國外網(wǎng)友：多元文化主義對(duì)我們的社會(huì)有好處嗎？

Murphy Barrett
Not the way people mean it today.
Division breeds conflict. Us vs Them.
Homogeneity in society is better, safer, for the long term stability of a given culture.
Now that doesn’t mean everyone need be perfect grey-clad clones terrified of outsiders. That way lies calcification and death.
Homeostasis is better. But this requires two key elements. A host culture willing to accept newcomers, and newcomers who desire to become part of the host culture, not stand apart.
A hundred fifty years ago Irish, German, and Italian immigrants in the US used to fight. Today nobody really cares about those differences. And yet we still get the benefit of their integration into our society. Irish whiskey, German beer, Italian food, etc. But all Americanized. All part of one people.
This is the entire point behind the “melting pot”. From many, one.
New ideas and new ways come in with new immigrants, the best ideas and ways are kept and integrated into the whole, and all are strengthened as one people.
Now this used to be what multiculturalism meant in the US. But today those who advocate for it prefer that each new group that comes in stands apart. No integration. No acclimation. Just a bunch of little groups crammed shoulder-to-shoulder, rubbing against each other, causing friction.
Advocates of the “salad bowl” model of multi-culturalism seem to think it’s a terrible thing that immigrants “l(fā)ose their identity” to the greater whole, but how else is it to be done? And their history is not drowned out or erase. It becomes woven into the fabric of the culture.
Consider. Jews don’t even quite make up 2% of the American population, yet everyone eats bagels and many people pepper their speech with verbal structures originating in Yiddish. Part of Jewish culture has become American culture.
Or look at anime. Originally Japanese cartoons that became so popular that now there are American anime houses.
This is what works best, leads to the strongest People. Take the best of what newcomers bring and integrated it into the whole, just as the newcomers themselves integrate, and all are strengthened by it.

與今天人們提起這個(gè)詞時(shí)的含義不同。
分裂滋生沖突。我們VS他們。
社會(huì)中具有同質(zhì)性是更好的，更安全的，對(duì)一個(gè)特定文化的長期穩(wěn)定來說。
這并不意味著每個(gè)人都需要成為完美的灰衣克隆人，害怕外來者。那樣會(huì)導(dǎo)致鈣化和死亡。
兩者均衡是更好的。但這需要兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵因素。一個(gè)愿意接受新來者的東道主文化，以及渴望成為東道主文化一部分而不是傾向于獨(dú)立存在的新來者。
150年前，美國的愛爾蘭、德國和意大利移民曾經(jīng)大打出手。今天，沒有人真正關(guān)心這些差異。然而，我們?nèi)匀粡乃麄內(nèi)谌胛覀兊纳鐣?huì)中得到了好處。愛爾蘭威士忌，德國啤酒，意大利食品，等等。但都是美國化的。都是一個(gè)民族的一部分。
這就是"大熔爐"背后的全部意義。從許多人，到一個(gè)人。
新的想法和新的方式隨著新的移民進(jìn)來，最好的想法和方式被保留下來并融入整體，所有人都作為一個(gè)民族得到加強(qiáng)。
這曾經(jīng)是多元文化主義在美國的含義。但今天，那些主張多元文化的人更希望每個(gè)新進(jìn)來的群體都能獨(dú)立存在。不去融合。不去適應(yīng)。只是個(gè)個(gè)小群體肩并肩地?cái)D在一起，相互摩擦，造成沖突。
多元文化主義的"沙拉碗"模式的倡導(dǎo)者似乎認(rèn)為，移民在更大的整體中"失去他們的身份"是一件可怕的事情，但除了這樣還能怎么做呢？他們的歷史并沒有被淹沒或抹去。它成為了文化結(jié)構(gòu)中的一部分。
考慮一下。猶太人甚至不占美國人口的2%，但每個(gè)人都吃百吉餅，許多人在講話中加入了源自意第緒語的語言結(jié)構(gòu)。猶太文化的一部分已經(jīng)成為美國文化。
或者看看動(dòng)畫片。原本是日本的動(dòng)畫片，變得如此受歡迎，以至于現(xiàn)在有了美國的動(dòng)漫公司。
這就是產(chǎn)生最強(qiáng)大的人民最有效的方法。把新來者帶來的最好的東西整合到整體中，并且新來者自己也整合進(jìn)來，所有人都會(huì)因此而得到加強(qiáng)。

Scott Steward
I agree, Murphy. The entire issue is encapsulated in “United we stand, Divided we fall”. As Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
Those who want a Balkanized, tribalized America constantly fighting among itself and sequestered into oppositional and belligerent ethnic microcosms are the same people who denounce the Constitution and embrace a ruinously false recasting of American history that accentuates divisiveness and false narrratives. These are not the people who make America better, they are the ones who are trying to tear it down.

