Thank you for understanding my point, and explaining it as you've done.

Also, I don't think even our most open and loving leaders of the past were seeking assimilation. Integration and assimilation are not the same thing. The expectation that Black people should assimilate into White culture is an expectation that we will shed whatever cultural and social markers identify us as non-White and do everything in our power to emulate thier behavior. Integration anticipates a mixing of cultures together, not water any one down but to be able to live life side by side, with the ability to maintain your own cultural identity. In the past, integration was treated as the equivilent of assimilation and this is where many of our misguided broters and sisters who go into denial about their own racial identity learn to "act White" as some would say. Really, IMHO, it is an internalization of negative stereotypes that has mainfested as self loathing.

(none of this is to say I am necessarily a fan of integration either...there is a little Garvey-ite up in me...)

You know Soror, you raise an interesting question!!! The playing field was not level during our progenitors age and still is not level today. It is a whole lot better in comparison to segregation. But we still suffer from severe issues in which the ground has not been broken... Really, do we have a "field" to "play" on? Are we even invited to the "game"??? Some of us are. Most of us are not even with Ph.D.'s...

The most interesting question is, was our ancestors about leveling the playing field while fighting for their progeny's rights? Or rather, was it more about stopping the pain felt living in an ugly world???

Many Africana scholars reject the concept of the melting pot on based on a sense that it implies assimilation- all pieces blending together to become a different whole. Conceptually, melting things togethre gets rid of their individual characteristics and makes them something new. Those who are for each person being able to maintain their cultural identity feel that melting pot is not the analagy for the reality they seek.

What is the true muli-culturalism you speak of? That is a phrase I can see many people interpreting differently. I interpret multi-culturalism in a societal sense to mean a place where people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds live together, side by side without inequities based on their culture or ethnicity. When I say side by side, I do not mean literally necessarily. I think thing can be great without requiring integration of every neighborhood. I do not think it is in anyway the same as the melting pot concept, nor would I say any of us could conclude for OUR ancestors that the melting pot is what they felt their struggle was about. Freedom from persecution and a life without persecution but that offers the opportunity to succeed for thier children does not automatically translate into multiculturalism or the melting pot. I also believe that a multi-cultural society as a goal is a long way off for the United States. Our history began on such an uneven field there is no way that only 30+ years could undo the social, psychological, economic and cutlural effects. I mean, my own mother did not gain the reight to vote until she was 24. Her generation truly achiieved in spite of efforts to hold them back rather than becuase of opportunity that was readily available to them. I beleive in many ways this country keeps African-Americans in a position where we are continually forced to achieve in spite of. So in many ways it does not matter whether anyone likes it or not, multi-culturalism is not exactly coming down the pike full speed ahead.

Monet,

I just read what you said. Thanks. I appreciate that.

This is for ANYONE that may know: Is/was there ANY European(white)sociologist, or a sociologist OTHER THAN African/African-American, that promoted cohabitation with all races/ethnic groups? Who were they, and what ethnic group did they belong to?

Soror, I have heard the term 'stew' used to express this concept. If we think about it, a stew has many large chunks of the ingredients; while all ingredients are combined, they retain their identity and add their own unique flavor to the pot. Whereas a 'melting pot' implies assimilation into one w/o retaining any of the original identity.

Historically, the US has been referred to as a melting pot and I beleive that is exactly what was meant. But in this age of 'multiculturalism' a 'stew' would be a more accurate description. WOuld you agree?



------------------
MCCOYRED
Mu Psi '86
BaltCo Alumnae

Dynamic...Salient...Temperate...Since 1913

SOROR-GIRL! You know we must be bonding with all the emailing back anf forth. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif You took the words out of my mouth!

I had come back to add the stew example. The imagry you gave is exactly why many academics in both Africana and multicultural studies adovcate use of the srew rather than melting pot. The time and place where the melting pot was language was first coined reflects that it was meant to denote a lessing of cultural identity. The American expectation has long been that imigrants of all kinds who come here can as long as they learn to be like us.

VictoriaSecret- I appreciate you personal take on the term, my statement is meant to reflect what the up and coming views are from an Africana stand point. (my major- back in the day)

I would not say our ancestors would necessarily put our agenda before others. I would just say I cannot know what was in their minds. I would not base my arguement for what I think is right on what I guess they might have wanted if I don't know multiculturalism like I have defined it was their true vision. ALso, given the State of Black America today, who knows what they would have continued to want. Many of the civil rights eneration would argue we have lost ground in many areas despite our gains in others. What we (and I don;t just mean me and you- I mena all African-Americans) need to focus more on is what WE think here, today, while paying honmage to thier efforts and remembering thier struggle. Feel me? The names you listed alone all had differeing goals in thier own lives and work in the struggle, not to mention differnt approaches. Furhter, I do not believe multi-culturalism that allows for the maintaining of cultural identity would esxist with out some level of seperation. Even with in one racial group, people of like traditions and outlooks tend to stick together socially so that would be reasonably expected to continue. The difference I envison would be that such seperation would not be a matter of fear or prejudice. It would be true freedom of choice in movement and real equal opportunity. (Of course none of this is even touching the economic aspect of the de facto segregation that goes on today, but that would be another thread all together.)

Happy friday!

[This message has been edited by Kimmie1913 (edited May 04, 2001).]