国外网友：多元文化主义对我们的社会有好处吗？

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 “lose 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.

与今天人们提起这个词时的含义不同。
分裂滋生冲突。我们VS他们。
社会中具有同质性是更好的，更安全的，对一个特定文化的长期稳定来说。
这并不意味着每个人都需要成为完美的灰衣克隆人，害怕外来者。那样会导致钙化和死亡。
两者均衡是更好的。但这需要两个关键因素。一个愿意接受新来者的东道主文化，以及渴望成为东道主文化一部分而不是倾向于独立存在的新来者。
150年前，美国的爱尔兰、德国和意大利移民曾经大打出手。今天，没有人真正关心这些差异。然而，我们仍然从他们融入我们的社会中得到了好处。爱尔兰威士忌，德国啤酒，意大利食品，等等。但都是美国化的。都是一个民族的一部分。
这就是"大熔炉"背后的全部意义。从许多人，到一个人。
新的想法和新的方式随着新的移民进来，最好的想法和方式被保留下来并融入整体，所有人都作为一个民族得到加强。
这曾经是多元文化主义在美国的含义。但今天，那些主张多元文化的人更希望每个新进来的群体都能独立存在。不去融合。不去适应。只是个个小群体肩并肩地挤在一起，相互摩擦，造成冲突。
多元文化主义的"沙拉碗"模式的倡导者似乎认为，移民在更大的整体中"失去他们的身份"是一件可怕的事情，但除了这样还能怎么做呢？他们的历史并没有被淹没或抹去。它成为了文化结构中的一部分。
考虑一下。犹太人甚至不占美国人口的2%，但每个人都吃百吉饼，许多人在讲话中加入了源自意第绪语的语言结构。犹太文化的一部分已经成为美国文化。
或者看看动画片。原本是日本的动画片，变得如此受欢迎，以至于现在有了美国的动漫公司。
这就是产生最强大的人民最有效的方法。把新来者带来的最好的东西整合到整体中，并且新来者自己也整合进来，所有人都会因此而得到加强。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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。整个问题可以被概括为"团结就是力量，分裂就是失败"。正如林肯所说，"一个自相残杀的房子是站不住脚的"。
那些想要一个巴尔干化、部落化的美国，不断地相互争斗，并被封闭在对立和好战的民族微观世界中的人，就是那些谴责宪法并接受对美国历史进行毁誉参半的错误重塑，强调分裂和错误叙述的人。这些人不是让美国变得更好的人，他们是那些试图拆毁美国的人。

Adam LeClair
For a relatively left wing person, I struggle with the direction the “left” 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.

对于一个相对左翼的人来说，我对近几十年来"左派"的发展方向感到挣扎，因为我觉得它在很多方面都把我甩在了后面。但有一点我不认为它是在"重铸"美国历史。美国是建立在一些令人向往的理想之上的，但如果你试图声称那些当初写下"我们，人民"的人是在与你或我在今天对"人"的定义是相同的情况下运作的，那你就是在对自己的历史撒谎。当我父亲在50年代初出生时，美国仍有活着的曾经实际上被当作白人的财产拥有的黑人。现在65岁的还能到处走动的人，他们曾亲自见到活生生的、被解放的奴隶。现在仍然有人开车在保险杠上挂着邦联旗帜。
你不能假装这一切没有发生。你也不能假装在1967年之前，在31个州，黑人与白人结婚实际上并不违法。你也不能假装，战后国家支持的美国梦没有因为种族的特殊原因而拒绝黑人。我在这里说的不是什么"清醒派"的略带侵犯的想法，这在当时就是国家白字黑字的政策。虽然我们可以把过去几十年的民权胜利看作是进步的标志，但美国一直是"巴尔干化"的种族微观世界。从第一天开始。这就是事实。其后果仍然显现在我们周围，比如种族仍然是房屋所有权和监禁率的可预测因素。指出这一点并发现它值得改变，并不是试图拆毁美国。它是试图迫使美国实现自己的理想。

