Cultural Mosaic, or Cultural Melting Pot

[devonin]

It is common among nations with a very high immigration rate, to tend towards one of these two methods of cultural interaction with immigrant populations.

Historically, Canada and the United States are seen as exemplars of the two philosophies.

Canada, the cultural mosaic, is known for going out of its way to try and allow foreign immigrants to maintain as much of their culture as possible. Allowing them to change paid holidays from christian days to ones of their faiths, protecting the right of employees to take breaks for daily prayer and so forth, as well as having government support to publically celebrate various festival days and holidays. While a given immigrant is generally expected to be conversant in either english or french, there is strong support for allowing each small cultural subsection of major cities (Toronto here is the key example, there's a little ____ for pretty much every nationality you can think of) to exist with a fairly large degree of autonomy.

We are taught formally, that "canadianity" is predicated on the inclusion of as many cultures as possible into our society, there's really no such thing as "Canadian Culture" except as an ever-increasing amalgam of other cultures coming together.

Perhaps conversely (Though these are hardly opposite ends of a scale, so much as alternate forks on a path) the United States has a wide reputation for integration and assimilation. The melting pot image is generally designed to communicate that each seperate and distinct ingredient is, through time, mixed into one homogeneous whole.

It is generally historically shown that immigrants were more encouraged to give over previous cultural traditions and take on the existing american traditions. While certainly the rights of a host of faiths and cultures are respected, and protected by US laws, the emphasis has long been on "becoming an American" a concept with plenty of objective qualities, as opposed to the more nebulous idea of "A Canadian"

This raises the question: Which seems like the better course generally? In terms of Canada and the US, both are relatively young nations, both were forged out of previously existing national colonies, and so were searching for an individual identity.

Like the Irish and Scots in relation to Great Britain in the past, the United States seems to have gone the route of creating their own new identity, and strongly encouraging anyone entering the system to adapt to that existing image, while Canada seems to have gone the route of simply modifying the state of the identity to suit the members.

From my more socialist standpoint, I'm a much stronger supporter of the mosiac method of cultural integration, but it lends it self to the question: What happens in a society when the rights of all its constituant groups are equally protected when those rights are at odds with one another?

By leaning more towards the melting pot analogy you can avoid a number of these problems. If everyone is generally encouraged to lean towards one specific set of rules, those rules can take precedence, and go a long way to keeping a culture unified and intact, but at the same time, it breeds resentment from people who feel forced to change in order to be accepted.

I find it interesting that I see a lot more "Americanized" names than I do "Canadianized" ones.

What do you think?