Reflections at the Melting Pot. Essay: The Melting Pot Model of Ethnic Development in American Society

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

on cross-cultural issues of personnel management

Melting Pot Concept

Introduction

In the 20s of the twentieth century, Anglo-conformism gave way to a new model of ethnic development" melting pot“or “melting crucible.” In the history of American social thought, this model occupies a special place, because the basic social ideal, which boiled down to the fact that in a truly free, democratic society, people would strive to live among racially and ethnically mixed neighbors, existed in the United States for a long time" "This theory is a variant of the theory of “amalgamation” that arose immediately after the American Revolution, i.e. free fusion of representatives of various European peoples and cultures.

The "melting pot" along with the theory of Angloconformism formed the theoretical core of the classical school of ethnicity in the United States of America. As M. Gordon wrote, “although Angloconformism in its various manifestations was the predominant ideology of assimilation, in American historical practice there was a competing model with more general and idealistic tones, which had its adherents from the 18th century, and then its successors.”

Multiculturalism is a policy aimed at the development and preservation of cultural differences in a single country and in the world as a whole, and the theory or ideology that justifies such a policy. An important difference from political liberalism is the recognition by multiculturalism of the rights of collective subjects: ethnic and cultural groups. Such rights may take the form of allowing ethnic and cultural communities to direct the education of their members, express political opinions, and so on. Multiculturalism is opposed to the "melting pot" concept. melting pot), where it is assumed that all cultures will merge into one. Examples include Canada, where multiculturalism is cultivated, and the United States, where the concept of a “melting pot” is traditionally proclaimed.

Melting Pot Model

The melting pot, also known as the “melting crucible,” is a model of ethnic development actively promoted in American culture. The dominance of this idea in the American public is closely linked to the ideals of the culture's vision of a truly free democratic society where people would strive to live among racially and ethnically mixed neighbors.

The melting pot is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society. It becomes increasingly homogeneous, the various elements of "melting together" are combined into a harmonious whole with a common culture. Specifically, the term is used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States. The metaphor became widespread in the 1780s. multiculturalism melting pot integration immigrant

After 1970, the melting pot model was challenged by proponents of multiculturalism who argue that cultural differences in society are valuable and should be preserved, offering alternative metaphors to the mosaic or salad bowl - a combination of different cultures that remain distinct.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the metaphor of a "melting pot" was used to describe the fusion of different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures. It was used along with concepts such as "city on a hill" or "new promised land" to describe the United States. This metaphor was a symbol for the idealized process of immigration and colonization of different nationalities, cultures and races. It was associated with the utopian idea of seeing the emergence of an American "new man."

The first use in American literature of the concept of "melting" can be found in the writings of St. John de Crevecoeur. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782), Crevecoeur writes, in response to his own question, “Who is this American, this new person"He says that an American is one who, having abandoned all his ancient prejudices and habits, receives new ones from a new way of life. Here the people of all nations have melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day bring about great changes in the world".

While "melting" was in common use, the precise term "melting pot" came into use in 1908 from the title of a play by British journalist and playwright Israel Zangwill, who frequently visited the United States and knew life in that country. The essence of the play “The Melting Pot” was that in the United States of America there was a fusion of different peoples and their national cultures, as a result of which a single American nation was formed. Main character plays - a young immigrant from Russia Horace Alger, looking from a ship that arrived in the port of New York, exclaimed: “America is the greatest melting pot created by God, in which all the peoples of Europe are fused... Germans and French, Irish and English, Jews and the Russians - all into this crucible. This is how God creates a nation of Americans.”

With regard to immigrants in the United States, the "melting pot" process was equated with Americanization, that is, cultural assimilation and acculturation. "The melting pot" is a metaphor that implies the melting of cultures and ethnic groups through the process of intermarriage, but the process of cultural assimilation or acculturation can also occur without intermarriage.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European immigration to the United States became more powerful, which of course was reflected in an increase in the number of immigrants. Beginning in the 1890s, large numbers of immigrant groups from Southern and of Eastern Europe, such as Italians, Jews, and Poles came to the United States. Many returned to Europe, but those who remained were thrown into a cultural melting pot, adopting the American way of life.

