View Poll Results: Colonial Identity: Ethnic Mosaic or Melting Pot?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ethnic Mosaic

    22 59.46%
  • Melting Pot

    13 35.14%
  • Other (please explain)

    2 5.41%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Colonial Identity: Ethnic Mosaic versus Melting Pot

  1. #11
    Senior Member Jove's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, January 20th, 2006 @ 01:36 PM
    Subrace
    Borreby
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Europa
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Folkish Libertarianism
    Posts
    36
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Colonial Identity: Ethnic Mosaic versus Melting Pot

    It has been pointed out that first generation immigrants tend to arrive with a fixed intention to settle under a fresh socioeconomic or political climate, but this does not necessarily mean that they aim at abandoning the legacy of their former cultural locale. Migrations normally occur with the intention of changing one’s social, economic and or political, but not cultural, conditions.

    If we observe the slow but steady pace at which Western Europe loses its identity in favor of multiculturalism, it would perhaps become clearer as to precisely how socially dependent ethnic, cultural and, most of all, racial identity actually is with politics. People and their cultures are inseparable, but what is more interesting is the nonprofessional, intuitive human standpoint continually failing to differentiate culture as a constantly renovating phenomenon. Culture interacts with people much the same way we interact with our economic and sociopolitical setting. In other words, culture is not entirely the deliberate produce of its people – the two are strictly interdependent.

    Hence it follows that people tend to confuse what they are with what they want to be; the present state with the intended future. People may arrive as French, English or Dutch, but in their desire to change their political principles they transform their cultural identity too.

    In view of this it should come as no surprise that Islam is highly unlikely to integrate with Christianity the same way Negroes have integrated into the American society, although in the latter example the integrative process has largely been impeded by the low average intelligence inherent to most Negroes. But, if average intelligence gap of two populations be taken as a criterium for integrative success, it should seem ironically more likely that the Muslims will indeed integrate with the European society with less trouble than “Afro-Americans.” This would definitely be the logical conclusion were it not for the simple fact that Muslims had always had a much stronger cultural identity than the Negroes. Therefore, as we wait for the political scales in Europe to shift towards an increasingly more culturally / racially oriented politics we should expect this to offset against the efforts currently being put towards integrating Islam with Europe, or should I say the other way around. But I digress.

    I voted for Melting Pot. It’s fortuitous, but necessary process for a peaceful society.
    Last edited by Jove; Monday, January 10th, 2005 at 07:14 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 06:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Post Re: Colonial Identity: Ethnic Mosaic versus Melting Pot

    Quote Originally Posted by Jove
    It has been pointed out that first generation immigrants tend to arrive with a fixed intention to settle under a fresh socioeconomic or political climate, but this does not necessarily mean that they aim at abandoning the legacy of their former cultural locale. Migrations normally occur with the intention of changing one’s social, economic and or political, but not cultural, conditions.

    If we observe the slow but steady pace at which Western Europe loses its identity in favor of multiculturalism, it would perhaps become clearer as to precisely how socially dependent ethnic, cultural and, most of all, racial identity actually is with politics. People and their cultures are inseparable, but what is more interesting is the nonprofessional, intuitive human standpoint continually failing to differentiate culture as a constantly renovating phenomenon. Culture interacts with people much the same way we interact with our economic and sociopolitical setting. In other words, culture is not entirely the deliberate produce of its people – the two are strictly interdependent.
    Good post. I'd say the nature of the modern State also makes the ethnic mosaic-model impossible. Historically, ethnicities could co-exist in the same geographic area, without mixing or melting very much. This is because they had their own institutions; churches, schools, militias and so on, even when they paid tribute to the same State.

    The modern State has taken so many of these institutions on itself, that segregation is made very difficult. So while it (the State) is preaching about the multicultural society, in reality something else is going on. By its schools, its media and its many other institutions, the State is making the members of various cultures into its citizens, and making them mingle. Probably many Islamists sense this "reality beneath the propaganda". They are formally free to retain their culture and race for themselves and their children, but in real life it won't really work. In real work it won't lead to a multicultural mosaic, but rather a monocultural nivellation.

