Do you like melting pots?

[Chikombo]

Like, a country with no nationality, just a mix of countries working together and cultures of all kinds meeting, not unification.
Is that a good thing?

 

[salamander uchiha]

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.

 

[Sagebee]

I like diversity and in melting pots exposed to alot of cultures which I find fun.

 

[KisaParadise]

I think I like the tossed salad analogy better. Probably because its actually diversity and you can see all the different ingredients in the salad. Where as melting pot is a variety of people just overlooked as one. It just seems so perfect. Melting pots doesnt really exist because everyone is different and we all have different ideologies and shouldn't be forced into one pot. We should be spread and vibrant like salad. I believe with all of societies problems though that either the pot of soup is unseasoned and horrible or it just wasn't made in the first place.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

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.

 

[minamoto]

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.

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????..

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

were u fron????..

usa. where are you from?

 

[minamoto]

usa. where are you from?

im fron my country...

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

im fron my country...

tobidaria??

 

[minamoto]

tobidaria??

nah mountain gravyard..

 

[GrapeApe]

i feel like you expand your horizons more being around people that are different than you. if youre just always around people of the same race/class/beliefs/age youre more in a box mentally. diversity is a good thing....

....though some people have a hard time seeing how much we all are alike. but its getting better than even two decades ago so

 

[chopstickchakra]

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.

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.

 

[salamander uchiha]

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.

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.

That is why melting pots don't work out unless your Switzerland.