|
|
#1 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
Well, the way I've seen the "melting pot" image is somewhat different from yours.
While you believe that it means to conform to a specific set of culture or rules, the way I've had it described isn't that...strict, I guess. As far as I know, immigrants in America have historically been encouraged to add elements of their own culture into that of America as a whole, and adapt to that modified image. As an example, let's say the first Spanish immigrants came over and brought their language into our culture. We now say "Adios" and "Gracias" quite often. The Japanese "Sayonara" is a little less common, but still known. Rather than take on the current American image, immigrants are encouraged to modify the American image by using their own cultural traditions, making it easier to adapt. This still differs from Canada's belief, of course. As for which is better? Well, I suppose it largely depends on the immigrants. If the majority want to adapt to the current culture, to become "an American" (or any other country, America just used as an example), then the melting pot is superior because it encourages adaptation without fully throwing away original cultural beliefs. However, if the majority of immigrants are proud keepers of their culture, and wish to preserve it, the mosaic would be preferable. The only difficulty would be, as stated, ensuring tolerance and rights when there are so many different cultures in a country. Even so, regardless of which is preferable, determining which would actually work is a much different story. Now I've lived in America all my life, so I don't know how it is in other countries, but here, society itself encourages the melting pot. Anyone retaining their cultural beliefs is generally ridiculed by society, to varying degrees of severity. Even if the government decided, "Hey, we're going to encourage people to keep their own beliefs and set things up accordingly," the people wouldn't let it happen. I'm assuming that in Canada this isn't much of a problem, and society is much more accepting of different cultural beliefs. But as a general rule, I would have to say I prefer the melting pot. This is probably just American bias (since I've been unable to see any cultures outside of my own), but by having everyone more or less follow similar cultural traditions, there is increased unity and much less room for strife. Yes, there will be people who dislike having to change, but after a generation or so, when children can be brought up learning the melting pot culture from day one, much of this resentment disappears. That isn't to say I can't see the merits of the cultural mosaic, but my experiences have caused me to develop a preference for the cultural melting pot. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
|
I believe that it is common for different cultural groups to stay "nonpolar," if you will, yet find common grounds with other cultures. In a group of people with no physical discrepancies of a certain kind, it's impossible to be derogatory about it. Groups of black people cannot be racist towards others in the group, for example. This unity perpetuates a "black culture."
I believe it is largely because of other similarities that cultural diffusion takes place rapidly. It's like a big chain. Theater enthusiasts will converge into drama clubs. Music lovers will converge into music classes. Teachers will converge at the workplace or teachers' unions. They may all connect somehow and cause cultural diffusion. Seemingly, America may have been a melting pot because all of the people who came had the common and stereotyped goal of working hard and seeking opportunity (a trait which spans over a wide variety of peoples) and as a necessity of this pressing together, and became perpetual with that attitude's integration into our mainstream culture. I do not think there is a better course nor is there a worse course. I think it is a natural social phenomenon. There is no reason to encourage it through affirmative action nor is there any reason to discourage it through segregation. It is like the invisible hand of cultural trends! I think it is best to not think of people collectively in order to understand this, but to look at the collectivism as a result of common ground amongst atomic individuality (in all situations, from family ties to favorite hobbies to skin color). A Hindu Indian fond of samosas and who likes traditional Indian music, while he may have became like that because of their background, is also staying in that group because of their individual self. Maybe Canadians don't have a sense of unity.
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 11-24-2007 at 11:03 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
|
I hate the word "culture". People usually use it intending only a fraction of its actual meaning.
I really don't understand the concepts of "mosaics" and "melting pots". Usually all it implies is religious backing, since there's not really any other aspects of "culture" that you can take with you from another country that politics would affect (i.e. moving to the States doesn't mean that people will insist you drop your riverdancing music tastes for rock). This is consistant with the views Canada and America have - Canada intends to include all cultures in its happenings, such as the whole "Happy Holidays" issue, while the States talks as though everyone is Christian. So I don't prefer either. I think they're both ridiculous concepts because I think organized religion is an ridiculous concept. Picking personal beliefs based on what other people think is shallow-minded. Joining other people and basking in the fact that you all believe that the same thing will happen when you die is beyond my comprehension. Coming to a conclusion about the nature of the universe based on one of a catalogue of preset beliefs that sound ludicrous just because they're popular has no logical foundation whatsoever. Following this path, the "cultural melting pot" is insisting that your country's most popular belief is somehow better than the belief that some immigrant has, which is the most arrogant presumption you make. The "cultural mosaic" is trying to accomodate for every single religion out there, which is laughable currently, and would be even more laughable if everyone came to a religious decision free of others' opinions, since it would ideally would result even more conflicting laws. Even now, I wonder what would occur if someone killed a man and appealed in court that he religiously believed that if he did not take a life, he would spend eternity in hell. Or if he worked on a holiday, which for him was every day on the calandar, and he complained to the government that he did not get enough opportunity to make money. This type of government assumes that everyone picks an existing organized religion and tries to make them work, but it has to account for personal religious beliefs, too, and that's its downfall. That's my opinion, anyway.
__________________
Last edited by Tokzic: Today at 11:59 PM. Reason: wait what |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|