tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post7447291497300455398..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Ethnicity and Voluntary AssociationsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-79004986869864482932007-06-04T14:23:00.000-04:002007-06-04T14:23:00.000-04:00In support of my argument, I give you the other si...In support of my argument, I give you the <A HREF="http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=185" REL="nofollow">other side</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-56475218931990244112007-06-04T11:33:00.000-04:002007-06-04T11:33:00.000-04:00Also, I don't think one needs to strictly define t...<I>Also, I don't think one needs to strictly define the pot's "parameters", or anything like that. The melting pot is a procedural ideal, rather than one with a fixed outcome.</I><BR/><BR/>That is what a melting pot should be. <BR/>I'm concerned when its adopted as policy (a la America). There's a push to co-opt the immigrant and it becomes more active than passive.<BR/><BR/>Even some in America are realizing that a melting pot is a myth. See <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/meltingpot.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4931534.stm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Melting pot, vs. salad bowl or tomato soup are fine as cultural definitions within the purview of debate. Its when they become foundation of immigration policy that can cause the problem. The racist hides behind the melting pot argument (not that all melting pot advocates are racist).<BR/><BR/>And thanks for replying to my comment, I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog since I found it earlier this year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-25459262222187611582007-06-01T23:15:00.000-04:002007-06-01T23:15:00.000-04:00Who said anything about "forced conversion"? The m...Who said anything about "forced conversion"? The mere recognition that assimiliation is desirable in no way implies that it should be <I>forced</I>!<BR/><BR/>Also, I don't think one needs to strictly define the pot's "parameters", or anything like that. The melting pot is a procedural ideal, rather than one with a fixed outcome. We naturally influence each other, intermarry and (in due time) converge, rather than trying to isolate and retain the cultural "purity" of one's traditional ethnic sub-group. Others need not be "outsiders" - they're part of your society too.<BR/><BR/>See also my post on (H.E. Baber's book) <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2007/02/multicultural-mystique.html" REL="nofollow">The Multicultural Mystique: the liberal case against diversity</A>.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-4272183745750848072007-05-31T11:20:00.000-04:002007-05-31T11:20:00.000-04:00advocate the salad bowl rather than the melting po...<I>advocate the salad bowl rather than the melting pot</I><BR/><BR/>Many of us that advocate the "Salad Bowl" (or mosaic, as we Canadians call it) rather than the melting pot, object to the forced conversion of immigrants to the melting pot viewpoint. It goes against notions of liberty and freedom.<BR/><BR/>That being said, a social group encourages some melting together, but that is more likely a passive result rather than an active melding. (The point may be raised, do social groups cause individuals to conform, or do they just attract the like minded in the first place?). <BR/><BR/>The logic of "the melting pot" approach breaks down for me on several fronts. <BR/>A) One has to define the parameters of said pot, what makes it unique from other pots. A very difficult task, especially at a national level. What is a prototypical American, Canadian, Australian? If you don't meet the definitions, does that mean you don't belong?<BR/>B) Once the parameters have been defined, policies have to be put in place to co-opt new citizens to change to fit the mold. Goes against notions of liberty, and freedom of expression.<BR/>C) The parameters, once defined, are static, and ignore the evolution of any society. Treats it as a closed system. The America of today is the the America of the 50s. So how does one account for that in a melting pot mindset?<BR/><BR/>A "salad bowl" or mosaic approach is a more natural understanding of the interactions of individuals. It lets them define their own "pots" through their own forms of self-expression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com