powerful.  thank you for tackling this issue in your post. 

I agree with most of what you said but I diverge from you here.

"and let's face reality.  racism is alive and well.  we're quite okay with other races as long as they worship in their own places.  but racism reveals its ugly head when we begin to intermingle and our own culture begins to be infringed upon.  we're okay as long as the minority will simply assimilate.  but assimilation should not be the goal."

I think most people today would agree that all men are created equal, and that they should be judged not on their skin color but on the content of their character.  Why then should one's skin color pre-determine one's culture?  This very notion strikes me as racist... that a person of a certain color should be expected to act a certain way, and therefore what he or she can become is determined by culture.  Being born of a certain skin color should not put you within a box of expected behaviors, especially since children will very often conform to the expectations set for them. 

An experiment was done with random teachers in the U.S.  They were each told that their class for the year was made up of "the best and brightest" students from their respective schools.  They went in expecting excellence, and the students performed well above average.  At the end of the year, the truth was revealed... the classes were completely average in every way, and no special selection method was used other than picking teachers at random.  Their teachers had modified their expectations and therefore their behaviors toward them, and it made all the difference.

Assimilation is the only way for a people to unite.  E pluribus unum - from many, one.  As long as we feel the need to balkanize the nation, to clearly define what it means to be a part of a different "group" of americans, we will be moving further away from the goal of unification.  There need be only an American culture.  Not to mention, the government has an easier time controlling a divided populace than a united one.

"we're quite okay with other races as long as they worship in their own places"

Worship where you want, but I do not condone this sort of "their own places" mentality.  Any organization that openly supports a single race above others has a racist ideology.  Period.  Exceptions cannot be made for the minority or the majority. 

@freethinker777 - "What you fail to realize is that the predominant culture in America is white culture... with our ties, monotone voices, and formal interactions."

There you go again, lumping everyone of the same skin color together.  What you refer to as "white culture" is the result of the melting pot mentality which was once generally understood in this country.  White culture today arose from an amalgamation of several European nations, each with their distinct cultures, languages, and traditions.  I'm sure you also realize that before these European cultures all assimilated, they too kept to themselves, formed mistrusts about the "others" (Irish hating Italians, English hating French, etc etc), and the populace as a whole was generally not as "united".  You can accurately label "white culture" as "European" but you can only do so here, because of assimilation.  I challenge you to go to France and try to lump them in with the British or vice versa as having the same culture. 

Concerning your description above... wearing a tie and having formal interactions is now "white"?  That's weird, because that's how business professionals of asian, latin, and black descent all act.  In fact, that's how business and other professionals all around the world act.  I guess that makes them all white...  though I could have sworn a lot of them didn't look white.  Oh wait, I guess they were just "acting white" and ignoring their rightful culture to follow, based on skin color.  My point is, there are certain ways of acting that several other cultures have adopted (i.e. formal business interactions) because they recognize the inherent value in doing so.  They're not trying to be "white" or betray their race, it's just the idea of "what works, works".  Who's to say "whites" even came up with these ideas?  The point is, they work to keep the flow of business going, so they're generally accepted.

This is the essential part of the melting pot that you completely ignore or misunderstand.  Cultures don't disappear, they intermingle.  Those parts of the assimilated cultures that are effective or generally desirable come to the top.  Assimilation means you join and contribute to something larger, not that the larger thing consumes you and completely changes you (although most people seemingly learned the word assimilate from Star Trek, which is the main reason I think people don't like the word).  Assimilation occurs as you begin to recognize the value of other cultures, and partake of those parts of them that you find to have merit.  Likewise you can't ram your culture down someone's throat and expect them to like it.  The same process must work in reverse, you show the merits of aspects of your own culture and people can choose to partake.  In this way, no individual is limited to the strengths and weaknesses of his own culture, but can select from many.

"That's why Hitler's rise to power wasn't put in check.  That's what we see in most dictatorships.  People in line under the banner of "unity."  but that's besides the point... anyway."

