The melting pot will be fed, you will never end America

Cypress said:
Do you think it's realistically possible for an older person in their 60s or 70s to become totally fluent in a second language? The brain is not as plastic at that age. My Pop became totally fluent in English, although he always had a trace accent, but he came here when he was 17.
Click to expand...

It would depend on the person, of course, but some probably could become fluent albeit with an accent. My bestie from nursing school still has a strong UKrainian accent, but her son has none. Both of them speak fluent Ukrainian, Russian, German, and English. They becamecitizens some years ago; they've been here for 25 years. He was 13 when they moved here. He's an AF major and pilots one of those mid-air refueling tanker planes. (Scary!) I called her the minute I heard about that fatal tanker crash in Iraq when this war first began. Thankfully it wasn't him.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It would depend on the person, of course, but some probably could become fluent albeit with an accent. My bestie from nursing school still has a strong UKrainian accent, but her son has none. Both of them speak fluent Ukrainian, Russian, German, and English. They becamecitizens some years ago; they've been here for 25 years. He was 13 when they moved here. He's an AF major and pilots one of those mid-air refueling tanker planes. (Scary!) I called her the minute I heard about that fatal tanker crash in Iraq when this war first began. Thankfully it wasn't him.
Click to expand...
Good point.

It might depend on how immersed you become in an English-speaking country, for example Ukrainian or German woman marrying into the family of an American man.

My Pop, aunt, and grandmother's friends were all other Russian immigrants, and they continued to use Russian as their first language among themselves. My grandmother lived in Montreal for 15 years, and I don't think she ever progressed beyond pigeon French.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Do you grasp that "melting pot" means "assimilation?" It doesn't mean invasion and occupation as the left does with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...
if "melting pot" means assimilation do you agree that since America's inception that it has been a melting pot?

Waves of Russians, Italians, Irish, Roma, Germans, French, English, Norwegian, Swedes, amongst many others all "melted" into one another despite deep hate of almost each and every new wave as they arrived.

Uncensored2008 said:
...
You detest our culture and our values.
Click to expand...

America's "culture" ...IS... the "melting pot" and what comes from it and always has been.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If I were to move to, say, Norway, I would expect that I would learn t he language, follow local laws and customs unless I felt they were abhorrent (like no haggis, thank you very much lol), and try to eat at least some of the local cuisine. I would still speak English at home though, and if possible fix dishes we were familiar with, and share them with friends if they wantedd. I'd keep my own tastes in music too. (Americana and Brit classic rock, classical music, folk music). Would that be assimilation?
Click to expand...
I'll add as well in stating the obvious, outside of agreeing to following our laws no one signs anything that says you must assimilate and here's what it looks like. So for those who are critical of assimilation because of the racial history of our country, its certainly within their right to do so.

But as I believe you stated, and many would agree, it's harder to achieve "success" and the American Dream without a certain level of assimilation.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
That's how almost everyone who comes here eventually does. I love hearing people speaking in their own languages when out in public. We had a world foods market where we used to live that was like a visit to a mini U.N. Most of the shoppeprs dressed "American," but the older ladies from India still wore their beautiful saris and the Muslim women their hijabs.
Click to expand...
Growing up in NYC it was normal to hear 100's of different languages spoken on the street


An estimated 700 to 800+ languages700 to 800+ languages are spoken throughout New York City, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world. These languages, representing over 10% of the global total, span from major international languages like Spanish and Mandarin to rare, indigenous tongues.
  • The Hub of Diversity: According to the Endangered Language Alliance (ELA), the borough of Queens is considered the most linguistically diverse urban area on Earth.
  • Key Linguistic Data: Approximately 30% (5.8 million) of New Yorkers speak a language other than English at home, with around 2.5 million having limited English proficiency.
  • Diverse Sources: Languages spoken include massive communities of Mandarin, Spanish, Bengali, Russian, and smaller populations speaking languages such as Garifuna and Urdu.
  • Scope: While 700+ languages are identified, studies suggest the number could be closer to 800 or more, spanning the five boroughs.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Growing up in NYC it was normal to hear 100's of different languages spoken on the street


An estimated 700 to 800+ languages700 to 800+ languages are spoken throughout New York City, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world. These languages, representing over 10% of the global total, span from major international languages like Spanish and Mandarin to rare, indigenous tongues.
  • The Hub of Diversity: According to the Endangered Language Alliance (ELA), the borough of Queens is considered the most linguistically diverse urban area on Earth.
  • Key Linguistic Data: Approximately 30% (5.8 million) of New Yorkers speak a language other than English at home, with around 2.5 million having limited English proficiency.
  • Diverse Sources: Languages spoken include massive communities of Mandarin, Spanish, Bengali, Russian, and smaller populations speaking languages such as Garifuna and Urdu.
  • Scope: While 700+ languages are identified, studies suggest the number could be closer to 800 or more, spanning the five boroughs.
Click to expand...

