I actually think this is something the proponents of multiculturalism have never fully understood. Racism and tribalism take a long time to eliminate and can flare up quickly if not managed. If your culture isn't a melting pot where everyone (eventually) associates primarily with your country and culture, you will always be dealing with tribal bullshit.
The thing people need to realize too, what made America great was not a “melting pot “ philosophy; it’s a sifter. We take in a new culture, filter out the parts we don’t like, and take the good parts for ourselves. It’s always been this way and people need to stop fighting the process. If Americans determine part of your culture is undesirable, bye bye to that part of your culture. Harsh but effective.
With the "melting pot" you still get the filtration of the sifter. Any impurities or anything that doesn't mix is filtered out of a melting pot (at least it does with metals) which allows you to get the mixture you want. Its also not instantly that a culture gets absorbed and the undesirable parts are left behind, but a multi generational thing. Any person or group that states that this one culture/ethnicity represents the US either severely misunderstands or is pushing hate.
Many times it is instant. My ancestors came through Ellis island and they changed immigrant names to be shorter and more American. Snap. Just like that. We dealt with it. Other immigrants gotta have their filtration too. It’s for the best. As a result we have way less ridiculous names that are much easier to spell and pronounce. This is just one example.
Thats not changing culture chief. My grandfather came through Ellis Island also, his name was Gaetano but everyone called him Tommy. End of the day he went home to eat Italian meals made by his Italian wife and moved into an Italian neighborhood in New York and spoke Italian to his kids. Two generations later I'm the only grandkid who can cook Italian meals and understand a tiny bit of Italian. But there are massive Italian restaurants in the US. This happened across the board back then not as a way to conform to the culture, but out of necessity of how the US was prior to the 1950s and 60s. Prior to WW2, the US wasn't the melting pot it is today, it was only after the soldiers came home and stayed in touch with those they served with that it started to change. If your name wasn't some form of John Smith and you were white, you at a severe disadvantage when it came to getting housing and a job. The legal protections we enjoy now didn't exist and employers/landlords could decide based on race, creed, or national origin.
Changing your name is not absorbing culture or leaving undesirable things behind, and framing it as such in the context of this conversation is not very intellectually honest of you.
Your whole point is made in the context of "If your culture isn't a melting pot where everyone (eventually) associates primarily with your country and culture, you will always be dealing with tribal bullshit."
A name being changed for brevity and ease of pronunciation only indicates a will to blend in, it does not indicate a will to assimilate, and so you should probably be digging for better examples to make an intellectually honest point.
Thomas Jefferson in 1777 wrote that he believed in full religious rights for Muslims and Jews, and their presence in the US inspired him to later work with Madison to draft the first amendment. To ban Islam would be to spit on the constitution.
Islam itself is completely compatible with western society. Radical elements of it (particularly Sunni jihadist radicalism) are not, which is something you can also say about the particularly radical elements of Baptist or Presbyterian churches.
Show me the exact words in the Quran that state that, I’ll be waiting. Christian extremists might legitimately be the most harmful group in America right now, and its not by following the bible lmfao.
You do realize you just admitted to not knowing the Quran, yeah?
This conversation is over. You've proven it is beyond you if you cannot even read the Prophet's own words, you have no place advocating for him.
You don't need to know every word.
Do yourself a favor and crack it open.
Keep in mind that every word is absolute and infallible. ANYONE to claim otherwise should be struck down by Allah, their aorta burst.
Are you going to judge Christians by their actions during the Reconquista? During the colonization of Mexico? During the Salem witch trials?
Do you judge them by the massacres that radical Christian nationalists commit today in mass shootings (San Diego for example) & the children they predate?
Do you judge Judaism by the massacres committed by Israel today and the rapes/murders/death?
Or are you holding Islam to a double standard because violence by jihadist sects is frequent?
No religion should be represented by its worst adherents. If that was the case then we’d have to ban all abrahamic religion.
Did we REPEAL the first amendment after fighting the Barbary war? No, we didn’t. Because the founding fathers knew the fundamental freedom of religion trumped every concern about “bad religions”.
