Melting Pot Kool-Aid

[Electronic God-Man]

This thread is regrettable for at least 2 reasons.

1) It's probably been done a thousand times, but on a forum where "Is X closer to Y or Z?" and "Classify ..." is the rule and every dead horse has been beaten at least 5 times, what can it hurt to give it another run?

2) I should know the answer, but after something of a hiatus from thinking about such things and some recent exasperating conversations I am left feeling numb.

The question is "Why is a melting pot scenario undesirable?"

I've been thrown back into really thinking about multiculturalism again since a foreign friend of mine has been taking mandatory "multicultural teaching" classes to get her master's degree. It's rather hard for her to understand what the hell the big issue is, so I've been trying to explain the situation.

This led to a discussion on segregation in schools and their subsequent desegregation. Someone brought up the recent case of a local high school where the black teachers and the black students wanted to be taught separately, effectively reinstating segregation. I said "Good on them for rejecting multiculturalism." I was met with a rather puzzled expression and the statement that multiculturalism was wonderful. I continued, "These blacks must have realized that multiculturalism actually means assimilation anyhow, and they don't want to assimilate and lose their black identity...they don't want to be white." I was given the old Spiel about how we're all just going to end up mixed anyhow. I said, "But that's monoculturalism, not multiculturalism."

What I have begun to see is that most people are just arguing for the status quo. "Don't rock the boat" is the motto. It's both incredibly interesting and totally exasperating to be in a conversation with someone who is a proponent of multiculturalism when you bring up the fact (or better yet they point it out themselves! ) that multiculturalism without fail leads to assimilation which in turn produces monoculturalism. It's at that point where they start telling you how inevitable monoculturalism is, and ultimately desirable. Here's where I just smile awkwardly and nod my head.

A. Multiculturalism is AMAZING for reasons X, Y and Z.
B. When it's run its course though, we'll all just be mixed racially and culturally however. Have I told you how great monoculturalism is?

I REALLY want to understand. I want to drink whatever Kool-Aid they were handing out. Either I didn't get it, or I got a dud batch. I really, really, really want to see how this makes sense. In any way.

I know it's asking a lot, but I'd like some well thought out responses. For one, it's probably not true that we'd be some gray non-cultural mass. Well, maybe we would if we tie to it the argument that Ultimate Global Monoculturalism is the end goal for anyone who'd like to manipulate us that much easier. However, I'd also like to see some arguments that would counter monoculturalism even if it wasn't of the Ultimate Global variety, nor some cultureless mass, but a general mullatoization. Furthermore, I'm not interested in arguments that intelligence and behavior would go into the shitter...that usually opens up a whole different can of worms that I wouldn't be interested in getting into.

So, why not accept the inevitable?

[Jon Snow]

I think an interesting (and probably unforeseen, at least by most) consequence of the trend towards mixing, blending, monoculture--however you wish to label the process of large-scale miscegenation--is a marked increase in racism.

In a classic case of "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone", many mixed individuals (particularly in highly mixed societies) tend to espouse some form of an ethnic preservationist mentality, or, if not that, than at least harbor racist feelings toward those more mixed and/or darker than they are. Where their parents thought nothing of casting hundreds of thousands of years of divergent evolution by the wayside, the mixed offspring are often desperate to belong to a tribe, and thus fierce in their ultimately futile efforts to preserve what has already been lost.

Anyway, the people you're describing are experiencing cognitive dissonance. They are holding two mutually exclusive worldviews (multiculturalism is awesome + large-scale mixing is desirable) as ultimate truths.

The key to making people see the many flaws in their logic is to backtrack. A typical conversation might go as follows:

Me: Why is multiculturalism a good thing? Why is diversity our strength?

Multicultist: People from different backgrounds bring new ideas to the table. Ethnic food is amazing, and an all-white society would be boring.

Me: I agree (not really, but they don't know that yet!). I'd like to see human diversity preserved, on both the genetic and cultural levels.

Multicultist: What do you mean?

Me: Well, the end result of localized diversity is the eradication of global diversity.

Multicultist: How is that?

Me: Groups of people who live in close proximity to each other inevitably mix, especially when the cultural ethos of the host nation encourages it. The only possible result of this is that the host population becomes subsumed, genetically and culturally, in a sea of others, thus reducing global human diversity.

Multicultist: That's OK. Once we're all mixed, there will be an end to racism and the world will be great.

Me: *pretends to be confused and deep in thought* But didn't you just tell me how great an asset it was to have people from such diverse backgrounds? If everyone's background is the same, then we'll have lost that advantage forever. (Depending on the person's intelligence and interest levels, you can go on to talk about how genetic diversity on a global scale can help humanity survive epidemics, etc. etc.)

Multicultist: Wow, I hadn't thought of it that way.