גדלת בדמשק ודיברו רק ערבית
 
QP! said:
if "melting pot" means assimilation do you agree that since America's inception that it has been a melting pot?
Click to expand...

For the first 75 years of the Constitutional Republic - 98% of all immigrants were English, Dutch, and German.

QP! said:
Waves of Russians, Italians, Irish, Roma, Germans, French, English, Norwegian, Swedes, amongst many others all "melted" into one another despite deep hate of almost each and every new wave as they arrived.
Click to expand...

The Irish were European Christian, as were the rest. Russians never did make a significant portion of immigrants - perhaps you meant Poles?

Both Irish and Italians faced resistance as they were Catholic. Really none of the others did.

QP! said:
America's "culture" ...IS... the "melting pot" and what comes from it and always has been.
Click to expand...

Yet the Marxist left opposes the assimilation of immigrants. Rather than argue that Somalis should adopt the ways of their adopted nation, including honest labor rather than fraud, the Marxists demand that we "accept" the backwards and incompatible culture they supposedly fled.

My grandparents spoke only German when they came here, my parents spoke only English. German was never spoken in my grandparents home. We were Americans and Americans speak English.

Russians, Italians, Irish, Roma, Germans, French, English, Norwegian, Swedes all held the same views of assimilating into this nation. But now the Marxists reject that and seek third world immigrants who refuse to adopt the ways of Americans.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
You and your family are lowly goyim
Click to expand...

Here you are again putting on "Jew Face" to slander and defame real Jews with your shuck and jive routine.

Do you directly consult the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" to make your posts? Virtually everything you post is an Antisemitic stereotype straight out of that filth.

But you've always been a fraud trying to slander Jews, Ahmed.

Always.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
For the first 75 years of the Constitutional Republic - 98% of all immigrants were English, Dutch, and German.



The Irish were European Christian, as were the rest. Russians never did make a significant portion of immigrants - perhaps you meant Poles?

Both Irish and Italians faced resistance as they were Catholic. Really none of the others did.



Yet the Marxist left opposes the assimilation of immigrants. Rather than argue that Somalis should adopt the ways of their adopted nation, including honest labor rather than fraud, the Marxists demand that we "accept" the backwards and incompatible culture they supposedly fled.

My grandparents spoke only German when they came here, my parents spoke only English. German was never spoken in my grandparents home. We were Americans and Americans speak English.

Russians, Italians, Irish, Roma, Germans, French, English, Norwegian, Swedes all held the same views of assimilating into this nation. But now the Marxists reject that and seek third world immigrants who refuse to adopt the ways of Americans.
Click to expand...
Your attempt to re-write the core part of my post, which is ALMOST ALL IF NOT ALL prior waves of immigrants faced hostility and discrimination and a belief they would not integrate was accurate. It was often the prior waves, having assimilated and now beyond their direct discrimination who were amongst the most hostile to the next wave of newcomers.


-----------------------


AI analysis for accuracy and truth :

That statement mixes a small kernel of truth with several oversimplifications and a few clear inaccuracies. Here’s how it breaks down historically:



1) “For the first 75 years… 98% were English, Dutch, and German”​


This is not accurate.


  • Early U.S. immigration (roughly 1776–1850) was indeed dominated by Northern and Western Europeans, especially from the British Isles and German states.
  • But:
    • The Irish were already a major immigrant group well before 1850, and surged massively during the Great Irish Famine.
    • There were also Scots, French, Swedes, Africans (enslaved and free), and others.
  • There is no credible historical dataset supporting a precise “98%” figure for just English, Dutch, and German immigrants.

👉 More accurate summary:
Early immigration was heavily Northern European, but not nearly as narrow or uniform as claimed.



2) “The Irish were European Christian, as were the rest”​


This is technically true but misleading.


  • Yes, most early immigrants were Christian.
  • However, this ignores a key historical reality: religious divisions mattered a lot.
    • Irish immigrants were overwhelmingly Catholic, which made them targets in a largely Protestant society.
    • Later immigrants (Italians, Poles, Jews) faced similar or worse discrimination despite being “European.”

👉 So while they were all “Christian,” they were not treated as culturally or socially equivalent.



3) “Russians never made a significant portion… perhaps Poles?”​


This is partially correct but incomplete.