我同意，墨菲。整個(gè)問題可以被概括為"團(tuán)結(jié)就是力量，分裂就是失敗"。正如林肯所說，"一個(gè)自相殘殺的房子是站不住腳的"。
那些想要一個(gè)巴爾干化、部落化的美國，不斷地相互爭斗，并被封閉在對(duì)立和好戰(zhàn)的民族微觀世界中的人，就是那些譴責(zé)憲法并接受對(duì)美國歷史進(jìn)行毀譽(yù)參半的錯(cuò)誤重塑，強(qiáng)調(diào)分裂和錯(cuò)誤敘述的人。這些人不是讓美國變得更好的人，他們是那些試圖拆毀美國的人。

Adam LeClair
For a relatively left wing person, I struggle with the direction the “l(fā)eft” has taken in recent decades, as I feel like it left me behind in a lot of ways. But the one thing I don’t think it does is “re-cast” American history. America is founded on some aspirational ideals, but you would be lying about your own history if you tried to claim that the people who wrote “we, the people” were operating under the same definition of “person” as you or and I do today. When my dad was born in the early 50s, there were still black people alive in America who had literally been owned as a white person’s property. There are people as young as 65 walking around right now who could have personally met living, breathing freed slaves. There are STILL people driving around with confederate flags on their bumpers.
You can’t pretend that didn’t happen. And you can’t pretend that it wasn’t literally illegal for a black person to marry a white person in 31 states until 1967. And you can’t pretend that the state-backed postwar American dream wasn’t denied to black people on the specific basis of race. I’m not talking some manufactured “woke” idea of micro-aggression here, this was literally national policy. While we can look at civil rights wins in the last few decades as signs of progress, America has always been “Balkanized” in to racial microcosms. From day one. That’s just fact. The consequences of which are still all around us, like how race is still a predictor of home ownership and incarceration rates. Pointing that out and finding it worthy of change isn’t trying to tear America down. It’s trying to force America to live up to its own ideals.

對(duì)于一個(gè)相對(duì)左翼的人來說，我對(duì)近幾十年來"左派"的發(fā)展方向感到掙扎，因?yàn)槲矣X得它在很多方面都把我甩在了后面。但有一點(diǎn)我不認(rèn)為它是在"重鑄"美國歷史。美國是建立在一些令人向往的理想之上的，但如果你試圖聲稱那些當(dāng)初寫下"我們，人民"的人是在與你或我在今天對(duì)"人"的定義是相同的情況下運(yùn)作的，那你就是在對(duì)自己的歷史撒謊。當(dāng)我父親在50年代初出生時(shí)，美國仍有活著的曾經(jīng)實(shí)際上被當(dāng)作白人的財(cái)產(chǎn)擁有的黑人?，F(xiàn)在65歲的還能到處走動(dòng)的人，他們?cè)H自見到活生生的、被解放的奴隸。現(xiàn)在仍然有人開車在保險(xiǎn)杠上掛著邦聯(lián)旗幟。
你不能假裝這一切沒有發(fā)生。你也不能假裝在1967年之前，在31個(gè)州，黑人與白人結(jié)婚實(shí)際上并不違法。你也不能假裝，戰(zhàn)后國家支持的美國夢沒有因?yàn)榉N族的特殊原因而拒絕黑人。我在這里說的不是什么"清醒派"的略帶侵犯的想法，這在當(dāng)時(shí)就是國家白字黑字的政策。雖然我們可以把過去幾十年的民權(quán)勝利看作是進(jìn)步的標(biāo)志，但美國一直是"巴爾干化"的種族微觀世界。從第一天開始。這就是事實(shí)。其后果仍然顯現(xiàn)在我們周圍，比如種族仍然是房屋所有權(quán)和監(jiān)禁率的可預(yù)測因素。指出這一點(diǎn)并發(fā)現(xiàn)它值得改變，并不是試圖拆毀美國。它是試圖迫使美國實(shí)現(xiàn)自己的理想。

