Machjo
Machjo said:
I think we need to make a distinction between 'assimilation' and 'integration'. There is plenty of evidence of how 'assimilation' leads to ethnic conflict. Just observe the First Nations. Observe how Quebec reacted decades ago when they noticed that Montreal was assimilating to English (they introduced Bill 101!). Observe the bitterness of Uighurs who are now not allowed to study cources in their native language in the University of Xinjiang, and the refusal of Uighurs in Shanghai to speak to their Han counterparts in Chinese if they can speak English at all, etc. You need to do a little travelling to areas where cultural assimilation is in fact occurring (e.g., Montreal, Urumqi, Lhasa, and I'm sure many other parts of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if there are even places in the US where there might be a certain pressure to learn Spanish which might lead to some resentment as well.
Agreed, there are differences and very important ones. Assimilation means to be absorbed, incorporated, to become synthesized, to become just like everybody else, to have no identity any longer whereas integration means bring different parts together, to blend, to orchestrate into a whole, yet not lose essence or identity. You can they say that integration is the essence of American society as evidenced by hyphenated Americans. And in the historical context you mentioned above, it is of up most importance in my opinion that integration or assimilation cannot be forced upon, it evolves naturally or it simply doesn’t work.
Machjo said:
I agree that to have peace, we need a common culture. But it's not up to one group to impose it on the rest. Sure it would be wonderful if all Canadians could agree on a common second language, or agree on a common set of cultural referents, be they Christian or otherwise. But if such a common culture is merely imposed by the majority, conflict is sure to ensue (an example would be if Canada suddenly decided that from now on English was to be its sole common language or, as really happenned, when Quebec decided on French whithout really consulting with their minorities). Yet to lack a common culture, as is the case with Canada, with the French doing their thing, the English theirs, and the natives just being squashed in between, obviously dialogue is difficult due to the lack of common ground. Possibly a compromise would be a commonly agreed upon second language and culture.
Here is the problem I have with what you said, first one needs to be able to define culture, culture is very complex and emboldens many social interactions, music, art, food, traditions, language, religion etc… It is impossible to “integrate” all these cultures without losing some of the interactions. Hence in order to preserve culture, you must create a multicultural society or a diverse society which we agreed already is inherently divisive. So the question now arises, which is the lesser of two evils? Integration or Diversity?
Machjo said:
I in fact meant what you just typed here. I agree 100% that this has nothing to do with legal rights or lack thereof, but rather human nature, and no law can do anything to stop that. Therefore, it's wise for any government to proceed with tact and wisdom, care and caution as it attempts to establish a common culture, as it follows a middle road of moderation while avoiding the extremes. To impose a common culture would be just as damaging as not trying to establish a common one. The only solution, inasmuch as many, especially among the majority, might hate this, is to find common ground through mutual consultation. If everyone can agree to some common auxiliary culture, then we can finally have a common foundation upon which all are willing to build. But that's not easy.[/b]
To find common ground you need to be able to incorporate many aspects of many many cultures into one “melting pot”. I can’t see any other solution to it.
