Two nights ago there was a travel-program of two young people visiting China, and they stopped at the Starbucks inside the Imperial City-complex. From what I saw, it was reasonably discrete, set in a food-court/concessionaire area. The contetemps over it's existance sounds more like creaping-American culture-bashing than an aesthetic or moralistic p.o.v.

Should we picket the existance of the Panda Kitchen at the local mall's food-court? Or even at the Smithsonian? If you are operating an "international tourist destination", doesn't it make sense to have international concessionaires for the convenience of visitors...providing "comfort food"?

The Melting Pot, Ethnicity, and Nationalism

In France in 1989, a controversy erupted over female students wearing the traditional Muslim headscarf in public schools. Five girls who insisted on wearing it were banned from attending classes. By nature, the school principal argued, ‘the scarf was a sign of proselytism’…Many French saw the wearing of headscarf as a direct challenge to French national values and so the controversy continued to simmer.

Such incidents have become the landmark of the modern age. They are quoted by newsreaders, books, films and by immigrants. For a nation, national homogeneity entails an ‘essentialist’ identity, based on a uniform culture, uninterrupted by foreign elements, thus sifting the culture from the unwanted and undesirable entities. Such homogeneity can work either through coercion as was the case in the United States with the Indians being annihilated for the sake of cultural and national unity, or through symbolic violence by preventing people from practicing their rituals and religion. The advocates of such policies disguise their racist and fascist nationalist project with theories that may seem justifiable; a case in point is the melting pot theory, whose main aim is to melt different cultures, races, and ethnic groups into one single homogeneous community. This theory has been subject to a plethora of criticisms and approbations by both its opponents and proponents.
My intention here is to explore the problematic nature of this theory through a multi-dimensional approach, by first providing an accurate dissection of its embryonic and mature development, and second by examining the ways by which it affects minority ethnic groups and the formation of nations. A good point of departure will consist of defining this theory.

Defining the Melting Pot:
Man is the most composite of all creatures…well, as in the old burning of the Temple at Corinth, the melting and intermixture of silver and gold and other metals, a new compound more precious than any, called Corinthian brass, was formed; so in this continent—asylum of all nations,--the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, poles and Cossacks and all the European tribes,--of the Africans, and of the Polynesians,--will construct a new race, a new religion a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting pot of the Dark Ages, or that which earlier emerged from the Pelagic and Etruscan barbarism.

The idea of a melting pot was—and still is—commonly used in the United States, to suggest a single and homogenous society, in which there is no room for ethnic and racial singularity and particularity. All the differences and cultures, in this sense, are melted like ingredients in a pot, producing a complete assimilation at all levels. The term, though first used in 1908 by Israel Zangwill as a title of his play, has its origins in the writing of Hector st. Jean the Crevecoeur, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Frederick Jackson Turner. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecour states that the American individual is one who:
Leaving behind all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received I? the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

Thus, for Crevecour, America’s Greatness resides in the ability of its individuals to leave behind their ‘Prejudices’, ethnicity and culture and embrace new ones. Such a view was also expressed by the transcendentalist Emerson, who in his Journal expresses his desire to create a new race, a new religion, a new state and a new literature through the melting and intermixture of cultures. In the same line, Frederick Jackson Turner referred to the ‘Composite nationality of the American people, arguing that the Frontier has functioned as a crucible where the immigrants were Americanized, liberated and fused into a mixed race, English in neither nationality nor characteristics.
However, the metaphor melting pot was coined by the Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill, who used it as a title of his play which was a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Thus the melting pot theory is based on the assumption that a nation should embrace its different cultures and ethnic groups and melt them into a homogeneous one, hence, making it impossible for a heterogenous nationalist discourse to emerge. Yet, the question to ask is how such homogeneous national discourse or melting pot is attained? Answering this question is the main focus of the second section.