In the early twentieth century, the meaning of the newly popular melting pot concept was the subject of ongoing debate, which centered on the issue of immigration. The debate around the melting pot concept has taken a different approach to this issue. The main question was how to approach the issue of immigration and how the issue affected American society. The melting pot was equated with either acculturation or complete assimilation of immigrants from Europe and other countries. The discussion focused on the difference between the two approaches to immigration.

Disadvantages of the model

Main disadvantages:

Firstly, There is still ethnic strife in the United States to this day. A certain part of migrants assimilates into the general mass, mainly those who enter into mixed marriages. The majority of migrants are those for whom mastering the English language is difficult and who have not been able to adapt to the new environment. They strive for compact living and gravitate towards communication in their national communities. They carefully preserve their language, identity, national traditions, and are not going to voluntarily “jump” into the “melting pot”. There are many national communities operating in all cities of the country. For reference: 18% of the US population are African Americans, 20% are Hispanics, and a significant portion are Chinese.

Secondly, no nation, large or even small, wants to be “cooked” in a “melting pot”, even if this is supported by liberal democratic ideas.

Third, a nation that, due to its numerical superiority over others, is forced to take on the role of “broth”, inevitably partially loses its own national identity, because diluted by others.

If you open any textbook on metal science, you will see that only metals with a similar crystalline structure can be melted into a single alloy. If, during the smelting process, you throw various initial elements into the boiler, you will end up with a pile of metal-containing garbage with shells and cracks, from which it is impossible to create a single part or workpiece during processing.

In addition, even the finished alloy that meets all your requirements can again be separated into the original metals during the reverse operation, and in pure form without any impurities. This rule works flawlessly in other areas of science, technology and even Everyday life. No matter how much you combine the most diverse substances in a chemical flask in any unimaginable solutions, they will never lose their properties, due to which all elements can again be isolated in their pure form.

The physical and chemical irreducible properties of matter manifest themselves in the same way in biology in the form of eternal and ineradicable racial characteristics.

Debate "Many cultures - one Europe"

“Melting pot”, “salad bowl” or “historical community”?

Experts from different countries trying to determine best way immigrant integration

The open debate “Many cultures - one Europe” became the central event of the international festival “Europe Day”, held in St. Petersburg for the fourth time. Participants in the debate - both professors invited from European universities and representatives of the host country - tried to determine what European identity is, and which option for integrating migrants from third world countries is preferable for Russia - the American “melting pot” or European “multiculturalism”.

What is European self-identification, the President of the European University Institute in Florence (EUI), Josep Borrell Fontelles, tried to formulate. From his point of view, basic characteristics Europe are democracy, human rights, the rule of law and social solidarity. As for pan-European culture, Signor Fontelles is skeptical: “We are seeing a clear dominance of the American and Anglo-Saxon traditions, which are perceived by all peoples. At the same time, in Germany there are few people who want to listen to French music, and vice versa,” he noted.

However, the participants in the discussion in the hall noted that all the signs of European self-identification listed by the EUI President are fully applicable to the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - countries inhabited by the descendants of immigrants, mainly from the Old World.

The Melting Pot is transforming

By the way, “multiculturalism,” the decline of which was announced by the leaders of France, Great Britain and Germany earlier this year, was first proclaimed by the governments of Canada and Australia. This was recalled by Stanislav Tkachenko, Associate Professor of the Department of European Studies at the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University, who has repeatedly lectured at the universities of Bologna (Italy), George Mason in Washington, and also at Harvard.

Tkachenko characterized the American integration principle of the “melting pot” as follows: “This model was implemented by a state that was obviously more powerful, richer, and more attractive than other states on the planet. And this cannot be ignored. The "melting pot" model assumed that representatives of different nations came to America, adopted the existing culture, and parted with their national characteristics, becoming Americans. That is, the state set conditions, and people agreed with them or not.”

At the same time, in recent decades, large national neighborhoods have begun to appear in American megacities - Chinese, Korean, Italian - whose residents have largely preserved the traditional way of their historical homeland, while being considered Americans. This, according to the discussion participants, indicates that the “melting pot” model is being transformed.

