I'm okay with the idea of them, but they often don't blend very well. Still, I think such conflicts are just growing pains the world must go through. They're required to reach equality. The vast majority of tension between these multi-cultured countries usually come down to race and religion. No one in America ever decided they hated the thought of sharing land because others spoke a different language, had different celebrations, or different food. My point is, if it comes down to race then the conflict is fueled largely by racism. So is the tension that eventually lessens that racism good or bad?
Look back at the civil rights movement and how peaceful protests were being met with police brutality, even white supporters being killed for their support, and organizers of the protests being assassinated. What was being challenged wasn't some gap in cultures, but inequality. Even the big bad Black Panthers were just exercising their right to carry arms and monitor their communities as whites had already done without persecution. Today, many of those problems are gone and racism has faded to the extent that it's largely tied to economic class differences.
E.g. Even though racism played a role, a large chunk of Trump's support doesn't stem from plain racism despite him being racist. He had white, black, and Hispanic support. Granted the latter two didn't give nearly as much support as whites. This chunk of support stems from racism fueled by economical differences such as the concepts of black welfare queens and Mexicans taking jobs, then plain old desire for lower taxes(it's for this reason that wealthier blacks and Hispanics voted Trump at a rate higher than their poorer counterparts).
In the case of religion. I think it's very similar to racial conflict. People think it's far harder for these to coexist with each other, which is true, but a large amount of their tension comes from this same situation where one group believes they're owed more control than the other. A more secular approach is the obvious answer, but there will always be denominations that reject it just as there will always be racists who reject equality.
The alternative to mixing is to just have vastly different countries that haven't learned to tolerate/accept each other. Conflict simply moves from a domestic level to an international one.
were u fron????..I'm okay with the idea of them, but they often don't blend very well. Still, I think such conflicts are just growing pains the world must go through. They're required to reach equality. The vast majority of tension between these multi-cultured countries usually come down to race and religion. No one in America ever decided they hated the thought of sharing land because others spoke a different language, had different celebrations, or different food. My point is, if it comes down to race then the conflict is fueled largely by racism. So is the tension that eventually lessens that racism good or bad?
Look back at the civil rights movement and how peaceful protests were being met with police brutality, even white supporters being killed for their support, and organizers of the protests being assassinated. What was being challenged wasn't some gap in cultures, but inequality. Even the big bad Black Panthers were just exercising their right to carry arms and monitor their communities as whites had already done without persecution. Today, many of those problems are gone and racism has faded to the extent that it's largely tied to economic class differences.
E.g. Even though racism played a role, a large chunk of Trump's support doesn't stem from plain racism despite him being racist. He had white, black, and Hispanic support. Granted the latter two didn't give nearly as much support as whites. This chunk of support stems from racism fueled by economical differences such as the concepts of black welfare queens and Mexicans taking jobs, then plain old desire for lower taxes(it's for this reason that wealthier blacks and Hispanics voted Trump at a rate higher than their poorer counterparts).
In the case of religion. I think it's very similar to racial conflict. People think it's far harder for these to coexist with each other, which is true, but a large amount of their tension comes from this same situation where one group believes they're owed more control than the other. A more secular approach is the obvious answer, but there will always be denominations that reject it just as there will always be racists who reject equality.
The alternative to mixing is to just have vastly different countries that haven't learned to tolerate/accept each other. Conflict simply moves from a domestic level to an international one.
im fron my country...usa. where are you from?
nah mountain gravyard..tobidaria??
You can still have nationalism in/towards the pot, the problem is people don't let go of the nationalism they have or the country they're leaving.Melting pots never really work they lead to tensions. You have nothing to hold the people together, if there's no nationalism at the very least. Why should one group be subservient or under the authority of another?
And trying to force integration, by making make people cooperate outside of their own choice, leads to rise of those who want to preserve their identity.
That's partially true, but largely due to two factors. The first is thwy have family ties and memories of the homeland. And the second is they may not be welcome or adapt to the new land. They need to feel included to develop that sense of nationalism. The latter isn't easy to come by and nobody realistically waits decades for it to happen either.You can still have nationalism in/towards the pot, the problem is people don't let go of the nationalism they have or the country they're leaving.