If your example has to be so apocryphal and extreme that it's probably completely fabricated, what does that say about your ability to back up your point?
Why does everyone hate the colored paper ancedote so much?
... Because it's
pulled out of thin air? I could make up unsubstantiated anecdotes to prove my points, too, but I won't, because it's intellectually dishonest and completely useless.
I wonder if this isn't cause vs corrolation. There is a culture that likes to remain distinct, there is a reason people in ghettos are poor.
The reason people in ghettos are poor is
because they're in the goddamn ghetto, generally with very poor access to education, decent jobs, any means of prestige (good clothing, means of conspicuous consumption, an accent that sounds "proper"), and none of the privilege that comes with a less-poor upbringing. If you're going to tell us that people actually avoid upward mobility because they like living in poverty with their friends, I'd love for you to actually take a poll and see if that's the case, because I can tell you right now that it isn't.
I've never heard a decent argument as to why diversity is some desired thing that needs to be actively persued. I accept it as a natural occurance, rather then something that needs to be forced or advocated.
I just did. Sorry. I already mentioned division of labor and evolutionary biology as examples. In a social group, it pays for people to have different strengths and weaknesses, because one person's strength
compensates for the other's weakness. That's why it's advantageous to have some people who are better at others at certain things, because we don't all
do the same things. It's helpful and appropriate to have different ways of looking at problems, different ways of viewing the world, and different strengths and weaknesses over all, because that just adds to the toolset, so to speak (to continue that analogy, do you want every single tool in your toolbox to be the same size and shape, too?). This is true on a person-to-person basis and a culture-by-culture basis.
Immigrants should come to a country because they want to belong there. Not come there to bring their own ideologies and culture and live seperate from the natives. That's basically what colonialism was all about. Some of the most prosperous nations on earth are overwhelmingly homogenous. Japan, South Korea, the Scandinavian countries, ect. I can think of some more "diverse" nations not nearly so prosperous.
Do you know one significant reason why Japan is so prosperous right now? Because they
actively sought out how other nations/cultures did things and incorporated those ideas and methods into their own. When even
Japan, a very historically isolationist nation, can accept the value of the influence of another culture, it becomes fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Also: Colonialism is about
displacement. The British Colonies that became the US did not live and work in Native American society by Native American rules, they
displaced the Native Americans, and quite forcibly!
Thats from intergration and tolerance, not multiculturalism, which is what I mean.
If there isn't any multicultural element, there is no need for tolerance. You're the one being intolerant of other cultures living in the US, here. And yes, I hate to say this, but those groups, to one extent or another,
still have their own culture and in spades.
Seriously, the
reason a group is at all able to integrate themselves into American culture is because people finally became
accepting of their culture to begin with. How the hell do you expect a culture to integrate itself into ours if we shun them and alienate them by trying to make them feel
bad for even having their own culture to begin with?
I don't believe every culture in the world is compatible with one another, nor do I believe every ideology or philisophy is worth equal consideration. Some ideas are crap.
There's a huge difference between "every culture in the world is compatible with one another" and "cultures can possibly learn something from one another". There's also a huge difference between "all ideas are worth equal consideration" and "we should explore the ideas of others in order to at least be able to fairly
judge how worthy of consideration they are".