The Melting Pot as a homogeneous National Discourse:

As I have tried to illustrate above, the melting pot theory gives rise to a homogeneous nation, in which there is a unanimous agreement about the cultural choices. Such homogeneity and unanimity can be attained through:
Expelling the national minorities. The tragic ethnic cleansing operations in former Yugoslavia are only the most recent examples of this method…in democratic states, a less brutal approach is generally preferred. The method is to inculcate a feeling of national unity by the use of mass propaganda over a long period.
In this way, the melting pot advocates resort to both symbolic and coercive violence to remove the cultural barriers and limits or to transcend the Barzakh zone that exist along the national lines. A Barzakh is:
a Persian word, which means limit or barrier. In the Koran it refers to the line that makes a difference. It occurs in the following two verses:1.’’it is He who let forth the two oceans , this one sweet , grateful to taste, and this one salt and bitter to the tongue and he set between them a Barzakh till the day they are raised up’’; 2. ‘’He let forth the two oceans that meet together, between them a Barzakh they do not overpass.’’ The general understanding of these two verses is that they allude to three worlds: the spirits, the imaginable things and the corporeal things. However, as Ibn al-Arabi, the Sufi philosopher who was born in al-Andalus and died in Syria and spent a long period of his life travelling across the Mediterranean shows, barzakhs do not offer mere syntheses of opposite forces. On the contrary, they keep heterogeneity in play while at the same time revealing homogenizing tendencies.
Thus, looking at a nation from Barzakh theory’s perspective elucidates the impossibility of a single Homogeneous national discourse or culture which the melting pot theory tries to build up. However, the Barzakh theory, unlike the melting pot theory, follows the logic of ‘neither/ both’’ in the sense that both homogeneity and heterogeneity exist along the same line; by keeping ‘heterogeneity at play while at the same time revealing homogenizing tendencies.

Conclusion:

To conclude by what I began, it seems inevitable to transcend the melting pot theory, for its continuous endeavours to homogenize at the expense of local cultures and ethnic minorities. We should thus, move from the logic of ‘either/or’ by which we prioritize one culture over the other, or by subjecting the minority, to the logic of ‘neither/both’ that of equality, diversity and heterogeneity to avoid racism and integration problems that, as I said at the beginning, has become the landmark of the modern age.

The Melting Pot, Ethnicity, and Nationalism

In France in 1989, a controversy erupted over female students wearing the traditional Muslim headscarf in public schools. Five girls who insisted on wearing it were banned from attending classes. By nature, the school principal argued, ‘the scarf was a sign of proselytism’…Many French saw the wearing of headscarf as a direct challenge to French national values and so the controversy continued to simmer.

Such incidents have become the landmark of the modern age. They are quoted by newsreaders, books, films and by immigrants. For a nation, national homogeneity entails an ‘essentialist’ identity, based on a uniform culture, uninterrupted by foreign elements, thus sifting the culture from the unwanted and undesirable entities. Such homogeneity can work either through coercion as was the case in the United States with the Indians being annihilated for the sake of cultural and national unity, or through symbolic violence by preventing people from practicing their rituals and religion. The advocates of such policies disguise their racist and fascist nationalist project with theories that may seem justifiable; a case in point is the melting pot theory, whose main aim is to melt different cultures, races, and ethnic groups into one single homogeneous community. This theory has been subject to a plethora of criticisms and approbations by both its opponents and proponents.
My intention here is to explore the problematic nature of this theory through a multi-dimensional approach, by first providing an accurate dissection of its embryonic and mature development, and second by examining the ways by which it affects minority ethnic groups and the formation of nations. A good point of departure will consist of defining this theory.

Defining the Melting Pot:
Man is the most composite of all creatures…well, as in the old burning of the Temple at Corinth, the melting and intermixture of silver and gold and other metals, a new compound more precious than any, called Corinthian brass, was formed; so in this continent—asylum of all nations,--the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, poles and Cossacks and all the European tribes,--of the Africans, and of the Polynesians,--will construct a new race, a new religion a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting pot of the Dark Ages, or that which earlier emerged from the Pelagic and Etruscan barbarism.