"Immigrants must bear their share of responsibility"

To a large extent, the American experience of integrating immigrants was borrowed from France, says Maria Nozhenko, director of the Center for European Studies at the European University of St. Petersburg. But in Belgium, a method is used that Nozhenko conventionally calls a “bowl of salad”: “There the diversity of national segments is preserved, but at the same time they are “seasoned” with a certain sauce, namely the state, which helps them and supports them in everything.”

The discussion participants did not separately address the issue of the responsibility of immigrants themselves to the country that received them. A correspondent for the Russian service of the Voice of America asked Josep Borrell Fontelles to address this topic.

“This is a two-way process,” began the commentary from the president of the European University Institute in Florence. - Of course, immigrants must be responsible to the society into which they want to integrate. They can’t come to another country and behave the way they want.”

In response to a clarifying question: do immigrants bear responsibility to the host country, or should they only bear it, the EUI president, after hesitating a little, repeated: “They do not always bear this responsibility, but they must bear it, and this responsibility is great!”

“The events on Manezhnaya Square came as a shock”

Meanwhile, nationalist forces in Russia in Lately They are increasingly expressing dissatisfaction not only with the behavior of labor migrants, but also with the very fact of their stay in places with a predominantly Russian population. Not without reason, from the audience the speakers were reminded of the national clashes in the Karelian city of Kondopoga that took place in September 2006, and of the nationalist march on Manezhnaya Square in Moscow at the end of last year, and of the murders of students from third world countries in St. Petersburg.

Stanislav Tkachenko, who is the head of the team developing the Tolerance program under the administration of St. Petersburg, admitted that “the events at Manezhnaya became a real shock for society, for the state and for the institutions of power.”

When asked which of the two models - the “correct cauldron” or the “bowl with salad” is the most suitable for Russia, Tkachenko notes: “Russia has already chosen neither one nor the other model. President Medvedev said a few days ago at the Yaroslavl Forum that we must have a third way - “the creation of a Russian nation.” If we analyze this path, Medvedev also mentioned such a phenomenon as the “historical community of the Soviet people,” and said that there is no need to laugh at this model; it was, in principle, good, since it represented a balance of their two extremes - the American “melting pot” and European multiculturalism.”

It is too early to say how successful the experience of “creating the Russian nation” will be. We can only recall that in Tsarist Russia not everyone was happy with the name “Russian”, and after the revolution many nations hastened to exercise the right to self-determination. And with the beginning of Perestroika, the “historical community of the Soviet people” began to experience increasing difficulties, which ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR. Students and journalists present at the discussion recalled these facts, but did not receive detailed answers from the speakers. True, the organizers of the open discussion promised to return to the topic of migrant integration during the next Europe Day.

Literature

1. Avdeev V. B. Anti-racial myth about the “melting pot”

2. Open debate “Many cultures - one Europe”, international festival “Europe Day”, St. Petersburg, 2011.

Posted on Allbest.ru

"War to the Death"

In 1811, an independent republic was proclaimed in Venezuela. The liberation movement was led by the Patriotic Society, in which wealthy Creoles played a leading role. Among them, the young officer Simon Bolivar stood out. Wide educated person, a brilliant speaker and publicist, he also possessed extraordinary military leadership talent.

At first, the leaders of the liberation movement saw their task only in expelling the colonialists and did not seek to change the existing order. The blacks and Indians did not support them. Taking this into account, Bolivar issued decrees in which he promised to provide freedom to slaves who joined the revolutionary army, and land to peasants. 5 thousand volunteers arrived from European countries to help the rebels.

However, Bolivar understood that Venezuela could not defend its independence alone. He led his army to help the neighboring country - New Granada.

It was a legendary crossing of the Andes. Every day it became colder. The rain turned to snow. The icy wind knocked me off my feet. Mountain falls and trees torn out by the storm blocked the way.

All the horses died, the soldiers lost consciousness from lack of oxygen, and fell into the abyss. Bolivar, in a tattered general's uniform, led the vanguard, inspiring the soldiers with his courage. Of the 3,400 soldiers, only 1,500 came down from the mountains.

The Spanish troops were defeated. Venezuela and New Granada united into a single state - Gran Colombia.

