OK, seriously now: immigration and educating the instapundit
I hate to link to this instapundit article--there, I did it. It's a bunch of letters about having an 'immigration debate' in the US. So far, so good.
Who can tell me the historical problems with these two paragraphs?
OK, we've got a bunch of different nouns describing ways of dealing with difference within the nation state. There's the 'melting pot', there's 'blending', there's 'enclaves', there's 'hyphenated' and there's 'ordinary Americans'. Earlier in the article (outside my quote) the author uses 'assimilation'.
These are all totally different and contradictory ideas. Let's go through them.
Assimilation, in Australia as well as in the US, is the idea that immigrants should leave behind their language customs, habits, values and ideas. It puts ultimate value on an imagined national culture to which all immigrants must conform. Before you go to the comments field--this means food too.
The 'melting pot' is the imagined product of an Integrationist approach to immigration. As far as I can tell this is the most popularly expressed philosophy in the United States but has gone somewhat out of fashion here in Australia. Migrants and citizens both, according to this idea, integrate together, making equal efforts to come to grips with each others' ways of understanding the world, and--here's the important part--producing one unitary national culture as a result.
Multiculturalism--not mentioned by the instapundit--differs in that it doesn't demand either of immigrants or of citizens that they change their ways of understanding the world to conform to a national culture. There is the requirement to be a part of one national civic society, yes, and the requirements of laws and common human ethics, but that's about it. Any community which is prepared to establish and maintain itself within this national community, so the idea goes, should be allowed to and have the support of the State. Nobody is forced to conform to anybody else's idea of what it is to be a citizen.
The 'immigration debate' will go along a bit smoother if everyone can do a bit of clear thinking. I hope. I often wonder, you see, whether the people who gather together to critique multiculturalism and immigration really have all of their cards on the table, so to speak.
My best hope for the future is that immigration debates can be had in the media and on the internet--not on the streets.
Who can tell me the historical problems with these two paragraphs?
If people want to become just plain ordinary Americans, come on over. If they want to be hyphenated Americans and make little enclaves of where they came from, stay home.
Diversity is in the melting pot. Lots of good ingredients blending together make a mighty fine stew. I still get a kick out of the juxtaposition of different ethnicities like a local Mexican/Italian restaurant. In time the differences melt away and a pizza with taco toppings is just another type of pizza. It's wonderful.
OK, we've got a bunch of different nouns describing ways of dealing with difference within the nation state. There's the 'melting pot', there's 'blending', there's 'enclaves', there's 'hyphenated' and there's 'ordinary Americans'. Earlier in the article (outside my quote) the author uses 'assimilation'.
These are all totally different and contradictory ideas. Let's go through them.
Assimilation, in Australia as well as in the US, is the idea that immigrants should leave behind their language customs, habits, values and ideas. It puts ultimate value on an imagined national culture to which all immigrants must conform. Before you go to the comments field--this means food too.
The 'melting pot' is the imagined product of an Integrationist approach to immigration. As far as I can tell this is the most popularly expressed philosophy in the United States but has gone somewhat out of fashion here in Australia. Migrants and citizens both, according to this idea, integrate together, making equal efforts to come to grips with each others' ways of understanding the world, and--here's the important part--producing one unitary national culture as a result.
Multiculturalism--not mentioned by the instapundit--differs in that it doesn't demand either of immigrants or of citizens that they change their ways of understanding the world to conform to a national culture. There is the requirement to be a part of one national civic society, yes, and the requirements of laws and common human ethics, but that's about it. Any community which is prepared to establish and maintain itself within this national community, so the idea goes, should be allowed to and have the support of the State. Nobody is forced to conform to anybody else's idea of what it is to be a citizen.
The 'immigration debate' will go along a bit smoother if everyone can do a bit of clear thinking. I hope. I often wonder, you see, whether the people who gather together to critique multiculturalism and immigration really have all of their cards on the table, so to speak.
My best hope for the future is that immigration debates can be had in the media and on the internet--not on the streets.
posted by Liam at 12/10/2004 08:57:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home