Minor point:Speaking plainly here, whites simply aren't breeding. Our fertility rate is about as low as that found in most of Western Europe, and only barely above that of Japan....
The fertility rate for whites was 1.9 in 1990, and is now around... 1.8. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
African-American fertility rates declined from 2.5 to 2.0. Non-white Hispanics, from 3.0 to 2.4. Asians, 2.0 down to 1.7.
Meawhile, whites and non-white Hispanics have an infant mortality rate around 5.3 per 1,000. For blacks, it's 12.2.
It's not a huge drop, certainly not in the past ~20 years. It's that Hispanics still have more children than whites and with the same infant mortality rates, and of course almost all immigrants are now non-white.
As such, our population, and therefore total stake in and influence over mainstream American culture and society, is declining.
I think we'll be OK when whites have a little less control over culture.
You sure you're not worried about whites having less political power...?
Or South Africa.If that trend continues, we might very well wind up not with a "melting pot," but a culturally, politically, and socially marginalized white minority which has basically had its own nation hijacked out from under it by foreign influences. It's happened before. Just look at what happened to Lebanese Christians over the course of the 20th Century, for example.
Let's reflect on this for a moment. Circa 1900, "whites" actually mean "descended from the English and maybe French settlers," and all those impoverished immigrant Jews, Italians, Germans, Irish, Poles and others were the scum of the American earth. Today, all Europeans are mainstream and classified as "white," dominate white culture, and have substantial political power. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a fair amount of discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping of Irish, Italians, Jews et al.
Has this ethnic shift made the US worse since 1900? What does "white culture" mean anyway?
For better or for worse, the US is becoming an increasingly diverse and culturally fragmented land. Responses to this change have been many from corporations looking to exploit cheap labor to gun toting rednecks patrolling the Texico border. One such response has been the increasing influence of the "multiculturalist" movement.
"Multiculturalism" is one of those words that has come to mean all things to all people. Broadly speaking, it is a movement that claims to embrace cultural diversity by de-centering society's focus on mainstream (read white middle class) culture and re-center it in multipolar and thus "multicultural" paradigm. Far from embracing and nurturing diversity, multiculturalism is actually an assimilationist movement intent on creating a new "inclusive" monoculture to replace the currently fragmented system of independent cultural traditions. The multicultural movement reduces diversity to a mass-marketable fetish for consumption by the masses.
Critics on the Right have typically responded to multiculturalism with a call to abandon it entirely in favor of seperatism (usually with an implied undercurrent of white supremacy that makes their proposals less like ethnic seperatism and more in line with an apartheid state). This is a non-starter for several reasons, not least of which that it would require massive population resettlements for which neither the need nor the resources are present. Seperatism as more than a personal choice is simply not a viable option in 21st century America. Leftist criticism has typically been matched with a call to reform the multicultural movement itself, usually by further de-centering it from bourgeoisie culture. This is certainly a more promising avenue of attack than enforced seperatism, but still likely an inadequate "solution."
Solutions? Now, I don't pretend at this point to have any overarching solutions. The first is to extend greater tolerance to those who seek to opt out of the mainstream through separatism. My second suggestion would be to work for the decommercialization of cultural expression.
It does not mean that whomever comes here will be transformed into some definition of "american" that is enduring and unalterable. Instead, like a real melting pot, what comes out of it will change as what goes into it changes.
Note that it does not say "God is making you American""America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians - into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."'
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
It is not that current immigrants are "refusing to assimilate." Rather, one could make the case that the K-12 system no longer makes a concerted effort to assimilate students into the dominant Anglo-Saxon traditions (as was the case in the early 20th century).
Schools in the early 20th century indoctrinated the children of Eastern European immigrants into the culture of mainstream Anglo-Saxon America. In other words, the children of Poles, Hungarians, Italians, etc. were actively taught in schools with the belief that they need to inculcate Anglo-Saxon norms in order to function in this society.
I am Indian-American (though far prefer the simple word of American), and immigrated to the US as a child. I can honestly say that while I may have beliefs and traditions unique to my heritage, I respect the principles of America as much as any other citizen. Suggesting that immigrants "are not assimilating" is only further polarizing an already divided country.