In an effort to strengthen the independence of the young Latin American states, Bolivar advocated their unification into a confederation. He constantly fought for the creation of a democratic republic where skin color would not matter. But Bolivar tried in vain to unite the newly independent states that had common language and religion. The establishment of his personal dictatorship, although motivated by a desire to prevent the collapse of Gran Colombia, aroused resistance. The growth of discontent was expressed in numerous conspiracies and uprisings. Bolivar's power was overthrown in Peru and Bolivia, then Venezuela and Ecuador separated from Colombia.

On September 25, 1829, conspirators entered the Presidential Palace in Bogota with the aim of killing the “Liberator”, but he managed to escape. Bolívar's influence and popularity declined and he resigned in early 1830. An ill and disillusioned Bolívar wrote shortly before his death in 1830: “He who serves the revolution plows the sea!”

Only many years later his merits received universal recognition. The memory of him is preserved in the name of one of the South American republics - Bolivia.

The bourgeois revolution of 1820 in Portugal led to a new rise in the Brazilian independence movement. Brazil was declared an independent empire.

In 1868, a massive uprising began against the Spanish colonialists in Cuba. And in next year The independent Cuban Republic was proclaimed. For ten years, the army, armed with pikes and machetes, fought the Spaniards, but the rebels' resistance was broken. And only at the very end of the 19th century did the Cuban people free themselves from colonial dependence.

Results and significance of the liberation war

The national liberation movement in Latin America ended in victory. In all independent countries, except Brazil, a republican system was established. But some states that were formed during the war for independence, due to deep internal contradictions and the struggle of various factions, turned out to be fragile and collapsed. Political independence put an end to numerous restrictions that had hampered the economic development of the colonies. More favorable conditions have been created for the development of the capitalist system and entry into the world market.

Slavery was abolished in independent states, although not immediately. In Venezuela, Colombia and Peru it survived until the 50s, and in Brazil until the 80s of the 19th century. The poll tax and forced labor service of the indigenous population in favor of private individuals, the state and the church were abolished. During the 19th century, a parliamentary system was established in all newly emerged states and constitutions were adopted. Of no small importance was the destruction of the Inquisition, the class system, and the abolition of noble titles.

The national self-awareness of Latin Americans also strengthened; they began to understand that they belonged to a certain nation that had the right to create an independent state.

A number of scientists believe that the liberation wars had the character of a bourgeois revolution. But there is another point of view that denies the revolutionary significance of these events. Moreover, the creation of republics did not bring new classes to power. The peasants did not receive land, but the owners of the latifundia retained huge estates and political power. The development of capitalism in Latin American countries has taken a long and painful path.

Century of the Caudillo

After the war of independence, peace was not established in the political life of the young states. They began to fight against each other in order to capture more territory. This was accompanied by a frenzied struggle for the presidency within each individual country. As a rule, power fell into the hands of military or civilian leaders during the Revolutionary War, who seized it by force of arms. Such a leader - a caudillo - relied either on the people or on the landowners.

In Latin American civilization there are many features of a traditional civilization, when “clan” ties prevail between the “patron” (master), the “leader” and the masses subordinate to him (“clientela” - from the word “client”). Typically, clan ties are stronger than class ties.

The essence of this phenomenon is that a circle of people rallies around a “strong” personality, hoping to solve their problems with the help of a “patron”. In the political struggle, the personal qualities of the leader and his ability to control the crowd, winning their trust, came to the fore. Under these conditions friendships become more important than the law. This relationship is expressed by the principle: “Everything is for friends, but for enemies it is law.” Often, behind the mask of a “crowd favorite,” ambition and fierce rivalry between individual families were hidden.

The 19th century saw constant coups d'etat, rigged elections and bloody civil wars. Perhaps it was not in the 19th century. There is not a single country in Latin America that has managed to avoid “caudilism.”

Slow economic development

Decades of internecine wars have had a disastrous effect on the economic development of Latin American countries. Their economy was focused mainly on the production and export abroad of agricultural products or minerals - copper and silver. Nevertheless, in the middle of the 19th century, a number of countries were drawn into the world market.

Rich deposits of silver were discovered in Chile in 1832, the need for which was increasing in Europe; After the US captured California, Chilean grain was actively exported there. By the end of the 19th century, Chile mastered the extraction of saltpeter and began exporting it to the world market. Between 1880 and 1910, the country's industrial output increased by 2% annually.