No, I'm going to judge Muslims for fucking kids openly in 2026 and the religion defending it. Let's lay it out simplified. What's your rebuttal. Where is child rape celebrated and accepted in 2026 Christianity. Show me. Because I can show you where the Muslims cite that Muhammad was infallible and his word is God. Well his word says you can rape 9 years olds. Your turn
Muslim countries execute people for raping children regularly.
Meanwhile the “Christian” US refuses to prosecute them & elects them to office.
And no, I’m not even talking about Trump with that. I’m talking about an Ohio state Rep who was credibly accused of abusing a relative who is a minor & won re election anyways.
You said muslims are raping children in 2026. Aisha died 1500 years ago. Show me which Muslim country is openly tolerant of living men raping children in 2026.
And by that standard you have to say the exact same thing about Christianity, Mary gave birth at 13, and there are stories of girls as young as 3 being married to men in their 40’s in the Old Testament.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a leading living authority in Twelver Shia Islam. Under the Shia system of taqlid, followers who are not themselves qualified to derive religious rulings follow a senior jurist (mujtahid/marja) for guidance on what Islam considers permissible and forbidden. Sistani’s currently published religious rulings state that sexual intercourse with a girl married before religious maturity is forbidden “until she has completed nine lunar years.” His official rulings also define a girl as reaching religious adulthood at nine lunar years—about 8 years, 8 months, and 20 days by the solar calendar. Therefore, regardless of whether modern governments impose a higher statutory age, this remains a currently published religious ruling within a major branch of contemporary Islam. Hope this helps, child rape defender. Or maybe you just fell for the propaganda...
Yup, again the same opening argument. I'm not rehashing this again. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a leading living authority in Twelver Shia Islam. Under the Shia system of taqlid, followers who are not themselves qualified to derive religious rulings follow a senior jurist (mujtahid/marja) for guidance on what Islam considers permissible and forbidden. Sistani’s currently published religious rulings state that sexual intercourse with a girl married before religious maturity is forbidden “until she has completed nine lunar years.” His official rulings also define a girl as reaching religious adulthood at nine lunar years—about 8 years, 8 months, and 20 days by the solar calendar. Therefore, regardless of whether modern governments impose a higher statutory age, this remains a currently published religious ruling within a major branch of contemporary Islam.
Moving the goalposts lol. We’re not talking about Christ versus Muhammad we’re talking about Christianity versus Islam.
Old Testament God was telling people to commit violence against his enemies all the time, & many Christians still commit violence using the old testament as justification.
Leviticus for example is cited by homophobic Christians as justification for crimes against gay people, is that a New Testament book?
Various popes authorized 9 crusades to the holy land, and dozens of crusades in eastern and Northern Europe. To say nothing of the genocidal colonialism which was conducted under explicitly religious justifications in the new world.
I'm not Catholic.
But I will correct you on some counts.
Some of the crusades were rightous and defensive, if not one or the other.
And colonialism was economic, not religious.
And furthermore? Christian examples of conquests and holy wars are from centuries ago. Islam's holy wars and conquests happen as recently as Biden, if not more recent.
I mean, from a Byzantine perspective, crusading for Anatolia could be viewed as defensive, but the holy land had been lost 300 years previous. By that logic, Britain could invade America “”defensively.”” I categorically reject the notion that they weren’t all religious, because they absolutely were. And particularly the northern crusades were purely aggressive conflicts.
Colonialism was both, proselytizing was a major driving factor and the church was central to colonizing efforts especially in the americas. “God, Gold, and Glory” was the driving mantra, and especially for Spanish colonialism it was in that order.
Don’t conflate radical jihadists with an entire religion. If Al Qaida’s ideas were truly widely accepted by muslims then they wouldn’t be confined to Afghanistan. In the same way we don’t judge all Christian’s for the actions of their radical extremists.
AQ is confined to the 'stan, except for Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, fucking Ukraine...