William Walls
See, THIS RIGHT HERE encapsulates the difference between “liberal” 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 ‘angry 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，这个回复就概括了"自由派"和"进步派"的区别，比我很久以来看到的任何东西都要好。我想你会把自己归为自由派。我是一个保守派，你和我可以看看同一组事实，对这些事实有我们自己各自的反应，然后就什么政策最适合我们的国家、州或县进行对话（甚至辩论）。我们不一定会相互同意。事实上，我们经常不会。但我们之间不需要争吵，也不需要在这样的对话中让我们中的任何一方失去理智。
但进步主义是一种不同的动物。它就像一匹披着羊皮的狼。它以自由主义自居，但进步主义的目标不是为了促进自由主义的议程。人们可以看出这一点，因为，当进步人士一次又一次地掌握了自由主义意识形态的胜利时，他们又故意把它弄丢。为什么呢？因为他们必须让意识形态的"战争"继续下去。他们不仅要让我们保持分裂，而且要让我们真正处于抵住彼此的咽喉的地步。因为胜利并不是他们想要的。他们要的是革命。他们甚至从60年代末就开始明确地这么说了，我认为现在是我们开始相信他们的话的时候了。
我为你感到难过，亚当。你被欺骗，被操纵，被你信任的人利用。我不会梦想着把你塑造成一个保守派。事实上，我们的共和国需要像你这样的自由主义者，以防止像我这样的保守派被大局所困，以至于忘记国家里的"小人物"，因为这对我们来说太容易了。50年代有很多东西是保守派所喜欢的：爱国主义精神，我们非常喜欢的理想化的"美国的方式"。但像我这样的保守派也会同意的是，50年代有很多东西我们更愿意抛开。即当时仍然存在的偏见态度和赤裸裸的种族主义。我的父母都是在50年代成年的。他们都对黑人有偏见，并且在我还是个孩子的时候，没有多想就把他们的观点传给了我。随着我的家庭周围世界的变化，我是我们中第一个看到这些态度是多么错误的人，我努力克服它们。我的母亲对她的偏见深感遗憾，也做了同样的事情。我的父亲从未这样做过。他不是什么"愤怒的种族主义者"。他只是一个在“白人生活在这里，黑人生活在那里”的世界里长大的人，白人和黑人可以一起工作，互相帮助，一起喝几杯，分享一些笑话，但最后还是要回到各自的世界里去。
我很高兴地看到，我父亲的那种思维方式已经死了，正在消亡。我这一代主要是"痛苦的过渡"的一代。我对种族的世界观从最初的养育方式到我十几岁时的情况发生了巨大的变化，但直到今天（我现在已经55岁了），我仍然要刻意克服最初的反射性偏见，我很痛苦地承认我仍然拥有这种偏见。不是因为我想要它，而是因为我不知道如何才能最终摆脱它。这就像一个诅咒；我希望并祈祷在我之后的一代不再受到这个诅咒的影响。
我不遗余力地刻意确保我与黑人的交往，其中有不少人我很荣幸能算作是我的朋友，我尽可能地使这些交往光明正大。我希望这足以掩盖我的诅咒。如果那些旧的反射性态度中的任何东西爬进这些珍惜的关系中，我会感到深深的羞愧--当我去见我的造物主时，愿这个持续的诅咒最终与我一起死去。
请原谅我说了上面这么多，但我觉得有必要把它表达出来。改革这种态度是困难的，但却是必要的。我的主要观点是，使我们美国人团结起来的东西比使我们分裂的东西要重要和珍贵得多。我清楚地记得1976年的二百周年庆祝活动。我记得作为一个美国人的感觉，我认识的每个人都有那种民族自豪感。我当时只有十岁，但我知道有共和党人和民主党人。我认为自己是共和党人，只是因为尼克松是我记忆中的第一位总统（显然这并不罕见），但当时党派之间没有明显的纷争，大多数情况下只是友好的对手之间善意的嘲弄。
如果不是因为进步运动，现在仍然会是这样。

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.

我认为大多数移民都希望在某种程度上被同化。他们不应该感到被迫。我希望移民们能感到被欢迎，分享他们自己的一点文化，并有想要同化的愿望。至少要达到某种合理的程度。我认为我们都应该努力满足对方的要求。

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.

我不认为大多数墨西哥人想被同化。我在墨西哥生活了10年，他们的文化有很多是我们大多数人不知道的。例如，墨西哥政府完全支持非法移民到美国。为什么？因为居住在美国的墨西哥人的转移支付是他们的第二大收入来源。政府不需要为这些钱提供医院护理、学校、道路或桥梁等服务，这些钱就这样涌入。此外，大多数人不知道在家里讲西班牙语对墨西哥人来说是多么的根深蒂固。他们是我所知道的唯一在美国生活了三代之后仍然说自己母语的人。最后，Reconquista（收复运动）。这是一种想法，即美国沿着西南地区从墨西哥偷走了土地，而他们想要回来。他们无法通过战争获得这些土地，所以唯一的办法是在这些州重新安置人口，并赢得投票，让他们采用更多的墨西哥人的做事方式。我认为他们唯一的问题是，最近很多西班牙裔人正从民主党转向投票给共和党。我不知道这将如何改变他们的观点，或者是否会改变。

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，在政治学中，这其实并不是什么有争议的意见。大多数团体都同意，融合是关键。问题是他们对融合应该走多远意见不一。
分裂滋生冲突，但究竟是什么？应该在不同的民族中留下什么样的身份？
归根结底，我认为最好的办法是移民和东道国都强制适应，允许个性，但仍然有一个基本的意识形态，即使是他们可能有点愤世嫉俗的意识形态。
一定要有什么东西把我们粘在一起。这不是宗教。不是种族。它不是一个共同的敌人。因此，在某种程度上，它不可避免地是我们的价值观，否则我们就注定要分裂。

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

你和美国500位最富有的人能有什么共同的价值观？

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

坚定地相信资本主义，因为它是我们成为全球霸主的原因之一。

Ricardo Ruiz
Actually, the reason the US is hegemonic is a strong state intervention in the economy, to develop markets and a huge military complex, all over the world. If the US was capitalist, it would be a third world country by now, and the billionaires know it very well.