From there, you can take it one of two ways. If they seem receptive to un-PC talk about genetics and human populations, you can strengthen the point by delving into genetic differences in intelligence, crime rate and per capita wealth by race/nation, etc. If not, just re-emphasize the point that immigration, integration, and mixing serve only to destroy human diversity.

Sorry for the lengthy ramble!

[Beorn]

I was asked by a parent why my children were being excluded from the black history week at the school. I simply said it was racist.

Of course I don't believe it to be racist, as I think blacks are welcome to celebrate their own history as they see fit, but feel that indoctrinating non-black children is morally wrong and repugnant, especially seeing as it is a contradiction in the whole multicultural/racial doctrine.

The parent was confused as to how I thought bhw was racist. "Are black people English?", I said. "Of course", the parent replied. "At least the ones who were born in England."

I went on to ask why, if they think black people born in England are English, are they being taught a specific history of a race of people outside of English history. The parent became confused then and started saying it is because black people should be taught their history, to which I replied: "Which is what? Black history or English history?"

They started banging on about how great it is to celebrate bhw, so the very simple argument was lost on them. It's no surprise really, the parent has a gaggle of halfcastes. Each one as English as the English.

[Defiance]

I know all too well that debating liberals is a waste of time. These people are mentally ill. I swear.

@ Beorn
Black History Week, ya say? Over here in the states, they get a whole month!

[GeistFaust]

I know all too well that debating liberals is a waste of time. These people are mentally ill. I swear.

@ Beorn
Black History Week, ya say? Over here in the states, they get a whole month!

Its impossible to argue with liberals, because they are mentally ill, and they will try to project their insanity onto you(Freudian projection) and make you seem as if you were insane.

[Raskolnikov]

The question is "Why is a melting pot scenario undesirable?"

For me the question is rather, "Why is a melting pot scenario inevitable?" They don't think of will, don't really care for preference (hence anti-discrimination). They have a destroy-everything end-of-times mentality. It's come up a lot before.

[zack]

Multiculturalism=multiculturalism.

People of all colors and stripes seem to be using multiculturalism as a good word for multiracialism/multiethnic.

You should explain something to these people. Explain to them the concept of Nuclear DNA and reproduction. These types of people think a half breed and its kids will always be multiracial or perceived as such by society.

The mixing that occurs in the western world is not on such a scale as to produce a Brazil type of scenario,it is peripheral and wont impact the gene pool of the host nations that much.

After all...what happens if a mixed person has kids with a full blooded person? That kid becomes more of that race and so on and so forth until a few generations down the line a kid is born wit blonde hair and blue eyes and when that kid has a kid then that child is practically for all intents and purposes a member of that ethnic-racial group.

Plus africa and asia are 3-4 billion strong in 'pure' human races even if somehow the west became multiracial utopia like they proclaim.

These people tend to have a mental break down at around this point...

[Electronic God-Man]

Some good responses so far.

I think an interesting (and probably unforeseen, at least by most) consequence of the trend towards mixing, blending, monoculture--however you wish to label the process of large-scale miscegenation--is a marked increase in racism.

In a classic case of "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone", many mixed individuals (particularly in highly mixed societies) tend to espouse some form of an ethnic preservationist mentality, or, if not that, than at least harbor racist feelings toward those more mixed and/or darker than they are. Where their parents thought nothing of casting hundreds of thousands of years of divergent evolution by the wayside, the mixed offspring are often desperate to belong to a tribe, and thus fierce in their ultimately futile efforts to preserve what has already been lost.

Right, but I definitely think that Multicultists would argue that eventually everyone would be mixed and then there would be no racism. I think they would argue that this is the reason why we should really spend a lot of effort teaching people to accept mixed people, glorifying a mixture of peoples/cutures, and accentuating our common humanity.

Anyway, the people you're describing are experiencing cognitive dissonance. They are holding two mutually exclusive worldviews (multiculturalism is awesome + large-scale mixing is desirable) as ultimate truths.

Yep. This is one of the main issues I'd like to address. How to make them more aware of this.

The key to making people see the many flaws in their logic is to backtrack. A typical conversation might go as follows:

Me: Why is multiculturalism a good thing? Why is diversity our strength?

Multicultist: People from different backgrounds bring new ideas to the table. Ethnic food is amazing, and an all-white society would be boring.

Me: I agree (not really, but they don't know that yet!). I'd like to see human diversity preserved, on both the genetic and cultural levels.

Multicultist: What do you mean?

Me: Well, the end result of localized diversity is the eradication of global diversity.

Multicultist: How is that?

Me: Groups of people who live in close proximity to each other inevitably mix, especially when the cultural ethos of the host nation encourages it. The only possible result of this is that the host population becomes subsumed, genetically and culturally, in a sea of others, thus reducing global human diversity.

