,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
While the debate on immigrant assimilation is a complex one, I find this National Review headline puzzling
If you assimilate fully, then how can your contribution to the national culture be "distinctive"?
To be distinctive, you shouldn't melt.
If you assimilate fully, then how can your contribution to the national culture be "distinctive"?
To be distinctive, you shouldn't melt.
Ofcourse there is a lot to be said for assimilation. It makes the national culture more cohesive. It makes day to day life easier
But it will also mean a more homogeneous America where immigrants merge with mainstream, rather than provide alternatives to the mainstream nostrums
But it will also mean a more homogeneous America where immigrants merge with mainstream, rather than provide alternatives to the mainstream nostrums
Assimilation reduces the downside risks of immigration, but it also limits the upside risk.
While non-assimilation and some kind of a caste system (sans any hierarchy) where groups refuse to melt implies both greater downside risk and greater upside risk
While non-assimilation and some kind of a caste system (sans any hierarchy) where groups refuse to melt implies both greater downside risk and greater upside risk
