experience significant problems due to forced diversity.
You identified the key problem: recent immigrants...tend to identify more with their home country...
Many people are pouring into the west not because they share the values and love the culture. They’re coming for economic reasons. In fact, many new immigrants hate the way of life here.
In Canada, the matriarch of first family of terrorism, the Khadrs, publicly expresses her hatred for the country. Her late husband was a top lieutenant of bin Laden and her son Omar Khadr was detained at 15 for killing US Sgt Chris Speer with a grenade. US medics gave the young assassin medical treatment, and due to his age, Canada gave him an apology and $10.5-million in compensation. Do these sound like good candidates for citizenship? Why do we want them?
Remember 2009 in England when British Muslims protested at a coming home parade for soldiers in Luton, north of London? The Muslims — full British citizens — called the soldiers "terrorists" and held placards saying "Anglian soldiers go to hell" and "butchers of Basra" as soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, paraded through the town.
Many new Canadians live here only part time and continue us to run business in their home countries. Wealthy Chinese women drive a major obstetrics industry in Richmond, whose sole purpose is to provide high end services delivering “anchor” babies who fly back to Beijing with dual Canadian citizenship.
There are people who embrace our culture and way of life. But many, many more who get opportunity, medical care, and education feel nothing but contempt for the west. They play all of us for suckers.
If we keep along the same track as we are right now, which I don't see changing that drastically to have a unified culture in 20 years time, then no, I don't see that happening.
Plus, traditionally western cultures have gotten a pretty bad reputation by many. Many European cultures are looked at as something to abolish rather than assimilate into. Add that to the concept that other cultures shouldn't be "appropriated", and it's not even a matter of not being exposed to immigrants, it's a matter of self imposed segregation by many immigrants as well as current citizens. The "salad" has been promoted more than the "melting pot".
As far as this being good or bad, I'm really not sure. Personally, I'd like the idea of both preserving cultures, (all cultures), as well as mixing things up. I see inclusivity differently than some definitions that I've seen online. I think opening up to the idea that people can wear their hair however they wish, create art or food outside their own cultural background, and other such forms of what's deemed "cultural appropriation", could be positive, and that could potentially help bridge cultural divides.
However, not everyone sees it that way, and I feel moving in that direction can't be forced. It's an interesting thought that maybe 100 or so years from now, if something along those lines is a possibility.
Multi-cultural societies only work when one very simple rule is followed!!!
"Nothing is free, you don't work you don't eat"
When and where that is applied, anyone can come in and you have true equality!!!
Oh ya, added ONE language!!!
This country was built by emigrants and it worked, until we broke those basic rules!!!!
Here's a thought, do you think the left/libs/Dems want to destroy the US through immigration or do you think that they think somehow they can control this mayhem?
Ultimately, this is going to blow up in their faces and they can no more control it than any other government when faced with a civil conflict/revolution. This road leads to no where good.
Immigrants to the US from previous generations integrated for two reasons:
Immigrants to the US prior to 1860 were largely from the same areas of Europe and broadly shared the same cultural and religious beliefs. In this sense, integration was easy. All one had to do was learn the language. After that was accomplished, it was hard to tell who was an Englishman, a Scot, a German, or Norwegian. Any differences they brought with them from the Old World were largely minor annoyances more than anything else. Irish immigration stiffened those gears a bit by introducing a predominately Catholic population, but they were still Christians with a shared history, so there was friction, but it was manageable.
Asian immigration during the Gold Rush threw a huge monkey wrench into this paradigm. They not only spoke a different language, but they had vastly different cultural and religious beliefs. Worse yet, they out-competed the native Whites! Say what you will about the Chinese Exclusion Act, but it forced Asians to assimilate by restricting immigration from the old country. Likewise, when Southern and Eastern Europeans began immigrating en mass, immigration restrictions forced them to assimilate. The alternative would have been massive numbers of foreign-born people, living within US borders, who had no desire or necessity to assimilate. As we've seen, these populations have assimilated quite well under the conditions imposed.
Fast forward to post-Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 America. Massive numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures and religions are not only encouraged to settle in the US, but to maintain their native belief systems (within reason). There's no longer any need to assimilate, nor even encouragement to do so. "Diversity is our strength" is the new maxim. In fact, it is even discouraged to encourage assimilation. It's considered racist. You're a "Nazi" if you think immigration should be restricted or that immigrants should assimilate.
Well, if that's the case, then perhaps the Nazis had it right, because a nation (by definition, "a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or a common culture" ) that does not promote unity and coherent ideology cannot exist. It is impossible. It violates the very denotative meaning of the word.
