The Melting Pot
A dialogue.
You: America is a melting pot.
Me: I agree.
You: So why are you iffy on mass migration?
Me: Because America is a melting pot.
You: Huh?
Me: What happens to things when they melt in a pot?
You: They all mix together!
Me: Not quite.
You: Sure they do.
Me: You’re thinking of a mixing pot. Different thing.
You: Okay then. They melt.
Me: Uh huh. And what happens to things when they melt?
You: They get all mushy.
Me: No. That is incidental. They become….
You: Uh…
Me: They become one thing.
You: Okay, I guess.
Me: No, not ‘I guess.’ This is a very important distinction.
You: Why?
Me: Melting changes the properties of both the whole and its parts.
You: I don’t follow.
Me: The contents of the pot change, and so do the things being melted into it.
You: Makes sense.
Me: So what would happen if you introduced too much of a thing too quickly?
You: It wouldn’t melt well.
Me: What else?
You: You’ve lost me again.
Me: If something couldn’t melt because there was too much of it, what would that do to that thing?
You: Nothing. It would stay the same.
Me: Right. Which is bad in a melting pot. And what would it do to the pot’s contents?
You: Fuck them up, probably.
Me: I think so too.
You: This makes me uncomfortable.
Me: Nobody said cooking was easy.
You: It feels mean.
Me: Think of it this way. If the pot’s contents get fucked up, that’s bad for everyone.
You: Okay.
Me: It’s bad for the other contents too.
You: How?
Me: Because now their potential contributions are wasted.
You: Doesn’t that make us bigots?
Me: Not at all. They chose to be in the pot. They could have continued just being ingredients but wanted something more. Something different.
You: I might need an example.
Me: Sure. Say you want to add butter to your pot. What happens if you put in just the right amount?
You: It melts.
Me: Be more specific.
You: It melts easily?
Me: And?
You: And it makes everything all buttery and delicious.
Me: Exactly. Now, what happens if you throw in a whole tub?
You: Too much butter?
Me: Too much butter.
You: It doesn’t melt?
Me: It doesn’t melt.
You: And it makes everything all gooey and sloppy?
Me: Pretty much.
You: So you’re saying you hate butter.
Me: What? No. Not at all.
You: This feels hurtful to butter.
Me: I–
You: The butter wants to be in the pot and you’re saying no. That’s mean.
Me: *rubs eyes*
You: When did you become so butterphobic?
Me: The butter isn’t the point. It could be any ingredient. It could be sugar.
You: You hate sugar too?
Me: I love sugar.
You: Then how come you don’t want it in the pot?
Me: I do. I just want it in moderation.
You: Why?
Me: Because: too much + too quickly = won’t melt = pot too sweet.
You: I think you might be a racist.
Me: Let’s try turning this around. You’re vanilla.
You: I don’t like vanilla. Can I be something else?
Me: Fine. You’re chocolate.
You: Nice.
Me: There’s another melting pot down the street. Wanna jump in?
You: Isn’t that gentrification?
Me: Chocolate will make it taste better.
You: Okay then.
Me: You’re jumping in?
You: I’m jumping in.
Me: Are you bringing six million of your friends to jump in also?
You: Of course not!
Me: Why not?
You: That would be too much chocolate!
Me: So why are holding other pots to a different standard than your own?
You: I don’t know.
Me: I do. You’re oikophobic.
You: Oiko…what?
Me: We’ll cover that another time. Look, there’s really no way around this: it’s your pot.
You: ...my pot?
Me: Yours. You decide what goes in it.
You: But I don’t want to.
Me: You have to.
You: Why?
Me: It’s your job. Yours and nobody else’s.
You: That scares me.
Me: It should. It’s a big responsibility.
You: I want to hide.
Me: It’s also a big opportunity.
You: Keep talking…
Me: You can melt however much of anything you want into this pot. You can cook something beautiful. Something amazing, with ingredients nobody has ever thought to combine, not in the whole history of the world. You can feed the world. But it is always going to matter more in the long run what you cook - what you melt - than what gets melted. The whole is bigger than the parts.
You: All this balancing sounds like a lot of work.
Me: It is.
You: But then how will I have time to project my moral superiority on the internet?
Me: You won’t. But that’s vastly less important. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
You: Isn’t that from a TV show?
Me: Sort of.
You: Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares, right?
Me: No, it’s from…never mind. Yes. Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares.
Multiculturalism without assimilation is an experiment gone terribly wrong.
Nice post. The melting process is challenged as improved transportation and communication make the world smaller. Take my dad who came here as a young Englishman in the early 1960s as a passenger on a fishing boat. Once in America, it was difficult and expensive for him to keep in touch with the UK. The upshot was he truly was an American when he became a naturalized citizen in 1980. Now, it’s much easier for immigrants to travel here and also easier for them to remain in touch with their homeland. Plus, there’s less need to assimilate given expanded entertainment/news options on TV and the internet…I thought of all this during the recent debate over birthright citizenship. Legally, it exists because the Constitution says what it says. But think of the world in which that language was drafted. There were relatively few such births because travel was arduous and the children were likely to live out their lives in America. But the world has changed. That does not mean doing away with the language, but the new reality is important to keep in mind—especially as DSA candidates advocate for open borders.