Colour-coded maps disprove Trump

[MissBarbara]

Speaking as a European, with numerous friends in the US, I think I can safely say that you do not actually have any idea what you are talking about.

You are already repeating yourself, presenting your wished-for scenario as if it were fact.

You don't seem to realise that having "towns" (China towne etc) are a sign of segregation, not assimilation.

I'm sorry if this seems like "Let's Pick on IdleBoast Day," but speaking as someone who has lived her entire life in the U.S. and who has more than average knowledge about the U.S., I couldn't disagree with you more.

Every major U.S. city has immigrant neighborhoods and communities. All of them, likely without exception, are naturally-arising immigrant communities. These immigrants are in no way "forced" to live there -- neither legally, politically, socially, or economically. These immigrants chose to congregate there, and for what seem to be fairly obvious reasons.

Farmer Miles writes, "An integrated society does not have pockets of foreign cultures scattered through its geography, but it has a culture of its own influenced by all those foreign cultural inputs." I do not wish to misrepresent what he appears to be saying here, but in the U.S. today, those two aspects can -- and do -- exist side by side. Put aside, at least for the moment, what you read and hear on social media, in screaming headlines from the controversy-obsessed mainstream media, and on partisan blogs and web sites. The reality of the U.S. today is surprisingly close to that dual reality. In major cities, there are "pockets of foreign cultures." In New York City, there are dozens and dozens of these "pockets," and the same goes for most other major U.S. cities. Yet those "pockets," which undeniably do exist, are still part of the greater whole of the city, and the nation in general. And these "pockets" influence, in one way or another, and to a greater or lesser degree, the overall "culture of the U.S."

Even those outside the U.S. have heard this phrase repeated ad nauseum: The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. It was true when the country was founded, it's been true throughout our history, and it's more true today than it ever has been. And that fact means that there is no definition of "what it means to be an American," and it defies any possible definition of "what is a real American."

[IdleBoast]

I'm sorry if this seems like "Let's Pick on IdleBoast Day," but speaking as someone who has lived her entire life in the U.S. and who has more than average knowledge about the U.S., I couldn't disagree with you more.

I think I expressed myself badly; I did not mean that the segregation enclaves were forced - they grew because the immigrants chose to live close together.  If I recall correctly, the core of such an area would [sometimes] be the passengers of a single ship, but they stayed together because they were not as accepted by the local population [of previous immigrants] as Lady Liberty's plaque would have us believe, and once they were in a recognisable area the lack of integration became self-perpetuating.

We do have immigrant areas in the UK, but they tend not to last - the Jewish quarters, Chinatowns etc still have an above-average representation of the eponymous minority, but the edges blur, the population is "diluted" by "locals" moving back in, gentrification, or new waves of immigrants from other parts of the world, until many of them are little more than areas marked on maps in tourist guide books.  As I said elsewhere, the UK & Europe have been "dealing" with immigrants [often arriving as armies of occupation] for centuries, far longer than the US has even had a name.

The "problem" is, quite frankly, blown massively out of proportion by the kind of people who use "alternative facts", and often for similar reasons to past dictators; it is always easier to control those within if they are afraid of those beyond.

[IrishGirl]

I'm sorry if this seems like "Let's Pick on IdleBoast Day," but speaking as someone who has lived her entire life in the U.S. and who has more than average knowledge about the U.S., I couldn't disagree with you more.

I think I expressed myself badly; I did not mean that the segregation enclaves were forced - they grew because the immigrants chose to live close together.  If I recall correctly, the core of such an area would [sometimes] be the passengers of a single ship, but they stayed together because they were not as accepted by the local population [of previous immigrants] as Lady Liberty's plaque would have us believe, and once they were in a recognisable area the lack of integration became self-perpetuating.

We do have immigrant areas in the UK, but they tend not to last - the Jewish quarters, Chinatowns etc still have an above-average representation of the eponymous minority, but the edges blur, the population is "diluted" by "locals" moving back in, gentrification, or new waves of immigrants from other parts of the world, until many of them are little more than areas marked on maps in tourist guide books.  As I said elsewhere, the UK & Europe have been "dealing" with immigrants [often arriving as armies of occupation] for centuries, far longer than the US has even had a name.

The "problem" is, quite frankly, blown massively out of proportion by the kind of people who use "alternative facts", and often for similar reasons to past dictators; it is always easier to control those within if they are afraid of those beyond.