The idea of a melting pot was—and still is—commonly used in the United States, to suggest a single and homogenous society, in which there is no room for ethnic and racial singularity and particularity. All the differences and cultures, in this sense, are melted like ingredients in a pot, producing a complete assimilation at all levels. The term, though first used in 1908 by Israel Zangwill as a title of his play, has its origins in the writing of Hector st. Jean the Crevecoeur, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Frederick Jackson Turner. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecour states that the American individual is one who:
Leaving behind all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received I? the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

Thus, for Crevecour, America’s Greatness resides in the ability of its individuals to leave behind their ‘Prejudices’, ethnicity and culture and embrace new ones. Such a view was also expressed by the transcendentalist Emerson, who in his Journal expresses his desire to create a new race, a new religion, a new state and a new literature through the melting and intermixture of cultures. In the same line, Frederick Jackson Turner referred to the ‘Composite nationality of the American people, arguing that the Frontier has functioned as a crucible where the immigrants were Americanized, liberated and fused into a mixed race, English in neither nationality nor characteristics.
However, the metaphor melting pot was coined by the Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill, who used it as a title of his play which was a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Thus the melting pot theory is based on the assumption that a nation should embrace its different cultures and ethnic groups and melt them into a homogeneous one, hence, making it impossible for a heterogenous nationalist discourse to emerge. Yet, the question to ask is how such homogeneous national discourse or melting pot is attained? Answering this question is the main focus of the second section.

The Melting Pot as a homogeneous National Discourse:

As I have tried to illustrate above, the melting pot theory gives rise to a homogeneous nation, in which there is a unanimous agreement about the cultural choices. Such homogeneity and unanimity can be attained through:
Expelling the national minorities. The tragic ethnic cleansing operations in former Yugoslavia are only the most recent examples of this method…in democratic states, a less brutal approach is generally preferred. The method is to inculcate a feeling of national unity by the use of mass propaganda over a long period.
In this way, the melting pot advocates resort to both symbolic and coercive violence to remove the cultural barriers and limits or to transcend the Barzakh zone that exist along the national lines. A Barzakh is:
a Persian word, which means limit or barrier. In the Koran it refers to the line that makes a difference. It occurs in the following two verses:1.’’it is He who let forth the two oceans , this one sweet , grateful to taste, and this one salt and bitter to the tongue and he set between them a Barzakh till the day they are raised up’’; 2. ‘’He let forth the two oceans that meet together, between them a Barzakh they do not overpass.’’ The general understanding of these two verses is that they allude to three worlds: the spirits, the imaginable things and the corporeal things. However, as Ibn al-Arabi, the Sufi philosopher who was born in al-Andalus and died in Syria and spent a long period of his life travelling across the Mediterranean shows, barzakhs do not offer mere syntheses of opposite forces. On the contrary, they keep heterogeneity in play while at the same time revealing homogenizing tendencies.
Thus, looking at a nation from Barzakh theory’s perspective elucidates the impossibility of a single Homogeneous national discourse or culture which the melting pot theory tries to build up. However, the Barzakh theory, unlike the melting pot theory, follows the logic of ‘neither/ both’’ in the sense that both homogeneity and heterogeneity exist along the same line; by keeping ‘heterogeneity at play while at the same time revealing homogenizing tendencies.

Conclusion:

To conclude by what I began, it seems inevitable to transcend the melting pot theory, for its continuous endeavours to homogenize at the expense of local cultures and ethnic minorities. We should thus, move from the logic of ‘either/or’ by which we prioritize one culture over the other, or by subjecting the minority, to the logic of ‘neither/both’ that of equality, diversity and heterogeneity to avoid racism and integration problems that, as I said at the beginning, has become the landmark of the modern age.