    Another sign of this process being not completely unconscious on the part of the current "elite", would be their attempts to create an immigrant "political bourgeoisie", allied with or part of, the old elite.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Jove's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, January 20th, 2006 @ 01:36 PM
    Subrace
    Borreby
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Europa
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Folkish Libertarianism
    Posts
    36
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Colonial Identity: Ethnic Mosaic versus Melting Pot

    Quote Originally Posted by Oskorei
    I'd say the nature of the modern State also makes the ethnic mosaic-model impossible. Historically, ethnicities could co-exist in the same geographic area, without mixing or melting very much. This is because they had their own institutions; churches, schools, militias and so on, even when they paid tribute to the same State.

    The modern State has taken so many of these institutions on itself, that segregation is made very difficult. So while it (the State) is preaching about the multicultural society, in reality something else is going on. By its schools, its media and its many other institutions, the State is making the members of various cultures into its citizens, and making them mingle. Probably many Islamists sense this "reality beneath the propaganda". They are formally free to retain their culture and race for themselves and their children, but in real life it won't really work. In real work it won't lead to a multicultural mosaic, but rather a monocultural nivellation.

    Another sign of this process being not completely unconscious on the part of the current "elite", would be their attempts to create an immigrant "political bourgeoisie", allied with or part of, the old elite.
    Over much of history the elite has endeavored to elevate the State apparatus above moral law. But as time progressed, so has the public resistance to this trend solidified. The movement against State oppression has acquired a name, and a voice; Libertarianism was to become the name by which it would later be recognized, and liberty was its message.

    In appreciating the magnitude of the implications of this, the State government has adjusted its modus operandi accordingly to fit its changing and gradually more risky environment. As an outcome, the elite have camouflaged their true aims - to which they’re forever loyal by definition - with an ideologically more benevolent sense of guardianship of the people’s rights and security. And thus the stage was secured for the elite’s illusive game of political shapeshifting. In effect, modern liberals are the successors of past century’s socialists, communists and a wide range of enthusiastic bureaucrats whose rule is accomplished by proxy.

    Hence the modern State endorsement of multiculturalism acquires a proper context as a move not to even out the grassroots, as in Telperion's Melting Pot hypothesis, but, on the contrary, to create another political force. This bold move on the part of the elite can be understood as an attempt to change the status quo in their own favor by introducing a foreign factor which would serve as an impediment for the old majority to have it all, so to speak. Now the situation is being created in which the old majority, or in other words, ethnic Europeans, will be compelled to entrust the government with even more power in order to enforce peace in a progressively destabilizing society.

  4. #14
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2018 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Colonial Identity: Ethnic Mosaic versus Melting Pot

    Quote Originally Posted by Telperion View Post
    Looking over various threads on Skadi forum, it is apparent that members have very different conceptions about how people who live in former European colonies (i.e. Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand) should define their identities, and to whom their owe their loyalties.

    Some feel that they should define themselves as primarily as members of their ethnic group or national heritage; I would call this the "ethnic mosaic" model, because it implies that the colonial countries should be simply a mosaic of different ethnic groups, i.e. English, Irish, German, Italian, Russian, etc., and that the loyalty of each member of these groups should be vested primarily in his own ethnicity, as opposed to the colonial state.

    Alternatively, some feel that identification with and loyalty to the colonial state should take precedence over any ethnic identification or loyalties; I would call this the "melting pot" model.

    So, my question is, do you favour the ethnic mosaic model of colonial identity, the melting pot model, or some other model (please explain), and why? Note that this is a normative and not a positive question.

    I think the issues raised are quite complex, so I'm curious to hear peoples' views on this subject.

    [Note: this replaces a previous poll that I had configured incorrectly. My apologies to prussian_au and Dante Aligheri, who had voted in that poll.]
    First I think loyalties should always be to oneself, one's family, and by extension, one's people rather than to any state. So clearly given these two options, I would choose an ethnic mosaic. However, I don't think loyalties to one's people need necessarily conflict with loyalties to a state.