Or, more logically, the stayed together because they had the same common first language, the same religion, the same cultural heritage, rather than disperse to places that they can't speak the language in, they don't understand the customs, and the cultural is completely different.

Wouldn't that make sense?  Rather than a vast conspiracy to create cultural enclaves based on hate?

[Athos_131]

Or, more logically, the stayed together because they had the same common first language, the same religion, the same cultural heritage, rather than disperse to places that they can't speak the language in, they don't understand the customs, and the cultural is completely different.

Wouldn't that make sense?  Rather than a vast conspiracy to create cultural enclaves based on hate?

Bullshit.

As a straight white Lutheran I've been openly welcomed into groups of Blacks, Mexicans, Italians, Irish, Polish, Gays, Jewish, Unitarians, Catholics and Baptists.

Maybe the problem is you're just an asshole.

#Resist

[IrishGirl]

Or, more logically, the stayed together because they had the same common first language, the same religion, the same cultural heritage, rather than disperse to places that they can't speak the language in, they don't understand the customs, and the cultural is completely different.

Wouldn't that make sense?  Rather than a vast conspiracy to create cultural enclaves based on hate?

Bullshit.

As a straight white Lutheran I've been openly welcomed into groups of Blacks, Mexicans, Italians, Irish, Polish, Gays, Jewish, Unitarians, Catholics and Baptists.

Maybe the problem is you're just an asshole.

#Resist

So, let me get this straight...you're saying that it's bull shit that people want to live next to people that share a common language, cultural heritage, customs and religions?

You're really going to stick with that?  People don't want to live around people that speak a common tongue, or share a culture?  Seriously?  You're sticking with that?

[Athos_131]

If they are decent people, why should I care what their background is?

#Resist

[MissBarbara]

I'm sorry if this seems like "Let's Pick on IdleBoast Day," but speaking as someone who has lived her entire life in the U.S. and who has more than average knowledge about the U.S., I couldn't disagree with you more.

I think I expressed myself badly; I did not mean that the segregation enclaves were forced - they grew because the immigrants chose to live close together.  If I recall correctly, the core of such an area would [sometimes] be the passengers of a single ship, but they stayed together because they were not as accepted by the local population [of previous immigrants] as Lady Liberty's plaque would have us believe, and once they were in a recognisable area the lack of integration became self-perpetuating.

We do have immigrant areas in the UK, but they tend not to last - the Jewish quarters, Chinatowns etc still have an above-average representation of the eponymous minority, but the edges blur, the population is "diluted" by "locals" moving back in, gentrification, or new waves of immigrants from other parts of the world, until many of them are little more than areas marked on maps in tourist guide books.  As I said elsewhere, the UK & Europe have been "dealing" with immigrants [often arriving as armies of occupation] for centuries, far longer than the US has even had a name.

The "problem" is, quite frankly, blown massively out of proportion by the kind of people who use "alternative facts", and often for similar reasons to past dictators; it is always easier to control those within if they are afraid of those beyond.

I can't speak to the U.K. or anywhere else in Western Europe, chiefly due to a lack of knowledge.

In the U.S., the "immigrant communities" -- beginning with the major waves of immigrants that arrived here between 1850-1900 -- were naturally arising. Immigrants banded together, and lived together, for a number of reasons, most of which were practical reasons (shared language, culture, religion, mutual assistance, etc.).

But it's important to note that those five major 19th century waves of immigrants -- Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese, and Eastern European Jews -- have all moved up and on. In, say, 1890, if you went to a major U.S. city, you'd find an Irish enclave, German enclave, etc. And those are all long gone. In New York City, there's still a large and vibrant -- and growing -- Chinatown, but there are Chinese immigrants and first- and second-generation Chinese-Americans living elsewhere in New York City and, of course, elsewhere in the country.

And, aside from the Chinese, those four major groups of immigrants all had one thing in common: They were all white (or, at least, whitish), and they all "looked like" the Americans who already lived here, even those who had lived here for centuries. On top of that, most of them, religious differences aside (i.e. the Irish, Italians, and a high percentage of the Germans were Catholic, and the Eastern Europeans were mainly Jewish), shared a basic cultural similarity: They were all part of, for lack of a better term, the Greco-Roman tradition, and they were all, essentially, "westerners."

