said, I do think the Internet and improved communications are helping people to bond more, I think ... but some seem to be bonding in camps. It's an interesting question you posted.

The whole idea of many races, ethnicities and religions living together (in one country or, for that matter, the world) in peace and cooperation seems antithetical to them. Everything is US vs THEM. 'Good guys' vs 'bad guys'. And the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are destined to never get along with each other.

I don't think "melting pot" is the right term since the goal is not that everyone will be the same but the liberal concept that people of different races, faiths and national origins can live together peacefully had better still be possible or the world is very serious trouble.

win/win solution from the GOP.

today's immigrants are any less fond, and proud, of their own ways and attracted to those here who share them than yesterday's were?

For the past few decades, I have only heard the salad bowl concept discussed.

"Melting Pot" seemed to me to be about everyone eventually being the same, in which case it's not a very useful metaphor.

Central Ohio is so much more diverse than when I was a kid..shoot, I was in college before we had bagel shops! I bought my mom her first ever bagel...Now there are shops and restaurants with REAL cuisine, (unlike the taco hells of my youth, now there are real Mexican and Tex-Mex places, plus Korean, Somali, Chinese and others) cultural festivals, art and theatre....

It's still possible, but we need to work at supporting each other. (and if my answer seems centered on food, well...it's supper time!)

All immigrants were expected to conform to an Anglo (English) way of life and culture. If you weren't W.A.S.P. you had to at least try to look and act W.A.S.P..

Seems like there are a lot of non-WASP traits that were in the "melting pot".

My ancestors and those of my half-brother weren't WASPs, but were certainly mainstreamed by 1940 where they lived, and by 1970 pretty much everywhere. European, but hardly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, and according to 1870s Northern elite standards also not "white".

What's typically ignored in this is what the "Anglo way of life and culture" also wasn't really Anglo. It was peculiarly middle- and upper-class in many ways, and educated. It was harshly non-traditional even in areas of original Anglo-Saxon settlement (we're talking Essex and Sussex, England). It was shaped by Enlightenment philosophy seen through the lens of scientific and industrial society. It's the basis of some of the splits in DU, and some of the non-comprehension of some SCOTUS judges and other political and cultural figures. It's partly the basis of a North/South split in the US, as well.

Even where I grew up in the '60s we "anglos" weren't consistently reflecting the kind of culture you describe--one that was promulgated in the public school system of the day and still generally assumed to hold true in public schools today. It's still at odds with a lot of lower class cultures and behavior.

Because we can't get past considering race as the end-all and be-all of political discourse, we assume that it's really a white/non-white thing, to the point that in my classes I have a lot of whites who don't really act white (but it's assumed they must, being white) and blacks and Latinos who are often on the outs with their racial peers because they act white when in class. I've had Latino immigrant, children of doctors and engineers and faculty, who were more "WASP" than some poor Methodist Anglo-Americans, but few noticed it because it's easy to think in terms of categories imposed by other. It's not necessary to think that way, but it's easy and quick.

You can google and find the youtube of the melting pot theme as it was used at Ford Motors...

It was -never- about diversity. It was mostly about crude ore in the crucible and the purifying fire of Americanization.

When she came home for Christmas, she just kept remarking in the airport how the diversity is startling after living elsewhere. I think it's something most of us don't notice but it is very unique.

is a lot of white people with black grandkids.

One of my nieces has a hispanic husband, but my nieces and nephews as a group do not seem very interested in producing great grandkids for my mom.

So I see a fair amount of melting.

Recently read a biography of Benjamin Franklin. He said this, in regard to the melting pot of the 1740s

'The German women are generally so disagreeable to an English eye, that it would require great portions to induce Englishmen to marry them. Nor would German ideas of beauty generally agree with our women; dick und starcke; that is, thick and strong, always enters into their description of a pretty girl, for the value of a wife with them consists much in the work she is able to do.' "The First American" HW Brands p 219

As an aside, I love that author. I have bought 3 of his books now, and they have all been interesting and fun.

It is interesting as well, as I do genealogy. I have the Shuey family with lots of descendants and also English families like Upson, Grant, Heacock, Kingsbury and Loomis with lots of descendants. It's very rare for me to find over-lap. They did not inter-marry in the 1700s or early 1800s. It took a while, seemingly, for them to melt.

Asians are doing pretty well. Indians and Pakistanis were living in my building where the rent was pretty high, they all worked for Microsoft or some other local tech company. Incomes for 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics are now at the national average. Second and third generation Muslim-Americans, from what I've seen, must have incomes well above the average. They seem to be highly disproportionately in professional fields.

Look at Belgium and France struggling to integrate people even over two or three generations.