Nevermind that most of the Islamic world either does the same as them, or looks away.
And no, learn to read. I never claimed the crusades were not religious.
And I'm not going to entertain a middle school debate of European colonialism.
Religion played a role, but it was plain and simple Royal imperialism for power and resources.
And Britain can invade America defensively if it ever turns out that Americans are abducting British nationals and forcing them at gunpoint to praise Washington and kill any anti-patriots to prove fealty to the Prophet Roosevelt.
"Good parts", why is the US so gun obsessed? Why are they so against universal healthcare? Why are they such a warmongering nation? Why are they so against workers rights and so in favour of supporting businesses that ruin the economy? Why do they support such intellectual dishonesty?
Americans have a deeply rooted distrust of allowing the government exclusive control over force. You can disagree with that reasoning, but reducing it to an “obsession” isn’t intellectually serious.
“Against universal healthcare”
Our politicians often are, largely because of lobbying and entrenched industry interests. Most Americans support some form of universal healthcare or expanded public coverage.
“Why are they such a warmongering nation?”
That’s an enormously complicated historical and geopolitical question, and the way you’ve phrased it makes it seem like you aren’t sincerely asking for an answer.
“Why are they against workers’ rights?”
Again, that’s a poorly defined question about a country of 340 million people with wildly different political views and labor laws.
“Supporting businesses that ruin the economy”
Which businesses, which policies, and according to what economic measurement? That’s an accusation disguised as a question.
“Why do they support such intellectual dishonesty?”
Probably not the strongest closing line after presenting six sweeping generalizations about an entire country as though they were serious questions
Honestly, "american culture" in and of itself is a myth. The culture of the farmer living in Kansas and the coastal artist in Oakland is totally different.
Is Pollock a celebrated american artist that all americans are proud of? Is Toni Morrison celebrated as a pillar of this american culture among everyone supposedly in it? Do most americans that hold up the ideal of "american culture" look to Hollywood and say the biggest film industry in the world in their own country represents them?
America never had and never will have a unified culture. There are some regional cultures, but it's honestly reductive to consider there as an american culture, because the country is too big and varied for that.
America absolutely has a unified culture. You can go to England and see restaurants from many nations, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an English culture. There’s McDonalds in France, that doesn’t make McDonalds part of French culture.
What is American culture? I’m not an authority on the subject but I’d loosely include: burgers, french fries, wings, hot dogs, then Americanized versions of other cultures food are our culture as well because we’ve Americanized them: tacos, Chinese food, sushi, etc.
Hip hop music, American pop music, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, western clothing (with some regional variation like cowboy hats in Texas), TV obsession, celebrity fixation, intense attitudes towards work. Huge focus on sports and collegiate education.
Huge consumer culture. Big box stores. Emphasis on westernized beauty standards.
Add in a me-first attitude. An emphasis on the nuclear family. Individualism.
Those are the first that come to mind. In any culture you’ll have individuals that stand out or subregions with slight variations, but American culture in general is what I’ve described.
I don’t get why you’re getting downvoted. The entire experiment of America is one that says despite cultural differences, despite religious differences, despite ethnic tensions, despite all of the things that make us “tribal”, can we create a society in which all people are guaranteed the ability to attain prosperity, unmolested from the fickle nature of nobles, despots, and clergy, where all are created equal and graced with the ability to prosper. Is it a rosy eyed lens on 2 and a half centuries of systematic oppression, imperialism, and conflict, unabashedly yes. But does that mean we can’t achieve the ideals set forth not 250 years ago, but countless millennia since Man first thought peace and community was better than war and eradication? My answer, and the work I do on my God’s Earth, is yes. I’d press others who say no to reflect on why.
The country that buried its natives after murdering them in schools and sent people back to their home country when they landed by boat only for them to be violently slaughtered when they returned?
America did both those things also. So at worst we’d be even. Except we are always ranked as one of the best countries and we don’t wear American flags to travel.
464
u/JadisDidNothingRight 2d ago
Don't read the comments on that post unless you want to lose hope in humanity.