Today we still have waves of immigrants, and we still have naturally arising immigrant and first-generation enclaves. And those enclaves still exist for essentially practical reasons. But today the major groups are no-longer white, and many of them decidedly are not "westerners." On the one hand, there have, of course, been many Hispanics/Latinos moving to the U.S., who are growing in number and power; on the other hand, there have been steady waves of non-Middle Eastern Muslims coming to the U.S. And, while I have been trying desperately not to politicize these observations, I think it's no coincidence that these two groups serve as the two main "target groups" of the current administration.

Still, I find your term "integration" -- at least in a U.S. context -- to be problematic. Integrate into what? Integrate from what? Must they integrate? What must they give up in order to integrate? And, most important, perhaps the most fundamental concept of "what it means to be an American" involves political assimilation coupled, in a non-contradictory way, with cultural retention. One can be a "real American" and still celebrate one's German, or Irish, or Mexican, or Nepalese culture.

On top of all of that, our core freedoms -- especially freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of worship -- lead us to view certain European laws and practices with, at times, something close to horror. For example, the burqa bans and other parallel measures that have been put in place in some Western European countries are antithetical to our fundamental beliefs. I'm not making a value judgement: But I am pointing to a fundamental difference in outlook between the U.S. and Europe that must be understood.

[MissBarbara]

I'm sorry if this seems like "Let's Pick on IdleBoast Day," but speaking as someone who has lived her entire life in the U.S. and who has more than average knowledge about the U.S., I couldn't disagree with you more.

I think I expressed myself badly; I did not mean that the segregation enclaves were forced - they grew because the immigrants chose to live close together.  If I recall correctly, the core of such an area would [sometimes] be the passengers of a single ship, but they stayed together because they were not as accepted by the local population [of previous immigrants] as Lady Liberty's plaque would have us believe, and once they were in a recognisable area the lack of integration became self-perpetuating.

We do have immigrant areas in the UK, but they tend not to last - the Jewish quarters, Chinatowns etc still have an above-average representation of the eponymous minority, but the edges blur, the population is "diluted" by "locals" moving back in, gentrification, or new waves of immigrants from other parts of the world, until many of them are little more than areas marked on maps in tourist guide books.  As I said elsewhere, the UK & Europe have been "dealing" with immigrants [often arriving as armies of occupation] for centuries, far longer than the US has even had a name.

The "problem" is, quite frankly, blown massively out of proportion by the kind of people who use "alternative facts", and often for similar reasons to past dictators; it is always easier to control those within if they are afraid of those beyond.

Or, more logically, the stayed together because they had the same common first language, the same religion, the same cultural heritage, rather than disperse to places that they can't speak the language in, they don't understand the customs, and the cultural is completely different.

Wouldn't that make sense?  Rather than a vast conspiracy to create cultural enclaves based on hate?

To IdleBoast's point, the immigrant communities don't tend to last in the U.S. either, and with some exceptions, the phenomenon you describe as happening in Europe has happened, and continues to happen, in the U.S. as well, and at an even more accelerated pace.

Yet IrishGirl presents a somewhat anachronistic view of immigration and cultural assimilation in the U.S. What was true in the 19th century is no longer true today, and even the immigrant groups that form naturally arising immigrant communities -- which initially arise, as she puts it, due to a "common first language, the same religion, the same cultural heritage" -- do, in fact, disperse to other places. In fact, they disperse to just about every other place.

On top of that, she seems to view the existence of national or cultural enclaves on an exclusive basis. For example, she writes, "The Germans and Poles and Ukrainians, they came to Chicago and New York, so it's Chicago and New York where those cultures still thrive." Yes, there are significant examples of German, Polish, and Ukrainian culture existing in cities like Chicago and New York, but there are people of German, Polish, and Ukrainian decent living in every corner of the country. Yes, there are strong and vibrant Chinatowns in many major U.S. cities, but there are people of Chinese decent living in all 50 states.

More to the point, and this is another example of an anachronistic outlook, in Chicago there are people of Polish and Ukrainian decent who immigrated here in the mid- to late-19th century; and there are also people of Polish and Ukrainian decent who moved there last week, or last month, or last year. On top of that, there are many people of Mexican decent living in Chicago. Many of them have been in the U.S. for generations; in fact, I knew several Mexican-Americans growing up whose ancestors came to the U.S. long before mine did. But there are also people of Mexican decent living in Chicago -- and in many other places throughout the country -- who came here last week, and last month, and last year.