    But viewing the question from another angle, I can see, as Oskorei mentions, that the issue needn't involve states at all. It could just as easily be expressed as loyalty to the ethnicity regardless of geographical location or loyalty to compatriots regardless of ethnicity.

    Even recast that way though, comparing loyalty to people with loyalty to people, I still favor the ethnic mosaic model.

    I think it's worth noting that the colonies mentioned here are all English/British colonies.

    I think that's important in the discussion because I think a melting pot model only works in practice if there is a base or dominant ethnicity to which all other ethnicities can assimilate (a broth for the pot, as it were). In these four countries, that ethnicity is English.

    Because these four countries all have a base ethnicity, they have the option of a melting pot model, which is what they have, in practice, tended to choose. But for those who actually are members of the base ethnicity, the model might as well have been an ethnic mosaic.

    In places that lack a sufficiently strong base ethnicity, the melting pot model is untenable. I have seen this in the San Francisco area in California. A large influx of immigrants from all over the world have eliminated any base ethnicity in the area. The people who come in have no dominant culture they can choose as a model with whom to blend their ways. And there are far too many cultures and languages in the area for people to learn one another's ways and successfully blend. The only option is an ethnic mosaic.

    When there is a base ethnicity that's strong enough to allow for a melting pot, then I think melting more often than not does more harm than good. First, it severs the link between the people in minority ethnicities and their own ancestors — a link which I think is very sacred. Second, it risks diluting the base ethnicity itself in that area.

    I agree with Oskorei and Jove that an ethnic mosaic puts modern states, which are largely centralized and totalitarian in comparison with older states, into jeopardy. I don't see that as a bad thing, personally, but it must be acknowledged. The ethnic mosaic model, if followed, would likely lead to the downfall of many of our modern states and all the comforts that come along with them. On a spiritual level, I think the benefits of the ethnic mosaic model outweigh the cost.

    Oskorei did bring up the point that new ethnicites can be formed over time, but I think the way they almost always get formed is from parent ethnicities splitting into multiple daughters rather than multiple ethnicites melding into a new child. There are exceptions to this, of course, but I think they're pretty rare.

    Consider that 2000 years ago, our people apparently were all considered to be of one ethnicity: Germanic. Sure, there were tribal distinctions within the ethnicity, but there is little reason to think that the Germanic tribes were in fact various ethnicities — they all had the same religion, the same language, and the same basic culture. But now, we are many different ethnicities. What was once a unified whole has splintered.

    If new ethnicites formed for the countries listed above, they would be splinters of the English ethnicity rather than combinations of the various ethnic components of their populations. Admittedly, the amount of actual Englishness in each population would be debatable — just as the amount of Germanicness in Germanic populations along the fringes of Germania (Britain, Iceland, the Low Countries, the Alpine region) is sometimes debated by people who have too much free time. But they would still be in the Anglo-Saxon family of ethnicities, just as surely as the Germanics of Britain, Iceland, the Low Countries, and the Alpine region are all Germanic. They would not be new ethnicities in any kind of melting pot sense.

  5. #15
    Senior Member White Africa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 09:00 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-African
    Ancestry
    English
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Gender
    Politics
    Preservation of diversity
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    116
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    I prefer an ethnic mosaic, where all of us preserve our traditions and languages. I don't like the idea of a melting pot very much. It's exactly what those we erroneously call "multiculturalists" are pushing. It's not really multiculturalism (which results from ethnopluralism or the ethnic mosaic as you call it), but monoculturalism, where everyone has to integrate to be the same. I like diversity, and I think the melting pot is a threat to preservation.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Melting Pot Boils Over in Australia, but the Race Riot "Was Not Racist"
    By Nachtengel in forum Australia & New Zealand
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, June 5th, 2016, 12:01 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: Friday, September 3rd, 2010, 01:17 PM
  3. Sweden – a New Melting Pot?
    By Aptrgangr in forum Sweden
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 17th, 2008, 10:36 PM
  4. Is There a German Melting Pot?
    By Vanir in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 21st, 2005, 04:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •