> I don't know what the answer is for a fundamentally multicultural like the US but obsessing about race and "representation" surely isn't it.
I've been thinking about this a bit lately and it reminds me of the "melting pot" metaphors we learned about in middle school. Rather than having a bunch of disparate, competing identities I think America is only going to work well when we form a single united, composite identity. I'm not sure if this is nationalism or not, but if it is, it's an ethnically-inclusive nationalism which seems markedly better than the scary kinds of nationalism from the 20th century and earlier. It probably does imply some assimilation, but it's not necessarily everyone assimilating to some "white identity"; rather, everyone assimilates toward the composite "American" identity (whatever that is). I'm not sure if this is what "multicultural" refers to or if it refers to the more progressive ideal of segregated ethnic lanes competing with one another, but the last 5-10 years makes me feel like the latter is untenable.
Not sure that 'melting pot' is taught anymore. What I've seen over the past couple of decades is 'cultural stew' where the emphasis is on each ingredient keeping most of its integrity with some exchange of attributes (flavors) over time. It's a nice concept but every cook knows while incredible combinations are possible, not every combination of ingredients makes for a good dish.
Wait is this really true? Since it’s been a long time since I was in school I wasn’t even aware that this subtle but obviously impactful change had taken place. I find it a bit sad because it programs students in a different way. How does one even track this kind of change?
The melting pot is what you're talking about when you say a single united composite entity.
The other part, the segregated ethnic lanes is often referred to as "patchwork quilt". The idea is there is no assimilation only people living side by side in harmony, but we're seeing exactly how those borders between identities are creating mayhem, not harmony.
It's patriotism, as opposed to nationalism. Not everyone subscribes to this distinction, but I think it's important.
Patriotism is liking your country and wanting other people to become part of it if they want to. After all, if your country and culture is the best then people should be allowed to become part of your culture and thereby become better!
Nationalism is liking your country and wanting other people to be kept separate. After all, if your country and culture is the best then anyone else is inferior and shouldn't be allowed to dilute your perfection!
Civic nationalism. Our citizenship tests have largely moved towards stressing instiutions and civic rules instead of cultural or historical touchpoints. The criticism of this is its identity-lite, at least when directly compared to ethnic or cultural nationalism, and can't effectively compete. I too would prefer our shared identity, but I wonder if the civic ideals are compelling enough to people.
I've been thinking about this a bit lately and it reminds me of the "melting pot" metaphors we learned about in middle school. Rather than having a bunch of disparate, competing identities I think America is only going to work well when we form a single united, composite identity. I'm not sure if this is nationalism or not, but if it is, it's an ethnically-inclusive nationalism which seems markedly better than the scary kinds of nationalism from the 20th century and earlier. It probably does imply some assimilation, but it's not necessarily everyone assimilating to some "white identity"; rather, everyone assimilates toward the composite "American" identity (whatever that is). I'm not sure if this is what "multicultural" refers to or if it refers to the more progressive ideal of segregated ethnic lanes competing with one another, but the last 5-10 years makes me feel like the latter is untenable.