According to history, multi-culturalism happens in the death throes of empire. It is synonymous with the degradation of the host nation's moral value system. This happened in Han China at the end of that dynasty around 200 A.D. as culturally non-Han people migrated into the heart of the empire and set up spaces in the large cities for themselves and remained as isolated from the Han as they could get away with.
It happened in ancient Greece, when the Greeks expanded beyond their peninsula, it happened in Egypt as the royal family became more and more inbred and ineffectual, more cultural minorities moved in, of course it happened in Rome, both east and west, though it was much more profound in the Western Roman Empire (the Byzantines were destroyed more by invasion from Catholics and Muslims from the west and east, respectively, not to mention the simple fact that a thousand year old system was so far out of date it eroded Constantinople down to one city full of bureaucrats who no longer had a function [when the territory was taken away] other than to collect a fat paycheck).
The Mongolian Empire is probably the best example of an empire built entirely on multi-culturalism, and it lasted until Ghengis died before splintering into half a dozen other empires. Kublai Khan's China empire, the Yuan Dynasty, was especially hated by the Chinese, who took every opportunity to bring it down, despite Khan's brutality. In many ways, the Golden Horde and the Tamerlane dynasties adopted the culture of where they ruled, rather than exist as multi-cultural.
Anyway, multi-culturalism in history has often meant: decadence, rot and ruin. We are seeing that now.
I think we need to delineate between cultural differences, racial differences and ethnic differences.
Western culture as practiced in the US, when boiled down, is:
My race is Caucasian (white) and I get easily sun burned.
As for ethnicity, my heritage is Scottish. I own a kilt, enjoy watching Scottish games and have eaten haggis (and liked it).
Of the 3, my culture is the most important and is the only one I get to choose.
Is a multi-cultural society a good thing? No. The tenets of western culture are requirements for membership into American society. Without them, we have no society.
Do I anticipate a unfying culture by 2040?
Look around you!
Even multi-generational citizens of this country aren't unified by a single culture... urban vs. rural vs. nomad... black vs. white vs. latino... republican vs. democrat vs. green... progressive vs. conservative vs. centrist... country vs. rock vs. rap
Our culture is divided IN-SPITE of any immigrants, not BECAUSE of us.
Recent immigrants also tend to identify more with their home-country's culture
As an immigrant I identified strongly with my home-country's culture when I first got here and then the longer I stayed here, the more I identified with my adopted countries culture.
So it's logical that recent immigrants would identify more with their home-country's culture... it's the only culture we know.
But it's by our continued presence that we embrace our adopted countries culture AND contribute our home-countries culture to the melting pot, adding to it and enriching it.
Study history more. Multiculturalism is the basis only for empires and all empires end badly... Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire.
You can recall Alexander the Great, who defeated Darius, but the collapse of the Inca Empire is the most striking example in the history:
Francisco Pissaro, with a detachment of 168 desperados, defeated the many times superior army of the Inkas, whose population ranged from 5 to 10 million people. The reasons for this were not at all technological superiority; Ethiopia successfully fought with Italians in the 20th century.
The reasons are the internal weakness of the empire, whose population was not at all going to die for the good of the empire.
Globalism and Nationalism are fundamentally at odds regarding the preservation of unique cultures. Whenever multiple cultures are lumped together, they inevitably lose their specific identities in order to assimilate with the collective culture. Apartheid isn't necessarily racist; it can be viewed as a means of respecting the individual values and social behaviors of each nation.
Multi culturalism was a false flag operation, it seemed like a nice theory about compassion and tolerance but in reality it was the first step in the destruction of western society. Immigration has always been a critical part of the development of North America, we took people from vastly different societies and invited them to participate, but acceptance came with expectations of assimilation, yes the greater culture was strengthened and we end up with a greater choice of menus and interesting cultural dances etc. Culture is not an immovable monolith, it grows and changes and accepts things from elsewhere that make it better and stronger. In essences great societies have been able to assimilate religions and ethnicities and our culture did so very successfully until recently, and was actually a multi racial single culture. That does not mean each ethnic group can retain its culture, it is just recognized that the overarching culture is dominant and everyone must participate and assimilate.
Our elites are working at cross purposes which will make a unifying culture impossible. On the one hand they want us all to become nihilists. On the other hand they have developed and imposed upon us at gunpoint their arbitrary morality which says that "racism" is the most horrible thing in the world. They can't have it both ways.