And he gained such power over the people by doing what exactly?  Drawing a dividing line between cultures.  Creating animosity and ignorant hate of the Jews.  I think we both agree this is far more possible with your vision than mine, at least within our own borders.

I'd ask that you look into the controversy regarding the idea that "white couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt black children".  Tell me which side is saying this shouldn't happen.  There are far more on your side saying it is "cultural genocide".  I personally don't have a problem with any form of interracial anything.

@freethinker777 - "As a white person, I'm sure you're a fan of assimilation.  I feel you have the right idea with the picking and choosing, but you still don't understand the other side's perspective.  you don't hear "assimilation" from the native americans, blacks, asians, or latinos.  I'll gladly differ to them on this topic."

Why must you continually generalize based on skin color alone (1st sentence)!  You say white person like it's an insult (even though you are white too).

Nowhere have I ever said assimilation is all sunshine and lollipops.  The native americans didn't play a huge part in the development of American culture, because they were relegated to obscurity by a wave of colonization.  Those that resisted were killed, the rest came to accept the culture of the colonists (the assimilate or die question). 

Assimilation is a replacement for conflict.  It is the integration of cultures.  Let people intermingle until they become like one another.  It is a sad fact of nature that animals tend to mistrust animals not of their own race, and this instinct was for a long time applied to other human beings from a different geographical location (it still exists today but is mostly suppressed).  There is no doubt in my mind that every single person born must struggle with the savage side of him that seeks only to associate with people who look the same.  It is a relic of evolution, and as I'm sure you'd agree that evolution isn't always a fun game for everyone to play.  It is cold and unforgiving, and we retain some of this instinct when confronted with those of different genetic makeup.  But I think the human invention of civilization will eventually eradicate all racism... as eventually we won't consider there to be more than one "race".  We're all humans after all. 

"yes, french, canadian, british, german... they're different due to national uniqueness.  that doesn't always translate directly into culture although it oftentimes plays a role."

Cultures develop when there is some isolation of a population of people from all others (don't you see a little irony there?)  The population is isolated, and there is a varying degree of genetic isolation (which is why people begin to look different).  Cultures begin to form based on what challenges each group faces and their outlook on the world as it specifically applies to the location.  Back before we drew lines on maps, geographical isolation was what formed separate cultures.  Once we started drawing in artificial borders, we began to claim cultural "turf" that wasn't limited to geography.  The point is, you can't separate culture from a nation.  Nations are defined by their people... and culture is the word we use to describe how certain groups of people behave.  When a nation begins to lose its sense of culture, that is when it will fall, as it will be divided against itself.  Multiculturalism is born of the arrogance that we can have our cake and eat it too... that we can be separate from one another and still not feel alienated from one another.  I'm sorry, but no matter how fascistically you crack down on hate speech, you'll never remove that feeling of isolation.

"Unless of course, you're willing to adopt someone else's "better" culture and abandon yours."
Show me a better way of doing something, and I'm game.  Perhaps it is this thinking that defines American culture best?  It makes sense, given our status as a nation of immigrants and a melting pot.

And you continue to refer to abandoning one's culture...
I don't speak English with an Italian accent, and I'm willing to bet my great grandparents were the last to have such an accent.  But we have retained some cultural things.  We're Catholic for example, likely due to the Italian background (although I'm sure you'd rather just call that a "white" religion).  I do not consider myself an Italian-american.  I am not a foreign ambassador from Italy, temporarily living in America.  I am just an American.  I can sense you harbor some shame for America's misdeeds in the past, but I hope that eventually you will see that America has brought a lot more good to the world than bad.

"most people seemingly learned the word assimilate from Star Trek, which is the main reason I think people don't like the word"

Umm no, most people learned the word assimilate from the historical public and governmental demand for the destruction of African and Native American culture. It's a very real part of our history that is easy for those in the majority group to forget.