In Argentina, in the second half of the 19th century, the free trade camp gained strength as favorable circumstances arose for this. The Industrial Revolution on the European continent increased the need for food and raw materials. Domestic demand for goods also expanded, which was facilitated by a large influx of immigrants providing the country with labor.

By the end of the 19th century, Argentina's economy rested on two strong pillars - livestock and agriculture. Livestock farming involved raising livestock and exporting frozen meat, 2/3 of which was supplied to London.

The abolition of slavery and the influx of immigrants created the conditions for the development of a capitalist economy in Brazil. By the beginning of the 20th century, the main source of income remained the export of coffee, gold, silver and tropical fruits. Gold and silver were exported from Mexico, and coffee and indigo (a dye) from Colombia. Industrial enterprises under construction and railways ended up in the hands of foreign capital.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the countries of the Latin American region looked as follows in terms of the level of capitalist development: the group of the most developed countries consisted of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile; Bolivia, Mexico and Peru were much more backward, where huge masses of landless, enslaved peasantry remained. In fact, it dominated here economic system colonial times, based on the dominance of large landowners.

Latin American melting pot

The 19th century was the time of the formation of Latin American nations. They were formed from representatives of different peoples living within the borders of one state. As in the USA, there was a “melting pot” in which different races and nations: Indians, blacks, people from Spain and Portugal, from other European countries.

Society in Latin American countries was formed under the influence of Spanish and Portuguese customs; hierarchy was always observed in the system of relations between people here. Everyone here had to know their place, their clan, and connect their well-being with the “big” or “small” patron, the caudillo. Hence the tendency to establish authoritarian regimes.

Peculiarities of beliefs among Catholics in Latin America

Had a great influence on the formation of nations Catholic religion. In Mexico, for example, back in the 16th century, the cult of the Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, was formed. Gradually, from a local one, it turned into a cult that embraced the population of the entire country and united the people of Mexico. Anyone who worshiped Saint Mary of Guadalupe was considered to belong to the Mexican nation.

In general, the Catholic religion and the Catholic Church played a very important role in the life of Latin Americans. The Catholic Church, through its parishes, influenced 90% of the population of Latin America.

But since the traditions of Catholicism were established on a continent where the indigenous population were Indians, the Catholic religion in Latin America has a number of features. First of all, this is a huge number of saints, whose sculptural images were zealously worshiped by the population, and home chapels. Scientists believe that the Indians, after the destruction of their idols by the colonialists, transferred their desire to worship “divine powers” to Catholicism, idolize them and even turn them into a simple amulet. Among various segments of the population there have always been stories about “miracles”, about the “appearances” of saints. The fact is that in Latin American countries, since pre-Columbian times, it has been customary to use substances that cause hallucinations. This tradition spread from the Indians to the poor white population.

A special civilization has formed in Latin America, different from European and North American. Wars of independence, the acquisition of this independence, and then decades of bloody internecine wars, the slow development of capitalism, the resolution of conflicts not so much through reforms as through revolutions and the establishment of authoritarian regimes, the weakness of democracy made the history of Latin Americans tragic.

Yudovskaya A.Ya., Baranov P.A., Vanyushkina L.M. New story

We often hear that some kind of last empire on Earth (USA, Russia, depending on the source of information) should be destroyed (that’s all, without explanation, and why they were not pleased with the state of the empire). Let's figure out what the Empire (imperial consciousness) is and why it did not please the modern “high offices”.

And then we will consider this problem through the prism of today’s problems in Eurasia and the world (the material is not intended for scientific debate, but for the general public, therefore claims that “the author is thinking small” are not accepted).

First, let's look at ancient empires. For example - Roman. In Rome, the transition to this state began at the junction of Er (before Christ and after Christ). How did this manifest itself? The Roman people, who built the Roman Empire, were great and powerful, but this was clearly not enough for reliable control of the territories. Therefore, first the Italics, and then other peoples of the territories, began to be incorporated into the “Roman citizens”, giving them equal rights... and equal responsibilities. Actually, this is the main essence of empires. Nationalism (Roman, Chinese, Russian, etc.) is deeply buried, and the population of the state’s territories is integrated (on more or less equal rights) into the process of its construction and protection. That is, the previously conquered population is inoculated with the so-called. imperial identity (this is our common country and all the problems of this country are ours common problems) . As long as this self-awareness works, the empire develops and lives.