实际上，美国之所以是霸权，是国家对经济的强烈干预，在全世界范围内发展市场和庞大的军事综合体。如果美国是资本主义国家，它现在已经是第三世界国家了，亿万富翁们对此非常清楚。

Dirk Patze
Thats why he says belief in capitalism. Its a religion, not a proper application of market principles. Its like the US as a devout christian country believing in forgiveness and mercy having the most incarcerated people.

这就是为什么他说相信资本主义。它是一种对待宗教，而不是对市场原则的正确态度。这就像美国作为一个虔诚的基督教国家，相信宽恕和仁慈，却有最多的人被监禁。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Jacob O'Handley
No I believe in capitalism cause I've seen it work, just like gravity. It's not the fairy tails and unicorns of socialism, it actually provides results.

不，我相信资本主义，因为我看到了它的作用，就像万有引力。它不是社会主义的童话故事和独角兽，它实际上提供了结果。

Dirk Patze
Yeah, why exactly is there any social security if capitalism works so perfectly? Or how about any government funding for anything? Why is there a public fire department and not a private one?
Your faith is flawed and has been proven wrong even before socialism or communism was even invented as a result of capitalism failing.

是啊，如果资本主义运作得如此完美，为什么还会有这么多社会保障？或者任何政府资助的东西呢？为什么有一个公共消防部门而不是私人消防部门？
你的信仰是有缺陷的，甚至在社会主义或共产主义被发明之前就已经被证明是错误的，因为资本主义失败了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Bryan White
Race is our common glue. Religion was our common glue. It still is for majority. I think you need to accept the continuum of the US from 1776, till now. The majority of people have roots to 1776. Most of it is watered down. However, a great deal of it is presented as shared “values” when actuality “values” are an expression of this glue, not the other way around

种族是我们的共同粘合剂。宗教是我们的共同粘合剂。对大多数人来说，它仍然是。我认为你需要接受美国从1776年到现在的连续性。大多数人的根都在1776年。它的大部分都被冲淡了。然而，大量的东西被表述为共同的"价值观"，而实际上，"价值观"是这种粘合剂的一种表达方式，而不是相反。

Garrett
Hmm, neither of those things hold us together.
Race is an invented concept recently used to justify enslaving black people.
Religion is the reason we fled Europe, and no religion united the founders. Your assertions are entirely baseless.

这两件事都不能把我们粘合在一起。
种族是一个发明的概念，最近被用来为奴役黑人辩护。
宗教是我们逃离欧洲的原因，没有任何宗教能使创始人团结起来。你的断言是完全没有根据的。

Sharon Ann McAuliffe
This puts me in mind of my Grandma. She was Austrian, she came to the US when she was 8. Her family Americanized their names, and she did not get to go to school until she spoke English. This was a huge point of pride to her family. Some have gone back to using the Austrian spelling of the name, but most are still just plain Harris.

这让我想起了我的祖母。她是奥地利人，8岁时来到美国。她的家人把他们的名字美国化了，她要在会说英语后才能去上学。这对她的家庭来说是一个巨大的自豪点。现在有些人已经回到了使用奥地利名字的拼法，但大多数人仍然只是用着普通的“哈里斯”。

Khang Vo
I think it is more with rate of immigration. It used to be 4.7% in 1970 and 2019 and 2020 is 13.7% of the whole population. Melting pot takes time. Integration takes time. People in US need time to get used to new comers and vice versa

我认为这与移民率有很大关系。1970年时是4.7%，而2019年和2020年是整个人口的13.7%。融合需要时间。美国的人们需要时间来适应新来者，反之亦然。

Thiên Quân
I think only the new comers need to get used to the US. There have been immigrants in the US for more than a hundred years, thus the ones already living there have a lot of time to get used to living with people from other cultures.
The problem is that the mentality of “us vs them" will never cease to exist. People of similar backgrounds or ideologies are more likely to stick together. Thus, now we have black vs white, asian vs western, theism vs atheism, conservatives vs liberals,…

我认为只有新来者才需要适应美国。美国的移民已经有一百多年了，因此已经生活在那里的人有很多时间来习惯与来自其他文化的人一起生活。
问题是，"我们VS他们"的心态将永远不会停止存在。背景或意识形态相似的人更有可能粘在一起。因此，现在我们有黑人VS白人，亚洲人VS西方人，有神论VS无神论，保守派VS自由派等等。