"there are certain ways of acting that several other cultures have adopted (i.e. formal business interactions) because they recognize the inherent value in doing so.  They're not trying to be "white" or betray their race, it's just the idea of "what works, works".  Who's to say "whites" even came up with these ideas?  The point is, they work to keep the flow of business going, so they're generally accepted."

When speaking in global terms it makes more sense to refer to Western culture rather than white culture, even still, this is just silly. Business had been going on in non-western nations long before the west influenced local standards for formal business interactions. I'm pretty sure it worked just fine, but in todays global economy most cultures have adapted/assimilated to the dominate western way of doing business because yes, having a unified method of doing things is the fastest and easiest way to increase efficiency and profit. This does not mean that the western method was superior, it means that it was dominate (oftentimes by force...colonialism anyone?) 

America has long been in the business of telling its citizens that everything American is better (okay let's be honest, every country is in the business of telling its citizens this) but for years we've had the money and the power to back it up. I'm always surprised by how deeply this propaganda (and yes, it is propaganda) seems to be ingrained in all of us (and scared by how closely many in the church align this view with the superiority of God). We all want to believe our cultural practices are better than the alternatives. I know that the northwestern way of speaking is better than the southern way. Newscasters seem to agree with me. We dominate. Is there something intrinsicaly better about the northern way of speaking other than the fact that more people in the US speak that way? (okay, bad example, of course there is. Everything northwest is better than anything southern )

When different cultural groups intermingle, assimilation is going to naturally occur, this is true, but even in America where different cultures live in relative proximity to each other, it is a slower process than some people are comfortable with (usually occurs throughout the course of several generations) and complete assimilation rarely comes. Most cultural conflict today arises when the dominate culture demands immediate assimilation from a minority culture. This is unnecesary, unnatural, and of course, ethnocentric.

 "Multiculturalism is born of the arrogance that we can have our cake and eat it too... that we can be separate from one another and still not feel alienated from one another"

But we can be, at least inasmuch as we can keep from feeling alienated from people of of similar cultures. You assume that distinct cultures are less than ideal. It has always seemed to me that God takes pleasure in diversity. Cultural distinctives are natural, good and cause to praise our creator. In the early church, scenes of traditionaly enemy cultures and races gathering to worship together and getting along in the midst of their differences caused many to ask what in the world these people had in common that would allow them to love each other like family. Don't you think the fact that the only commonality many of these people had was Jesus did more to cause others to take another look than a common "melting pot" culture would have?

"so you're saying that if you move to China tomorrow, you're going to abandon all traditions from America, childhood, and family and take on all the customs of the locals and their history?  That's absurd."

Why would I move to China and not be fully prepared to adopt their culture, at least as far as how I would interact with people there?  This is where I think you misunderstand me... of course I would keep my own cultural traditions at home, but I wouldn't expect everyone else to like it.  I would at the very least master the Chinese language and learn as much of their culture as I could before moving there.  That is, if I had a desire to become Chinese.  I would not move to China with the impression that I could become my own cultural island... that would alienate me from a sizable chunk of the populace.  You take for granted the luxury we have in America of not being persecuted for going against the cultural majority... we have laws against that, but many places don't.  I realize that you likely said this with the retort in mind, "well, black americans were brought here as slaves against their will".  True enough, but currently there is no forced citizenship.  If today one has no great love of American culture they are free to come and go as they please.  Where we run into trouble is nobody, despite their railings against it, wants to leave America. 

"Animals mistrust those not of their race"?  Are you from 1950 deep South?  You first of all understand that animals don't have "race," right?  But then to go on to act like this is the root of racism is even more insane.  You obviously have never seen children from different races play together.  Or seen kids growing up in mix race homes."