But when for one reason or another it stops working... The Roman Empire was destroyed by the so-called “barbarians”. But if you look closely, this is only the outer cocoon of the problem. There were few barbarians, and they occupied the territories of an essentially collapsed empire. Rome was destroyed from within. The melting pot of the Roman Empire stopped working by the end of the second century AD, and in the third century the country actually collapsed. Different peoples of the once united empire, capturing Rome, formally restored their former unity, but peoples changed peoples, and the country could no longer live as a single organism. Because OWN and ALIENS appeared.

There was no concept of nationalism then (this is an invention of modern times), but that was the essence of the process. The peoples of the empire began to distinguish themselves from the general mass and, through a showdown of relationships (who is stronger and who has a longer spear), they destroyed this centuries-old empire.

Time passes, but human morals do not change. This is exactly how many empires were created and destroyed in their time.

But let's return to modern times. There are still empires on Earth. I see THREE of them. British, American And Russian

Each of them is in different stages own life. To understand which one... you need to look at how the “melting pot of the empire” works. This is the most reliable indicator. If it is stable and continuous, then the empire is alive and it has a future. If not... this empire has no future and will collapse.

The current state of the British Empire tells me that its collapse (as an imperial entity) is very close. It should be taken into account that the pace of development of society has accelerated and, accordingly, the life cycle of empires has accelerated. Now hundreds of years are not needed to create and destroy them. The count goes on for decades. Britain has long ceased to be a melting pot. The only thing they have in common so far is language. But look at London. It is “cut” into ethnic and cultural areas. This city cannot be the capital of an empire. Just like Britain can no longer be its backbone. Motion by inertia will inexorably lead Britain (as an empire) to collapse. Symptoms of this collapse are the “nationalism” that has afflicted not only Scotland, but also enclaves of Greater London.

For now he is in a more favorable situation. But the work of the “great American melting pot” is no longer traceable. All new emigrants do not become “Americans.” I am already silent about the Chinese and Puerto Ricans (and not only them). European emigrants, for example, do not dissolve in this melting pot. And even after 20 years of living there, Russians remain Russians, and Italians remain Italians. Cutting into national enclaves of American megacities suggests that the decline of this empire is not far off. There is no longer an imperial mindset in the United States.

What do these two decrepit empires have in common?

Why don't they have a future? This is my personal opinion. I don't force it on anyone. Just take it as food for thought.

ENDGAME. GLOBAL ENSUREMENT PROJECT

During the growth of the British and North American empires, people went (incorporated) there with hope. With the hope that their incorporation will make their lives better and more fulfilling. And for this it was not a pity to throw off the bonds of nationalism and join the general group of people obsessed with the goal (conquest of the Wild West, India, etc.). This is imperial thinking. Moreover, peoples who had already been conquered were also included in the life of empires on the same rights as the imperial core. Often these peoples became the backbone of the empire in the conquered territory (for example, the Boers). But... this is no longer the case. I am already silent about the “conquered” peoples. Society within the imperial core lost its unity and common goals. Why? I see the reason in the implantation of the ideology of “individualism”, which has been the basis of these formations for 40 years now (this cancer tumor both empires). Many will say that American and English individualism has roots at least 100 years old. This is mistake. It is enough to study the archaic social institutions of these entities (the structure of their local communities) to understand that initially these were precisely collectivist organizations. Otherwise, they would not have been able to build their empires. An empire is the work of many generations. Moreover, the work is collective. And that old “individualism” has nothing in common with the new one implanted by the globalists. This was individualism as an element of imitation of a successful neighbor (which made the community stronger), and not as opposition to one’s own EGO. Where you need to snatch a resource from your neighbor, and not try to repeat his success. This is precisely why enclaves (black, yellow, etc.) are cut. With such enclaves it is easier to snatch a piece for its inhabitants from... neighboring enclave. That is, this is a form of adaptation to the global world.

A kind of struggle for resources in a single city, which replicates itself throughout the country. And this is... the death of the empire.

