America is often referred to as the “melting pot.” The phrase “melting pot” has been used since the 1780s, but entered into common usage because of a renowned Broadway play.
The Broadway play, “The Melting Pot,” was written by Israel Zangwill in 1904 depicted a Russian Jewish refugee immigrating to the United States to escape the ethnic cleansing going on in his homeland. In the United States, he finds love, acceptance, and a sense of belonging. The differences between ethnicity “melted away” because cultural exchange became his reality. This play was a huge hit receiving the praises of then-President Theodore Roosevelt. The idea of the “melting pot” was embraced and soon became a central part of the U.S.’s cultural identity.”
Though this is all lovely how is this “melting pot” concept of almost 100 years old affecting us today? Is there so much diversity that there is no room for one culture? For the claims of America being the most benevolent, and it is, nation on earth are we slowly destroying ourselves?
Races wars are going on, ethnicity battles waging, sexual revolutions of all sorts erupting. Just what sort of “melting pot” have we become? It is almost taboo to talk about faith. The youth laugh at you when you mention God and faith. So a society that is so secular as ours moves forward without many concepts of God and faith, and the notion that we not only need to modernize our Constitution but also, the Bible — to make them relevant? What kind of society are we and did our founding fathers get it wrong?
In my opinion, we have become a multitude of people that do not truly see ourselves as one culture anymore, but as a paradigm of many — likened to the “Tower of Babel.” We know what God did with the “Tower of Babel” — well we believers do, God destroyed the tower and dispersed the people, and made one language into many. However, our nation is a culture of so many people, colors, ethnicities, and now sexes, and all this has little to do with family and faith. How can the U.S. continue like this?
People worry about the masses of people entering our country. People ask how will we afford to pay for these people coming into the U.S.? But I ask, did our founding fathers get it wrong?
Just look around …
PoliticsRewritten 
Although our Founders might have avoided some current debate, had they chosen a more layman’s prose than the formal, legalistic verbiage of the era….I don’t think they got it wrong at all.
I think we collectively, through the years, have been poor stewards of what they left behind. For reasons of party power and political expediency….we have willingly [and un-Constitutionally] transferred sovereign power from both the Citizen and the States….to the Executive.
The Framers would be displeased to say the least.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I completely agree with this. Our states and and local governments look to the executive branch and this was not what our founding fathers planned for.
Having said that, what about all the illegal aliens, all the money going to them and they broke our laws? We would be in jail if we broke laws on this grand of a scale. How can we sustain the U.S. and ask people to hold up the law and turn the other cheek metaphorically speaking?
LikeLike
Illegal immigration is the one major area of departure between myself and the Libertarian Party. Our treatment of it, under all Administrations, has been blatantly un-Constitutional.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree on that. If you go to Mexico illegally you are jailed for up to 25 years and that goes for Americans too! How stupid do we look?
LikeLike
Layla said… “If you go to Mexico illegally you are jailed for up to 25 years and that goes for Americans too! How stupid do we look?”
Can you provide a citation for this? I’ve lived and worked in Mexico for the last 30 years and have never seen one case of this happening.
I think it is important when we state things as fact, as you did, to be correct and provide the backup.
Currently, everyone entering Mexico must get a VISA for a specified time and purpose at their point of entry. Failure to do so can result in a charge of illegal immigration and up to a two year prison term and/or a fine of up to $200.00 USD and deportation per Article 123 of the General Law on Population.
People who fraudulently abuse their entry VISA guidelines, can be sentenced to a prison term of up to 6 years. Per Articles 119, 120 and 121 of the same law.
I’d also say that there are very few, if any illegal immigrants in Mexican prisons. In all my years, I’ve never heard of a single person being jailed for such an offense. It’s just easier and cheaper to deport them, if they are even stopped.
Now, workers from southern countries do enter Mexico illegally daily to work and stay in the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Guerrero and Michoacan. And they work in jobs Mexicans typically will not take. Think the guys hauling heavy loads of vegetables, fruits and other stuff on their backs around local markets, cleaning, pumping gas and working long hours in agricultural fields for the minimum wage of $7.00 US a day.
Look, I’m sympathetic to US struggles with immigration. We’ve got issues. But real solutions demand honesty, accuracy and experience when dealing with those issues. Otherwise we become like that clanging cymbal, just making noise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Were you in Mexico legally? If so that would not apply to you. I agree we need transparency and accuracy. In honesty I do not have a link — it was Michelle Malkin that said this some years back on air when Bill O’Reilly was still working at Fox News and hosted the “O’Reilly Factor.”