I was trying to modify my speech so as not to offend you tender sensibilities (I failed).  What I meant was animals mistrust other animals of different species.  But then you'd falsely misinterpret that as me calling different kinds of people different species.  How is this explanation of racism's origin insane?  Do you think that whites would have enslaved other whites?  Indeed, the justification of slavery was that those with black skin are not people.  I see a direct proportionality between how different people look and how much they tend to mistrust one another.  I'm not supporting this at all, just trying to demonstrate its likely origin in evolution.  I don't think trying to understand why something happened makes one a racist.  Children of different races playing together does not indicate anything other than how they were raised.  The same children, raised in racist homes, would avoid people who "look different".  It is the very essence of civilization to overcome undesirable and unproductive human instincts, and we are seeing great progress in this area.  But the point is, it is an instinct that must be overcome (in my opinion).

"Where the heck do you get your definition of culture?  How in the world do you link culture and nation?  That's asinine.  Culture is tradition, rituals, language, routine, food, music, ethnicity, religion... it's like you have no idea what culture is.  So perhaps we need to back up and work on this before we keep going.  You can have different cultures within a single family!  So there's tons of cultures within a city!  Really... this is ridiculous."

I'm not saying cultures can't or don't exist side by side.  I was explaining to you how cultures develop.  You have a very Americanized sense of culture, but I'm speaking more broadly.  Geography is/was probably the biggest reason separate cultures sprang up.  People separated by mountains and oceans didn't interact with anyone but themselves, and there was little cultural flow.  Then, as trading and technology inevitably allowed for different cultures to interact, cultures began to see the need to form nations to "protect" their people from warfare and subversion by other, more aggressive cultures.  Indeed, nationhood would likely never have occurred if not for the development of culture.  Why I say you have an "Americanized" sense of culture is that you presume this open and free integration of cultures living "side by side" to be universal, but is a fairly new concept to mankind.  If you still don't believe that cultures can and do roughly follow national borders, I'd suggest you cross either the northern and/or southern border of the U.S.  It is immediately different, and it's not even a gradual transition.  When I crossed into the northern border, even the guy at the guard shack on the border had a different accent and a different style of humor than myself.  When I crossed the southern border the change was even more drastic, as I was immediately offered the option of renting a burro to ride into town.  It was a tiny town called Boquillas (I think) and the culture was wildly different.  Most shop owners wisely spoke at least some degree of English so that they could better sell to tourists.  But the things they were selling were vastly different, culturally speaking, and that gave them their appeal.  International borders have prevented free mixing of cultures, but the seepage is increasing.  I personally love that fact.

"You ask for a better way than assimilation and that's the point of my post.  It's to respect all cultures and their histories instead of assimilating." 

All cultures are formed through assimilation within a region, among a population of people.  A culture forms from the compilation, or assimilation, of the ideas, perspectives, religions, and traditions of a particular region (from among smaller subsets of that region, which eventually assimilate).  The individuals of the area each contribute something to the mix.  As people share their very best ideas, they begin to catch on, or perhaps be built into that area's system of laws.  Assimilation is not a hostile takeover, and it can only occur on the condition of respect of other cultures.  It is also a completely voluntary process, I am merely saying there are more benefits to doing so and people should be made aware of that.

"The goal isn't to lose your culture.  Yet if you choose to abandon your Italian Catholic culture, that's your choice.  You just can't ask that of anyone else to take on your culture or lose theirs.  And you can't ask them to take on this amorphous, ambiguous "American" culture because there is no such thing.  Like I said in the beginning... it's a gumbo of many cultures."

How is the United States unique from any other country or landmass?  Like it or not, American culture exists.  I do agree that we're not yet a complete culture in the traditional sense, due to our relative young age, our vast size, and the sheer quantity of our cultural fragments.  However, with time there will be an increased sense of American culture.  That is, if people like me can convince people like you to admit that the U.S., like all other nations, has the right to have its own culture (although I think it will happen regardless).  It strikes me as comical that this needs to be said, but I suppose there will always be those that desire nothing more than a divided United States.