  • Immigration from the Russian Empire (which included modern Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc.) did become significant in the late 1800s–early 1900s.
  • Many immigrants recorded as “Russian” were actually:
    • Poles
    • Jews fleeing pogroms
    • Baltic and Slavic groups

👉 So:


  • It’s true that ethnic Russians were not a dominant immigrant group.
  • But “Russians” in immigration records often represented a much broader mix of peoples, many of whom were significant.


4) “Both Irish and Italians faced resistance… really none of the others did”​


This is clearly false.


There was widespread hostility toward many immigrant groups:


  • Irish: Faced severe discrimination, especially in the 1840s–1850s
    • Anti-Catholic riots like the Philadelphia Nativist Riots
    • “No Irish Need Apply” job discrimination
  • Germans:
    • Faced backlash during World War I (anti-German sentiment, language suppression)
  • Chinese immigrants:
    • Extreme discrimination leading to the Chinese Exclusion Act — the first major law banning a specific ethnic group
  • Italians:
    • Faced racialization, violence, and lynchings (e.g., New Orleans 1891)
  • Jews from Eastern Europe:
    • Faced strong nativist and antisemitic sentiment
  • Eastern Europeans (Poles, Slavs, etc.):
    • Often labeled as “inferior” or “unassimilable” by nativists

👉 In fact, hostility toward immigrants was so widespread it fueled political movements like the Know Nothing Party.



Bottom line​


  • Correct elements:
    • Early immigration was mostly European.
    • Irish and Italians did face discrimination, especially as Catholics.
    • Ethnic Russians were not a dominant immigrant group.
  • Incorrect or misleading elements:
    • The “98% English/Dutch/German” claim is not supported.
    • It downplays the diversity of early immigrants.
    • It falsely claims most other groups did not face resistance.


Bigger picture​


The U.S. was often described as a “melting pot,” but that didn’t mean smooth integration. Historically, almost every major immigrant group faced suspicion, discrimination, or outright hostility when they first arrived—even groups that are now seen as part of the “mainstream.”
 
Uncensored2008 said:
For the first 75 years of the Constitutional Republic - 98% of all immigrants were English, Dutch, and German.



The Irish were European Christian, as were the rest. Russians never did make a significant portion of immigrants - perhaps you meant Poles?

Both Irish and Italians faced resistance as they were Catholic. Really none of the others did.



Yet the Marxist left opposes the assimilation of immigrants. Rather than argue that Somalis should adopt the ways of their adopted nation, including honest labor rather than fraud, the Marxists demand that we "accept" the backwards and incompatible culture they supposedly fled.

My grandparents spoke only German when they came here, my parents spoke only English. German was never spoken in my grandparents home. We were Americans and Americans speak English.

Russians, Italians, Irish, Roma, Germans, French, English, Norwegian, Swedes all held the same views of assimilating into this nation. But now the Marxists reject that and seek third world immigrants who refuse to adopt the ways of Americans.
Click to expand...

✅​

False.

Early U.S. immigration (1790–1860) was overwhelmingly:

  • English
  • Irish
  • German
  • Scottish
  • Welsh
  • African (enslaved)
But the “98%” claim is invented.Here’s what the U.S. Census and historical demographers actually show:

1790 U.S. population ancestry (approx.):​

  • 60% British Isles
  • 15% German
  • 20% African (enslaved)
  • 5% Dutch, French, Scandinavian, other
Africans alone were 20% of the population — already disproving the “98% European immigrant” claim.


✅​

False.

Irish and Italians were considered:

  • racially inferior
  • non‑white
  • unfit for democracy
  • “Papists” loyal to the Pope
  • prone to crime
  • culturally incompatible
Newspapers, politicians, and academics of the time described them using the same rhetoric now applied to newer immigrant groups.

Assimilation was not smooth.It took generations, and they were violently discriminated against.


✅​

False.

Between 1880 and 1920, the U.S. received over 3 million immigrants from the Russian Empire, mostly Jews, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

They were one of the largest immigrant groups of the era.


✅​

This part is correct — and well‑supported by historians.

The U.S. has always been defined by:

  • cultural mixing
  • linguistic diversity
  • religious pluralism
  • regional differences
  • waves of immigration
Assimilation has always been messy, slow, and contested, but it has always happened.


❌​

No evidence. This is a political opinion, not a historical or factual claim.

Mainstream U.S. policy — under both parties — supports:

  • English language acquisition
  • civic integration
  • employment
  • education
  • naturalization
There is no major political movement arguing that immigrants should not assimilate.


❌​

This is a racial stereotype about a protected group (national origin + ethnicity).It is not factual, and it is not acceptable.

