In total, China has roughly the same amount of immigrants as Ireland.
China is also objectively becoming more closed, not more open.
China is also objectively becoming more closed, not more open.
Not just the total amount including random people arriving at the coast.
Skilled polish engineers don't want to be the only polish person in the entire country. They want food, culture, community that reminds them of home. Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well. It encourages enclaves that touch one another.
China is the opposite of that. You are hard hammered into the Han-ness, immediately. The language, the writing (which is a HUGE hurdle), the food, the way of life.
For what it's worth, this is the terminology I learned in school decades ago, but I don't think it's preferred anymore. My daughter has a book that calls it a "salad" instead (mixed but retaining their respective properties). I'm probably just old and crotchety but I like that way less.
Chicken Tikka Masala didn't exist in India. And if you went to any British restaurant in 1900 they wouldn't serve this dish either. But in a British Indian restaurant today it's a staple because at some point (when and by who is debated) somebody in one of those restaurants was like "We should make a sauce to match local tastes" and it was created.
Human change can be subject to the law of large numbers, but nothing necessitates any particular change being towards progress.
>Skilled polish engineers don't want to be the only polish person in the entire country. They want food, culture, community that reminds them of home. Even as they assimilate. That's why the American melting pot works well. It encourages enclaves that touch one another.
The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia.
And even at that was built on first disenfranchizing (to put it midly) the natives.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. They were British colonies for well over 100 years before declaring independence. The US Census website states:
"Not surprisingly, the first census reported that based on the names of heads of families, more than 90% of the White population in 1790 hailed from British stock: English (83.5%), Scottish (6.7%) and Irish (1.6%)."
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/12/boston-tea-pa...
>And even at that was built on first disenfranchizing (to put it midly) the natives.
Not many European colonial powers purchased land from natives the way the US did. For example, considering the Louisiana Purchase area, the US paid over 20x as much to natives living in that area as the US paid to France:
https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/201...
The US looks bad compared with a hypothetical (nonexistent) perfect country. But compared with European powers, it looks pretty good.
The same can be said of the "Great Man Theory" (or its adaptation by selecting immigrants based on some selected set of skills). You don't know that you're making society better, you're just selecting for a certain set of skills.
> The American melting pot works well (or worked well) because it was a nation made up from a blank canvas with no prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia.
This isn't true and it ignores the cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin). That's before you even consider the stark differences in culture between the Native Americans and the European colonist.
You got it backwards. This is BASED on the "cultural differences amongst all of the original colonists (religious, language, political, and country of origin)". That was what made the place have no "prior historically established dominant ethnicity or culture the kind other nations have had going for millenia".
>That's before you even consider the stark differences in culture between the Native Americans and the European colonist.
Those would be relevant for explaining the "American melting pot", if the latter wasn't established after erasing both their culture and, to a large degree, them.
I feel like a lot of Americans disagree on these nowadays though, no? Source: just look at recent campaigns and elections.
People from the big immigrant cities like NYC, SF, LA are more likely to hold the latter position.
The Mormons of Utah, the Cajun/French of Louisiana, the Norwegians in the Dakotas, the Scotch Irish of everywhere, and the Amish are all (non-brown) examples of enclaves existing in the US. Nobody says that they are not assimilating well. We let them live their lives because personal liberty used to be a thing here.
The idea that they're at a disadvantage to Ireland in that aspect because the latter has more numbers-wise was what was addressed.
They might very well not be open. Or they might be open in a selective and cautious way, which would be more prudent than merely being open for all.
A good friend of mine (white European) was approached by a Chinese company and now works in China. I'll ask him how hard the paperwork was the next time I meet him, but I have a feeling his employer did the bulk of it.