Overall I'd say our melting pot is a resounding success unparalleled in history. There has never been a nation where immigrants of different colors and faiths all prospered so well.

It's very viable.

Do you find it viable or oppressive or somewhere in between?

I think it's a remnant of that crazy idea that every culture that comes to the United States should be shoved in an orifice at one end and out squirts a white bread, american cheese slice that are bland and have lost all their original flavor.

We are a diverse culture. We are Americans who retain and remember our heritage but still come together for common goals.

Melt, my butt.

That implies assimilation.

and when we no longer have enough jobs, we'll start pulling back.
It's either cheap labor, or the prize of high tech brains coming from Asia.

gay couple, more than one cross-cultural and/or interfaith couple..

(We have a little old German widow who met a Texas widow, and now they live across the street from us. She bakes, we enjoy. You remember 'Gladys Kravitz' from 'Bewitched'? That's her, 30 years later.)

The neighborhood kids don't give a shit, they all play together, segregated more by age (and gender) than anything else.

The kids are more integrated and accepting than anyone ever has been. Very promising for our future.

Multi-ethnic, multiracial everything. The DC suburbs. The local schools have kids from 90 or so different nations. This is true of many major urban areas.

It's very backward, unrealistic and harmfully delusional to think that people should be reduced to some kind of homogenized cookie-cutter norm.

Multiculturalism works against that.

that RW populists (here, in Europe and elsewhere) are very much opposed to multiculturalism as the death of 'traditional' society, usually controlled by the previously dominant racial or ethnic group.

I say that Western culture is better than, say, Islamic culture; it's kinder to women and minorities; it values freedom more.

Liberal values aren't the preserve of any one ethnic group. If you think liberal values are worthwhile, you should not support cultures that don't support them.

This is very unfashionable, but I like the melting pot.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims, like the vast majority of the world's Christians, Hindus, etc., are decent people who do not mistreat others. Fundamentalists of many religions believe that God (their version) has ordered them to abuse others of a certain gender or race or ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Not only "Western" culture but "Eastern" culture are superior to the cultures practiced by fundamentalists of any religion. If you feel that American culture is inherently superior then Pam Geller and the Donald are your kind of people.

The norm that all women should veil is not a minority view in the Islamic world.

Our culture is simply better than theirs. Bluntly, we shouldn't support Islamic culture in the United States.

It's bad for liberalism, and bad for women's rights and other minorities.

I realize that standing up for liberalism means some nasty right-wingers agree with me. But not standing up for it means terrorists and fundamentalist agree with you.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter who agrees with you on certain questions, and it's a dishonest way of arguing.

That does not mean that our culture is better than the culture of every Muslim in the world. Hence, multiculturalism is a good thing and conservatives hate the concept.

Which Islamic culture do you think is as good as Western culture?

I think departing from liberalism and respect for women's rights would be bad, you apparently don't.

About every Islamic nation veils, so yes, it's a near-universal norm.

"I am with you or I am with the terrorists", is that it?"

You've just said that I'm with multiculturalism and cultural relativism or I'm with the right-wingers. I'm applying the same logic to you.

...on the one hand, I should be sensitive to cultural differences and differing levels of ability to speak and write English. On the other hand, English is the language of commerce and Government, and a grad student should be able to write clearly if they hope to succeed professionally when they graduate. How much should I grade down a paper with poor grammar?

It became impossible after the American frontier was completely populated and settled. As long as there was someplace for people to go, it was an okay concept.

always stood for. Everyone should fully reject the GOP's misery, non-inclusive vision of America. What they believe and want to return to never really existed anyway.

My home is an old part of a city and is mostly known for it's Polish Catholic community. Of course their were many nationalities and I remember when it was a requirement tp speak three languages to work at the local grocery stores.Over the years things have changed. In the eighties many churches joined the sanctuary movement and we starting getting Guatemalans and others. As the immigration of Hispanics accelerated some of the old churches became predominately Hispanic. A lot of these churches had dwindled in numbers as the congregation aged.
In the 80's we started to get immigrants from the middle east and Africa. I t made no difference in the communities attitude. They were welcome even though they had a different religion.Not being religious,myself, I really loved the great variety of food available.
I can take my choice of Central American, Lebanese, Afghani, Mexican, Italian and many other variety's. The old VFW became a Buddhist temple,and then a Mosque. Things change, but people are people. There was a time when I was young that African Americans weren't welcome, but that all changed a long time ago
The day after 9/11 I went by our one of our Muslim owned businesses, to offer reassurances, but found some "Pollocks" had positioned themselves conspicuously to make sure no attacks happened to them.
I believe that only preachers and politicians can drum up hatred against other groups.