William Walls
See, THIS RIGHT HERE encapsulates the difference between “l(fā)iberal” and “progressive” better than anything I’ve seen in a long time. I imagine you would classify yourself as a liberal. I’m a conservative, and you and I can look at the same set of facts, have our own individual responses to those facts, and then have a conversation (or even a debate) about what policies would be most suitable for our country, state, or county. We won’t always agree. In fact, we often won’t. But there’s no need for acrimony between us or any cause for either of us to lose our minds during such a conversation.
But progressivism is a different animal. It’s like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It presents itself as liberalism, but the goal of progressivism is not to promote the liberal agenda. One can tell that this is the case because, time and again, when progressives have a victory for liberal ideology in their grasp, they deliberately fumble it away. Why? Because they have to keep the ideological “war” going. They have to keep us not only divided, but literally at each other’s throats. Because victory isn’t what they want. What they want is revolution. They’ve even been explicitly saying so since the late ‘60s, and I think it’s time we start taking them at their word.
I feel badly for you, Adam. You’ve been lied to, manipulated, and used by people you trusted. I wouldn’t dream of trying to mold you into a conservative. The fact is, our republic needs liberals like you to keep conservatives like me from getting so caught up in the big picture that we forget about “the little guy,” because it’s so easy for us to do. There’s a lot about the ’50s that conservatives like. The spirit of patriotism, the idealized “American Way” that we’re so fond of. But conservatives like me can also agree that there’s a lot about the ’50s that we would prefer to leave behind. Namely, the prejudicial attitude and outright racism that still persisted then. Both my parents came of age in the ‘50s. Both were prejudiced against blacks and, without thinking much about it, passed on their views to me when I was a child. As the world changed around my family, I was the first of us to see how wrong those attitudes were and I worked hard to overcome them. My mother came to deeply regret her prejudice and did the same. My father never did. He wasn’t some ‘a(chǎn)ngry racist.’ He was just a guy who grew up in a world where white people lived here, black people lived over there, and whites and blacks could work together, be helpful to each other, have a few drinks and share a few laughs together, but at the end of the day had their separate worlds to go home to.
I’m heartened to see that my father’s way of thinking is dead and dying. My generation is primarily the ‘painful transition’ generation. My worldview on race changed dramatically from how I was initially raised to what it became by my teenage years, but to this day (and I’m now 55) I still have to deliberately override that initial reflexive prejudice that it pains me to admit I still possess. Not because I want it but because I don’t know how to finally be rid of it. It’s like a curse; a curse I hope and pray that the generation after me no longer suffers from.
I go out of my way to deliberately ensure that my interactions with black people, a good number of whom I feel honored to count among my friends, are as above board as I can make them. I hope it’s enough to hide my curse. I’d feel deeply ashamed if anything from those old reflexive attitudes ever crept into those cherished relationships—and may that persistent curse die at last with me when I go to meet my Maker.
Forgive me for spending so much time on that, but I felt the need to express it. Reforming such attitudes is difficult, but necessary. My main point is that what unites us as Americans is far more significant and precious than what divides us. I vividly remember the Bicentennial celebrations in 1976. I remember how it felt to be an American, how everyone I knew felt that same sense of national pride. I was only ten years old, but I knew that there were Republicans and Democrats. I considered myself a Republican only because Nixon was the first President I could remember (apparently that’s not uncommon), but there was no significant strife between the parties then, just good-natured ribbing between friendly adversaries for the most part.
It would still be that way if it weren’t for the Progressive movement.