LikeLike
Of course I am in Mexico legally. But that does not change the law. You said you got your information from Michelle Malkin. That’s a reasonable answer from many on both the right and the left. They get their opinions, or information from somewhere and then share it, without verifying if the info is correct.
And then we can find ourselves in a loop of incorrect “news” that conforms to what we believe, often without evidence, or what sounds true to our ears.
But as it relates to Mexico and my response, the law is the law. And essentially cited the law incorrectly, as if it were true, because you heard it somewhere. Because you heard it.
It would have taken just a few minutes to verify it. I cited the law, the Articles and even personal anecdotal experience.
Perhaps I’m pretty sensitive as it relates to Mexico because I get tired of people saying untrue stuff or not doing the work to really learn the reality.
In any event, while obviously we’ll never agree on a lot of stuff, I appreciate being able to read your point of view and comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She did verify it when she spoke it but that was some years ago. Can you provide a link to disprove her?
LikeLike
I have read commentaries that pointed to the “melting pot” model as the working model through the 1970’s. However, with the tendency of the Democrat party to set up protected fiefdoms (e.g., the Latino block, the Afro-American block, etc.), we have fallen to a “tossed salad” model where we mix together, but never lose certain ethnic peculiarities.
Hence, had this happened some 40 years earlier, my East Texan German would be significantly better and would be looked on the same way as is the Spanish spoken across this town of Houston.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Therefore, no, I don’t think they got it wrong.
The Democrats are just working to Balkanize us for their own political gain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Democrats need psychological help!
LikeLike
The Democrats are just Machiavellians (amoral — hence eventually immoral — and seeking power).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes they have devolved into pure evilness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That may be true Mark but I lived overseas and the old saying “when in Rome do as the Romans” should be applicable here in the U.S.- the fact that it is not is destroying this nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Melting Pot? We’re multi-cultural now! Diversity is our strength! Shouldn’t these remain our accepted and unquestioned wisdoms?
LikeLiked by 1 person
multicultural (adj.)
also multi-cultural, of a society, “consisting of varied cultural groups,” by 1941; see multi- “many”+ culture (n.) + -al (1). At first often in a Canadian context. Picked up by U.S. education writers 1980s; widespread popular use from c. 1990.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has turned into a farce.
LikeLike
Yes, but it is not longer working when we as a society are so segregated by cultural and sexual wars.
LikeLike
Those wars are just our national “elites” imposing their 1st world wealth-privileged values upon us. They aren’t trying to divide us… they’re trying to “melt” us so that they’ll feel no guilt or shame over their “wealth privilege” (they misdirect us and call it “white privilege” just to keep us from figuring out that they’re the hated class and to make us think that we are the one’s who need to change our values and not the other way around) .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true. I agree. I am quite sick of hearing “white privilege” because it is not true. It is all based in reverse racism and hatred.
LikeLike
The reason why we hear so much today of “white privilege” instead of “class privilege” is because the former “masks the reality” of the latter in the “hyper-real” worlds of education and media…
Baudrillard “Phases of the Image:”
1. It Reflects Reality
2. It Masks Reality
3. It Masks the Absence of Reality
4. It has no Relation to Reality Whatsoever
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is a form of brainwashing — “Helsinki Syndrome.”
LikeLike
We, as ordinary citizens, don’t have the “wealth” it would take to sustain their values… as evidenced by America’s National Debt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, true.
LikeLike
Their values lack “sustainability”…. which is a recently introduced value to encourage the more “progressive” elites to “tone it down”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is amazing how such a small minority wants to change the fabric of a strong majority and people like us are wondering why it is happening when most people do not push back! They allow it due to intimidation and fear.
LikeLike
The country will bankrupt itself if it encourages too much heterosexual promiscuity by adopting practices like anal sex (homosexual practices). AIDS would explode, with corresponding treatment costs
But the elites want to do it w/o legal repurcussions hence Lawrence v. Texas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is appalling when you look at all the criminality of the “system.”
LikeLike
…and free pornography to normalize and gain acceptance of its’ wealth privileged perversions
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is why I disdain Brown Jackson to SCOTUS level. She is easy on all those pervs and it is abhorrent.
