Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
We may not have all the "multi-cultural" problems solved by a long shot, but IMHO, the U.S. does a much better job of at least attempting to deal with such a huge variety of cultures and ethnicities, than perhaps any other country on the planet. For example "ghettoes" first originated in Europe, and yet even today, their new muslim ghettoes that are intimidating even to the local police, remain a symptom of the E.U.'s fundamental resistance towards "cultural" assimilation. And that pattern remains true throughout much of the western world, where cheap "ethnic" labor is welcomed, but their cultures, not so much. So we might not be great at it, but I think we do make more effort here and offer more opportunity to "outsiders", than most places.
Not to sound rude, but that's kind of stupid considering that you should base your neighbors in an individual context...not through the scope of culture/race.
There are many horrible Chinese and Koreans as well as many great ones. Just like Pakistanis.
I guess I consider stereotyping to be more of a self defense mechanism.
I just wouldn't want Muslims to live next to me to be honest.
One among many reasons it is impossible to make very needed budget cuts. Oh, racial group A or racial group B will cry bloody murder about the racism being shown towards THEIR group.
Not being racist, but the cohesiveness of a place like Japan or Finland would never be possible in the USA.
It could have been until 1965 when our government started "letting em all in". Ted Kennedy said that it wouldn't alter our country's language, culture and identity. He couldn't have been more wrong. Now we are a salad bowl rather than a melting pot.
We may not have all the "multi-cultural" problems solved by a long shot, but IMHO, the U.S. does a much better job of at least attempting to deal with such a huge variety of cultures and ethnicities, than perhaps any other country on the planet.
That's a tall claim. There are countries with far more diversity than the US that I would say get along much better.
In terms of religious diversity the US is about 80% Christian and only abt 5% non Christian. Consider somewhere like Trinidad and Toabgo which is about 50% Christian. 25% Hindu, 10% Muslim and then we are talking multi cultural. And everyone there gets along quite well for the most part.
Even racial diversity is not something the US has a stronghold on compared to South American countries like Suriname which doesn't even have any clear ethnic majority. Yet people there also for the most part get along.
I think the important thing in a diverse society is to recognize each element's contribution to the mix. The US relegates minorities to a sub culture (sub meaning considered beneath the mainstream white culture) and this will always lead to resentment and tension. It is quite possible to recognize everyone in society and have everyone's culture be seen as mainstream as that is what other countries that are diverse and get along do.
It could have been until 1965 when our government started "letting em all in". Ted Kennedy said that it wouldn't alter our country's language, culture and identity. He couldn't have been more wrong. Now we are a salad bowl rather than a melting pot.
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement.
North America has been a melting pot/salad bowl since the 1500s.
That's a tall claim. There are countries with far more diversity than the US that I would say get along much better.
Most of those countries are very small, so we're talking about a lot fewer people and a lot less area to cover.
Quote:
In terms of religious diversity the US is about 80% Christian and only abt 5% non Christian. Consider somewhere like Trinidad and Toabgo which is about 50% Christian. 25% Hindu, 10% Muslim and then we are talking multi cultural. And everyone there gets along quite well for the most part.
How can you even imagine that Trinidad and Tobago are in any way comparable to the US? This is a Caribbean Island area. The largest city there only has about 60,000 people and the total population is just a little over 1 million people.
Most of those countries are very small, so we're talking about a lot fewer people and a lot less area to cover.
How can you even imagine that Trinidad and Tobago are in any way comparable to the US? This is a Caribbean Island area. The largest city there only has about 60,000 people and the total population is just a little over 1 million people.
Why should size matter? IMO in small countries people are forced to live together much more closely than a large place like the US. That should make getting along even more difficult.
Multiculturalism can also give rise to segregation and factions and division especially if one group gets special rights from the government over others. And it starts off small and slow but over time divides a nation.
I have to agree with this, but, is it wrong for a person to have a boundary where multi culturalism is concerned for any given country ? Is it wrong to want the originality of a country maintained ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