你看，這個(gè)回復(fù)就概括了"自由派"和"進(jìn)步派"的區(qū)別，比我很久以來看到的任何東西都要好。我想你會(huì)把自己歸為自由派。我是一個(gè)保守派，你和我可以看看同一組事實(shí)，對(duì)這些事實(shí)有我們自己各自的反應(yīng)，然后就什么政策最適合我們的國家、州或縣進(jìn)行對(duì)話（甚至辯論）。我們不一定會(huì)相互同意。事實(shí)上，我們經(jīng)常不會(huì)。但我們之間不需要爭吵，也不需要在這樣的對(duì)話中讓我們中的任何一方失去理智。
但進(jìn)步主義是一種不同的動(dòng)物。它就像一匹披著羊皮的狼。它以自由主義自居，但進(jìn)步主義的目標(biāo)不是為了促進(jìn)自由主義的議程。人們可以看出這一點(diǎn)，因?yàn)?，?dāng)進(jìn)步人士一次又一次地掌握了自由主義意識(shí)形態(tài)的勝利時(shí)，他們又故意把它弄丟。為什么呢？因?yàn)樗麄儽仨氉屢庾R(shí)形態(tài)的"戰(zhàn)爭"繼續(xù)下去。他們不僅要讓我們保持分裂，而且要讓我們真正處于抵住彼此的咽喉的地步。因?yàn)閯倮⒉皇撬麄兿胍摹Ｋ麄円氖歉锩?。他們甚至?0年代末就開始明確地這么說了，我認(rèn)為現(xiàn)在是我們開始相信他們的話的時(shí)候了。
我為你感到難過，亞當(dāng)。你被欺騙，被操縱，被你信任的人利用。我不會(huì)夢想著把你塑造成一個(gè)保守派。事實(shí)上，我們的共和國需要像你這樣的自由主義者，以防止像我這樣的保守派被大局所困，以至于忘記國家里的"小人物"，因?yàn)檫@對(duì)我們來說太容易了。50年代有很多東西是保守派所喜歡的：愛國主義精神，我們非常喜歡的理想化的"美國的方式"。但像我這樣的保守派也會(huì)同意的是，50年代有很多東西我們更愿意拋開。即當(dāng)時(shí)仍然存在的偏見態(tài)度和赤裸裸的種族主義。我的父母都是在50年代成年的。他們都對(duì)黑人有偏見，并且在我還是個(gè)孩子的時(shí)候，沒有多想就把他們的觀點(diǎn)傳給了我。隨著我的家庭周圍世界的變化，我是我們中第一個(gè)看到這些態(tài)度是多么錯(cuò)誤的人，我努力克服它們。我的母親對(duì)她的偏見深感遺憾，也做了同樣的事情。我的父親從未這樣做過。他不是什么"憤怒的種族主義者"。他只是一個(gè)在“白人生活在這里，黑人生活在那里”的世界里長大的人，白人和黑人可以一起工作，互相幫助，一起喝幾杯，分享一些笑話，但最后還是要回到各自的世界里去。
我很高興地看到，我父親的那種思維方式已經(jīng)死了，正在消亡。我這一代主要是"痛苦的過渡"的一代。我對(duì)種族的世界觀從最初的養(yǎng)育方式到我十幾歲時(shí)的情況發(fā)生了巨大的變化，但直到今天（我現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)55歲了），我仍然要刻意克服最初的反射性偏見，我很痛苦地承認(rèn)我仍然擁有這種偏見。不是因?yàn)槲蚁胍?，而是因?yàn)槲也恢廊绾尾拍茏罱K擺脫它。這就像一個(gè)詛咒；我希望并祈禱在我之后的一代不再受到這個(gè)詛咒的影響。
我不遺余力地刻意確保我與黑人的交往，其中有不少人我很榮幸能算作是我的朋友，我盡可能地使這些交往光明正大。我希望這足以掩蓋我的詛咒。如果那些舊的反射性態(tài)度中的任何東西爬進(jìn)這些珍惜的關(guān)系中，我會(huì)感到深深的羞愧--當(dāng)我去見我的造物主時(shí)，愿這個(gè)持續(xù)的詛咒最終與我一起死去。
請(qǐng)?jiān)徫艺f了上面這么多，但我覺得有必要把它表達(dá)出來。改革這種態(tài)度是困難的，但卻是必要的。我的主要觀點(diǎn)是，使我們美國人團(tuán)結(jié)起來的東西比使我們分裂的東西要重要和珍貴得多。我清楚地記得1976年的二百周年慶?；顒?dòng)。我記得作為一個(gè)美國人的感覺，我認(rèn)識(shí)的每個(gè)人都有那種民族自豪感。我當(dāng)時(shí)只有十歲，但我知道有共和黨人和民主黨人。我認(rèn)為自己是共和黨人，只是因?yàn)槟峥怂墒俏矣洃浿械牡谝晃豢偨y(tǒng)（顯然這并不罕見），但當(dāng)時(shí)黨派之間沒有明顯的紛爭，大多數(shù)情況下只是友好的對(duì)手之間善意的嘲弄。
如果不是因?yàn)檫M(jìn)步運(yùn)動(dòng)，現(xiàn)在仍然會(huì)是這樣。

Arch Geof
I think most immigrants want to assimilate to some extent. They shouldn't feel forced to. But I hope immigrants feel welcome to share their own bit of culture and have the desire to want to assimilate. To at least some reasonable extent. I think we should all try to meet each other halfway.

