Floating pot mix of people from different cultures, races, religions, and in one multinational society, certainly with & # 39 is one of the most important features of the American identity. This is one of the elements that led to the growth of the US population, especially during large-scale immigration in the early 20th century. In this article I'm going to have a complete view of the opposite ideas to this metaphor.
The term, which is melted, got its name in 1908 after the first Israeli performance Zangvila in Washington, which was called "Floating pot" in Washington. The protagonist of n & # 39; play declared: "Understand that America is – is God's crucible, large Meling-pot in which European races are melting and reformed image for your feuds and vendettas Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians! – you have a fence all God is doing to Americans! ".
It should be borne in mind that the idea of the melting pot due to the "model" immigrants who came to the US legally and through Ellis Island. They are called model immigrants, because they were successful professionals, who could forget their historical identity and absorb the route of administration of society. That is, the blacks and the Indians are not counted. Despite the fact that blacks were fully integrated into American culture, marriage between whites and non-white has been banned in many US states until 1967 (according to the laws for the suppression of mitsegenatsyyay). This is an issue with the exception of African Americans and Native Americans who are part of the melting pot process, is currently a matter of great debate.
Multicultural perspective on the theory of melting pot
Multikulturisty known by means of the invention the term "salad bowl" or what Canadians call "cultural mosaic", which means that immigrants preserve their national and cultural characteristics, as they are integrated into the new society.
Multikulturisty – those who support programs such as bilingual education and affirmative action, to support the migration of minority groups. In other words, they do not agree with the idea of assimilation for immigrants.
The reason for this lies in the fact that multikulturisty who feel the force of nationalism, it is believed that the imposed assimilation may give way to lifting the opposite of integration groups. They believe that the assimilation of immigrant forces have lost their original cultural or linguistic identity.
They also commented that the process of assimilation has created a gap between various members of the family & # 39; and immigrants, as the use of the native language in the classroom of English was extremely frowned upon in the United States. This leads to an increase in the number of immigrant children who do not want to speak their native language at home with their parents.
Asimilyatsyyanistski look at the theory of the melting pot:
Despite multikulturisty, he considers the theory of melting as a repressive, asimilyatsyyanisty claim that this contributes to the country and its people only in economic terms, and only if, that immigration is under control.
Asimilyatsyyanisty believe that this multi-ethnic country was created due to the success of building a national identity. They argue that giving special privileges to people of different nationalities creates hatred of the majority. They believe that the government is responsible for helping immigrants brought into conformity with the main crop.
Asimilyatsyyanisty believe that pay attention to the culture and customs of immigrants can not be followed, because a large number of immigrants coming from Third World countries and, therefore, different backgrounds. That's why they do not agree with multikulturisty. In addition, they say that even the needs of immigrants will be very expensive.
Moderate look at the theory of the melting pot:
Some scientists here believe that there may be balance between the viewpoint and multikulturisty asimilyatsyyanista. They claim that immigrants do not need to completely set aside their original culture. They may see themselves as citizens of the host country of the first and the citizens of the country in which they were born second. This idea means that if they practice their cultural traditions when it comes to choosing between the two countries, they will serve the interests of the host country, so as to are extremely important.
They comment that while the English language with the & # 39 is the main language spoken in schools, mandatory courses in foreign languages. Proponents of this view argue that if the government supports such cultural practices as part of a minority of immigrants, immigrants will automatically share the love of the host.
Or boiling melting pot?
According to some scholars alike. There it was stated that the United States beyond the adoption of more immigrants, in particular more Mexican immigrants. Apparently, when the Mexicans come to the country a large number, they feel very comfortable with their own culture, and they not only learned American culture and identity, but also see them as a threat to American culture and identity as they change. them sharply.
In conclusion, even though everyone knows that the history of the United States – it is immigration, American identity is doomed to change, if the immigration control and, most importantly, border control (in the case of Mexicans) are neglected.