"You are who I wrote the post for.  You don't understand another person's culture.  So until you understand black culture, or hell... any other culture, you really have no place to speak about assimilation.  So like i said before, go read a book or two about cultures and dive into one other than your own."

It's funny to see this.. I'd wager I've lived in more different places than you have.  I was born in the U.K., and have lived in Mississippi, Texas (3 different times), and California as well.  Each place had different cultural traditions, and I found them all interesting.  Before deciding to teach here in the states, I seriously considered going to Japan or Korea to teach English.  The interesting cultures are the main attraction, but in the end I didn't want to leave friends and family for so long.  I fully intend on traveling the world when I have the means to do so, there's a lot I want to see.

You presume that my pride or love of my own culture makes me xenophobic or mistrustful of other cultures?  Or is it because I'm white?  My support of assimilation should have been a tip-off to you that I have an interest in other cultures.  After all, assimilation can only be voluntary.  You can't force someone to behave a certain way (in America anyway), and many people would rather die than give up their culture.  No one is arguing for that. 

I think we agree on principle course of action.  Cultural exchange is a positive thing.  Delving into and learning about another culture should be encouraged, as you might learn something useful.  I think where we disagree is what the end result will be.  I believe this free exchange of culture will inevitably lead to assimilation, wheras you believe some degree of separation can be enforced.  I think it neither desirable nor practical to attempt any sort of artificial preservation of "cultural islands" within our nation.

@scuttlebutt7 - "Umm no, most people learned the word assimilate from the historical public and governmental demand for the destruction of African and Native American culture. It's a very real part of our history that is easy for those in the majority group to forget."

That would more accurately be described as cultural subjugation, which I concur is a barbaric and antiquated practice.  Don't confuse that with assimilation, which takes multiple cultural parts and synthesizes their best qualities to form a larger and oftentimes superior culture (because it represents the ideas of more people).

"I know that the northwestern way of speaking is better than the southern way. Newscasters seem to agree with me. We dominate. Is there something intrinsicaly better about the northern way of speaking other than the fact that more people in the US speak that way? (okay, bad example, of course there is. Everything northwest is better than anything southern )"

There's some truth to every joke, and it seems to me like southern culture is one of the few that it is deemed "ok to disdain".  Hicks.  Hillbillies.  Rednecks.  Gun-toting psychos.  Racists.  There's an awful lot of hateful generalizations for people with that particular accent.  I know you were joking, but there are plenty who are not when they say these things.  When I hear someone talk with that accent I always give them the same credibility as anyone else, unless the words themselves have no merit.  Then again, I lived in Mississippi for a while, so maybe different accent doesn't alienate me as much because I'm acclimated.

"Most cultural conflict today arises when the dominate culture demands immediate assimilation from a minority culture. This is unnecesary, unnatural, and of course, ethnocentric."

I fail to see anyone demanding this...  and yes that would be wrong if anyone were demanding it.  That it is advantageous to assimilate into existing American culture is no living person's fault, and there is no coercion involved. 

"But we can be, at least inasmuch as we can keep from feeling alienated from people of of similar cultures. You assume that distinct cultures are less than ideal. It has always seemed to me that God takes pleasure in diversity. Cultural distinctives are natural, good and cause to praise our creator. In the early church, scenes of traditionaly enemy cultures and races gathering to worship together and getting along in the midst of their differences caused many to ask what in the world these people had in common that would allow them to love each other like family. Don't you think the fact that the only commonality many of these people had was Jesus did more to cause others to take another look than a common "melting pot" culture would have?"

Cultural distinctness and enforced multiculturalism are potential diversity.  Cultural integration leads to assimilation, which is actual diversity.  When you have a true melting pot, individuals achieve the broadest range of possible experiences because all cultures have been accounted for.  But when you allow some arbitrary factor, such as race, creed, or nation of origin define parameters for how you should act, you are putting yourself in a box with considerably fewer options.