我認(rèn)為大多數(shù)移民都希望在某種程度上被同化。他們不應(yīng)該感到被迫。我希望移民們能感到被歡迎，分享他們自己的一點(diǎn)文化，并有想要同化的愿望。至少要達(dá)到某種合理的程度。我認(rèn)為我們都應(yīng)該努力滿足對(duì)方的要求。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Michael Nagy
I don’t think most Mexicans want to assimilate. I lived in Mexico for 10 years and there is a lot about their culture most of us don’t know. For instance, the Mexican government is all for illegal immigration to the US. Why? Because transfer payments from Mexicans living in the US is their 2nd biggest source of income. The government doesn’t have to provide hospital care, schools, roads, or bridges for this money, it just pours in. Also, most people have no idea how firmly entrenched speaking spanish in the home is to a Mexican. They are the only people I know of who, after three generations in the US still speak their native tongue. Lastly, Reconquista. That is the idea that the US stole the land from Mexico along the southwest and THEY WANT IT BACK. They can’t get it by war so the only way is to re-populate those states and win over the voting to a more Mexican way of doing things. The only problem I see for them is that recently a lot of Hispanics are turning away from the Democratic Party to vote Republican. I don’t know how that will change their views or if it will.

我不認(rèn)為大多數(shù)墨西哥人想被同化。我在墨西哥生活了10年，他們的文化有很多是我們大多數(shù)人不知道的。例如，墨西哥政府完全支持非法移民到美國。為什么？因?yàn)榫幼≡诿绹哪鞲缛说霓D(zhuǎn)移支付是他們的第二大收入來源。政府不需要為這些錢提供醫(yī)院護(hù)理、學(xué)校、道路或橋梁等服務(wù)，這些錢就這樣涌入。此外，大多數(shù)人不知道在家里講西班牙語對(duì)墨西哥人來說是多么的根深蒂固。他們是我所知道的唯一在美國生活了三代之后仍然說自己母語的人。最后，Reconquista（收復(fù)運(yùn)動(dòng)）。這是一種想法，即美國沿著西南地區(qū)從墨西哥偷走了土地，而他們想要回來。他們無法通過戰(zhàn)爭獲得這些土地，所以唯一的辦法是在這些州重新安置人口，并贏得投票，讓他們采用更多的墨西哥人的做事方式。我認(rèn)為他們唯一的問題是，最近很多西班牙裔人正從民主黨轉(zhuǎn)向投票給共和黨。我不知道這將如何改變他們的觀點(diǎn)，或者是否會(huì)改變。

Garrett
The weird thing is in political science this is actually not that controversial opinion. Most groups agree that integration is key. The problem is they don’t agree on how far integration should go.
Division breeds conflict, but what is it, really? What identity should be left in distinct peoples?
Ultimately I think the best way is for both immigrants and the host nation to force adaptation, allow individuality, but still have a fundamental ideology, even one they can be somewhat cynical about.
There has to be SOMETHING keeping us glued together. It’s not religion. It’s not race. Its not a common enemy. So it must inevitably be our values, to some level, or else we’re doomed to stand divided.

奇怪的是，在政治學(xué)中，這其實(shí)并不是什么有爭議的意見。大多數(shù)團(tuán)體都同意，融合是關(guān)鍵。問題是他們對(duì)融合應(yīng)該走多遠(yuǎn)意見不一。
分裂滋生沖突，但究竟是什么？應(yīng)該在不同的民族中留下什么樣的身份？
歸根結(jié)底，我認(rèn)為最好的辦法是移民和東道國都強(qiáng)制適應(yīng)，允許個(gè)性，但仍然有一個(gè)基本的意識(shí)形態(tài)，即使是他們可能有點(diǎn)憤世嫉俗的意識(shí)形態(tài)。
一定要有什么東西把我們粘在一起。這不是宗教。不是種族。它不是一個(gè)共同的敵人。因此，在某種程度上，它不可避免地是我們的價(jià)值觀，否則我們就注定要分裂。

Dirk Patze
What values do you share with the 500 richest americans?

你和美國500位最富有的人能有什么共同的價(jià)值觀？

Jacob O'Handley
Firm belief in capitalism, since it's one of the reasons we're the global hegemon.

堅(jiān)定地相信資本主義，因?yàn)樗俏覀兂蔀槿虬灾鞯脑蛑弧?/b>