Multicultist: That's OK. Once we're all mixed, there will be an end to racism and the world will be great.

Me: *pretends to be confused and deep in thought* But didn't you just tell me how great an asset it was to have people from such diverse backgrounds? If everyone's background is the same, then we'll have lost that advantage forever. (Depending on the person's intelligence and interest levels, you can go on to talk about how genetic diversity on a global scale can help humanity survive epidemics, etc. etc.)

Multicultist: Wow, I hadn't thought of it that way.

From there, you can take it one of two ways. If they seem receptive to un-PC talk about genetics and human populations, you can strengthen the point by delving into genetic differences in intelligence, crime rate and per capita wealth by race/nation, etc. If not, just re-emphasize the point that immigration, integration, and mixing serve only to destroy human diversity.

Sorry for the lengthy ramble!

That's usually the way I would deal with such conversations, minus the intelligence and behavioral stats (nobody likes that, and it will usually result in them disregarding everything you have said).

However, I'm beginning to think that people are OK with being logically inconsistent. In this way, they are not multiculturalists at all (as if that wasn't clear enough already) but actually advocates of global monoculture. A lot of people will support multiculturalism on the face of things but their true position is monoculturalism, so when its pointed out that the one leads to the other they are satisfied with that.

White people espouse multiculturalism as a sugar-coated path to monoculturalism. Non-white people espouse multiculturalism as minorities that see it to be the easiest way to defend their culture while besieged by other cultures. It would appear that nobody likes multiculturalism as a fact in itself. There are those that have given up on their culture and see a mixed race, mixed culture as the easiest, bloodless (hopefully) route to reattaining monoculture. It is by and for these people that the "race doesn't exist" and cultural relativism arguments are argued so loudly and persistently. They have given up on their own culture and unique peoples in exchange for the hope that in their bid to regain monoculture they will not have lost everything. The other side of the coin that is multiculturalism is the one that I would call more true to its definition. This is the multiculturalism most usually espoused by ethnic and racial minorities. These people also want monoculture, but it is absolutely impossible to have their culture be the main culture and they are not willing to part with their own. These people will often defend their culture against the other brand of multiculturalism, which they have recognized as nothing more than the syncretist monoculturalism of the majority.

White people are mainly interested in a multiculturalism that transcends their own culture whereas non-white minorities are more interested in a multiculturalism that allows them to maintain their culture within a different host culture.

Thanks for replying. It helped me work through all of that.

I replied: "Which is what? Black history or English history?"

Here's that dissonance again. Good on you for pointing it out, too bad they simply didn't get the point.

I know all too well that debating liberals is a waste of time. These people are mentally ill. I swear.

I don't think they are mentally ill. I think they are reaching out for something very human. Most of them, especially here in the United States, have either lost a great deal of their culture or have been browbeaten into believing their culture is wrong. So, on the one hand they've been deprived of their own culture and on the other they are faced with other cultures which have not been as affected by these forces. As I said earlier, I don't know if they really love multiculturalism in a preservationist sense, as ethnic minorities often do. What they want is monoculturalism, but their culture is seen as already greatly weakened and just plain wrong. When you think to yourself that you don't have much of a culture anymore or never did and all you want is a little stability you are vulnerable to the sorts of arguments that are made in favor of just letting it all go and hoping for the best, because you have next to nothing and don't stand for much anymore.

For me the question is rather, "Why is a melting pot scenario inevitable?" They don't think of will, don't really care for preference (hence anti-discrimination). They have a destroy-everything end-of-times mentality. It's come up a lot before.

End-of-times mentality is a good point. I do think that a lot of this is tied in with a universalist conversion mindset. It's almost Christian salvationist. We can save the world by converting the world to our syncretic version of monoculturalism. It's actually quite imperialist and we'd be stripping the world of its diversity. Multiculturalists often don't care about "white" people, so it's important to stress to them that we really are all in the same boat together. Asians, Africans, Latinos and Middle Easterners are all at risk with this more universalist multi/mono-culturalism.

Plus africa and asia are 3-4 billion strong in 'pure' human races even if somehow the west became multiracial utopia like they proclaim.

These people tend to have a mental break down at around this point...

Right, and I think it's a good point to be made after the last post. For those that would actually admit to wanting a global monoculture it's good to point out that that is impossible. So what are we left with? A mixed country that still stands for nothing? ...which faces other countries that still do stand for their people?

Actually, I still think that confronted with that argument the Multicultist would argue that our country (the mixed one) would have superior values (universal rights of mankind, multiple perspectives, etc.) to the "tribalistic" homogenous countries. And, at the end of the day, they would still argue that we could slowly convert the world from there, to make everyone see that WE are right.