LikeLike
Why is multiculturalism a high-priority value now? Global corporatism needs to understand and create products for as many international markets as possible. It needs an inexpensive unexhaustable labour supply as well. H1B Visas alone won’t cut it. Open borders…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right, why is it important now? I believe multiculturalism is important to people who are very insecure and came from depraved backgrounds to give themselves a sense of identity they otherwise would not have—a need to “be noticed” and “be important.” They are so insecure within themselves.
LikeLike
I believe it’s because it allows them to assume the “universalist” position in a discussion or argument, one that allows them to hide/ deny/ obscure their own cultural (and undiscussed class) subjective bias’ behind a veil of multicultural/ humanist ‘objectivity’. They’re like the New Yorkers in a Woody Allen movie trying to exercise the greatest amount of social capital…. and prove their intellectual and social ‘superiority’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe they want to be part in setting up the new world order!
LikeLike
So I think that puts us in agreement again. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it sure does! ☺️
LikeLike
Zizek (the most dangerous philosopher in the West) and I may be on opposite sides for “Solutions”… but I think we understand the issues similarly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good Lord! He is the devil. What an evil man to write such things. You are right — he is the most dangerous philosopher if that is what we would call that mad man.
LikeLike
When the “smaller” comes into contact with the “larger” the smaller necessarily becomes incorporated into the larger. Through generations via marriage the intermingling became the accepted norm. Now we have huge blocks of immigrants. Each can contain their identity. The melting pot is over. We no longer have shared values whatever they might be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bunker bravo! I could not have put it more eloquently!
LikeLike
I don’t think our founding fathers “got it wrong,” but I do think they went into this “grand experiment” with cautious optimism. Ben Franklin’s attitude may have been less than optimistic when he answered, “A Republic if ye can keep it.” The founders had to know that it was a coin toss when even during the Revolution, the colonies were divided. About a third of the colonists were British loyalists. Another third didn’t give a damn who ran the show — as long as they still had their scalp at the end of the day.
It’s probably a fallacy in the way we think. Our nearest cousins are the Brits. They used to think of a melting pot, too … the British Commonwealth today is anything but. There is a lot of racial and ethnic unhappiness in the U.K. today.
Looking back in time, I do not think it was EVER a melting pot. Did the Irish have it easy when they showed up en masse? Catholics? Eastern Europeans at the beginning of the 20th century? How about all those Japanese Americans? This could go on for a long while, but I think you see my point. If we ever had a melting pot, then why didn’t we melt? Why didn’t we avoid the Civil War? Was there ever a unique American culture? Maybe … a long time ago. But then we invested in identity politics. Good, bad, or indifferent, we (whoever “we” is) can’t help who we are. My only argument is that we really can’t pretend that “back in the day” was something to pine for. There are never any easy “explanations” for why things are the way they are in very complex societies, such as ours. And it’s getting more complex with each passing day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree totally. I support the points you make. I do, however, wonder at times if we would not have been better off to stay with the British Commonwealth? That is a loaded question. I believe the world is facing many of these issues in their own countries. Perhaps we are not as unique as we once thought in the grand theme of things.
LikeLike
A question I’ve often pondered over. Taking into consideration the grievances of the Colonists at the time and the current state of western, industrialized Commonwealth nations [we likely would have proceeded in much the same manner as Canada] against the state of affairs we find ourselves in today……..indeed, which fate would be better?
Heresy I know, but an interesting thought exercise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I often wonder but Canada and UK are not without their own issues. No place is perfect and the UK is having very similar problems at this point culturally. People coming in and forcing their ways and customs on others. I do not like that.
LikeLike
The Founders got lots wrong….this is just a diversion from the real problems within this system. chuq
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true I cannot disagree with that.
LikeLike
I find it hard to even contemplate having remained in the commonwealth. No bill of rights.
The Founders got it right. We got it wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make a good point Ed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting post.
In my opinion, the problem is government perpetuated racial problems by continuing to identify citizens by race.
For example, the censes asks for race. In cities like Chicago Wards are divided up by voters based on race rather than by common interests that relate a untied city interests.
Sad..
When the Supreme Court ruled that voting districts must consider drawing voting boundaries based on race, in the 1963 Voting Rights Act, it gave license to divide our Nation into racial territories instead of common interests of Cities, States, and Nation..
Regards and goodwill blogging. .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. I am glad you found my post interesting. Being originally from Chicago I can identify with exactly what you are saying. Chicago is the epitome of racial and social divide. Thanks for the “best wishes” regarding blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person