Somali Americans:

  • work in trucking, logistics, healthcare, manufacturing
  • have some of the highest refugee entrepreneurship rates in the U.S.
  • have high naturalization rates
  • have strong community institutions
Fraud exists in every community, but it is not a cultural trait.


❌​

False.

Data from Pew Research, Brookings, and the Migration Policy Institute show:

Immigrants today assimilate at the same rate or faster than past waves:​

  • English proficiency rises sharply by the second generation
  • Intermarriage rates are high
  • Educational attainment increases
  • Homeownership increases
  • Political participation increases
Assimilation is not declining.


❌​

German immigrants historically:

  • maintained German‑language schools
  • published hundreds of German newspapers
  • held German‑language church services
  • formed German‑speaking towns across the Midwest
German was so widespread that WWI anti‑German hysteria forced assimilation through:

  • banning German in schools
  • shutting down German newspapers
  • renaming foods and towns
Assimilation was not voluntary — it was coerced.


🧭​

Uncensorced’s narrative is historically inaccurate:

  • Early America was not 98% English/Dutch/German.
  • Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans were not “easy assimilators.”
  • Russians did immigrate in huge numbers.
  • Modern immigrants assimilate at similar or faster rates than past groups.
  • Claims about Somalis or “third world immigrants” refusing assimilation are stereotypes, not facts.
  • America has always been a messy, chaotic melting pot — and that is the culture.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Here you are again putting on "Jew Face" to slander and defame real Jews with your shuck and jive routine.

Do you directly consult the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" to make your posts? Virtually everything you post is an Antisemitic stereotype straight out of that filth.

But you've always been a fraud trying to slander Jews, Ahmed.

Always.
Click to expand...
Antisemitism doesn’t get excused because you think you’ve identified who’s behind it. The comment was hateful. Everything else you added was noise.
 
cawacko said:
There are people who will argue that saying America is melting pot is an attempt to make people leave their culture behind and assimilate into a white supremacist dominated racist country. How do you respond to them?
Click to expand...
cawacko said:
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm sharing the position of some, that people shouldn't assimilate because America is essentially a racist and white supremacist dominated country.

I asked Desh her opinion of that viewpoint. I didn't say people shouldn't assimilate. I believe that's the beauty of America, someone can come here from anywhere on the globe and become an American.
Click to expand...
it was a great question.

you nailed their idiotic take.
 
countryboy said:
Sure we do.

We? Do you have a gerbil up your ass again? You are describing Democrat Party history.
Click to expand...

What evince is saying​

Evince is making a historical critique of the “Make America Great Again” slogan by arguing that:

  • If someone claims America was “great” in the past, they should specify which era.
  • Many eras in U.S. history involved white‑only political power and legalized racial oppression, including slavery and Jim Crow.
  • Therefore, evince is implying that the nostalgia embedded in MAGA rhetoric points back to eras that were not great for many Americans.
This is a common political argument, not a statement about any group’s worth.


What Countryboy is saying​

Countryboy responds with two moves:

1. Personal insult (the gerbil line)​

That’s just a crude ad hominem — not an argument, not factual, not worth analyzing.

2. Claiming the history evince described is “Democrat Party history”​

This is referencing a real historical fact but in an oversimplified way.

Here’s the accurate version:

  • Before the 1960s, the Democratic Party included many Southern segregationists who supported slavery, Jim Crow, and white supremacy.
  • After the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965), the parties realigned:
    • Many segregationist Democrats moved toward the Republican Party.
    • Black voters shifted overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party.
    • The GOP adopted the Southern Strategy, appealing to white Southern voters resistant to civil rights reforms.
So yes — pre‑1960s Democrats included racist factions.But post‑1960s party coalitions are very different.

Countryboy’s framing ignores the realignment and uses history selectively.


Neutral, factual summary​

  • Evince is arguing MAGA nostalgia points to eras of racial oppression.
  • Countryboy responds with an insult and a historically incomplete claim about party history.
  • The full historical picture is more complex: both parties have changed dramatically over time.
 
QP! said:
Your attempt to re-write the core part of my post, which is ALMOST ALL IF NOT ALL prior waves of immigrants faced hostility and discrimination and a belief they would not integrate was accurate. It was often the prior waves, having assimilated and now beyond their direct discrimination who were amongst the most hostile to the next wave of newcomers.
Click to expand...
Illegal immigration is a crime, Kewpie.
QP! said:
...deleted AI slop...
Click to expand...
Substituting AI for your brain is never a good idea, Kewpie. AI is not God. AI is not a Holy Oracle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top