Now let's return to the problems of Eurasia

Why Eurasia and not Russia. Russia, as you understand, due to its size and diversity, cannot exist as a national fragment of an empire. It can ONLY be an EMPIRE. OR NOT TO BE AT ALL. Hence my attitude towards “Russian nationalism” and nationalism in general in this territory (I say this as a former nationalist). In order to destroy this entity (Eurasia), it needs to be cut up along ethnic lines. And here the question is not even about Ukraine (everyone likes to quote Bismarck’s words, but the problem of nationalism for the Eurasian imperial entity does not end with Ukraine). FUCKING NATIONALISM IN THIS SPACE IS WORKING AGAINST RUSSIA-EURASIA. A-priory. Accordingly, the task of the enemies of Russia-Eurasia is to create nationalism of various stripes, and the task of the imperial center is to destroy it. But in order to destroy nationalism, it is necessary to create an imperial idea into which the peoples of the territories can be incorporated. So far, I see a successful solution to this problem within Russia. Incorporation of Caucasian peoples using the example of Russia (in general) and Moscow in particular good example a properly functioning “imperial melting pot.” The next step is the incorporation of Central Asian “settlers”. But... I don’t see Tajik towns and Kyrgyz towns. Do not confuse temporary crowds of illegal immigrants at construction sites, who will eventually become legal because they are learning Russian and are trying with all their might to become Russian (because it is PROFITABLE for them). Yes, other Russians, but still Russians. I see it in their eyes when I'm on the subway. This means that this problem will also be solved. Nowadays there is a fashionable phrase in Russia: “The non-Russians (Chechens, Armenians, etc.) of Russia are more Russian than the Russians themselves.” I wouldn’t be surprised if in 20 years the same can be said about the Kyrgyz and Tajiks (following the example of previously incorporated peoples). This is recognition that the “boiler” is working. And it works as it should. This is imperial thinking. They live well in Russia and they are ready to fight for it. Which means the empire is alive.

I'm going even lower

Why exactly everything that is written above? How to decide not for a year or ten years, but at least for a hundred. Only by creating the idea of an Empire in the Eurasian space in which the population of Ukraine will be given an equal place. There is such an idea. Now I will explain why I am a “Putinist” and what I mean by this concept. I'm not an idolater. And for me Putin is not an idol. But it was he who proposed the idea of a Eurasian empire, which should become a bridge (“ridge”) between Europe and the Far East. This is its meaning, necessity and guarantee of the prosperity of the peoples living in this territory. I see it. Many of my fellow countrymen do not see this. They don't see it yet. But they will see, and I will do everything I can for this. I think it’s now clear why, to put it mildly, I don’t like not only Ukrainian nationalism, but also Russian. Moreover, Russian is even more so. Because he is dangerous by an order of magnitude. This is the key to the destruction of Russia, and therefore Eurasia, and therefore Ukraine, as part of Eurasia.

Conclusion. The Ukrainian problem should not be solved through the prism of the destruction of Ukrainian (and not only) (which is true in essence but not true in methods). If you try to eradicate it by force, this is a fight against a windmill, eternal and hopeless, because the fight against nationalism itself will give rise to this nationalism. It must be resolved through the prism of the incorporation of the Ukrainian population into an imperial project called Eurasia.

And here it’s not even a matter of official borders (Russia and Belarus also have borders), but emotional, behavioral, spiritual borders. By removing these boundaries, one can achieve victory over the idea of nationalism. Therefore, we must stop “crumbing dill” (in the literal and figurative sense of the word) on the battlefield and in social networks, and build bridges that, over time, will transform Russian Empire to Eurasian. I'm on another long journey and sustainable development I do not see.

Interethnic relations are one of those topics where discussions about “how it should be” tend to crowd out and replace the study of what actually is. At the same time, the history of Western civilization provides many models of interaction with national minorities, which were not always humane and beautiful, but ensured the stability of societies. Consideration of these models can shed light on relations between peoples in modern Russia.

The other day I happened to read in the magazine “Art of Cinema” an article by theater director Vladimir Mirzoev about the world, Russia and the intelligentsia. In this full of wonderful aspirations, but completely incoherent text, one passage caught my eye: “The inadequacy of the intelligentsia is frightening. When foreigners, children, boys, girls are killed in a country just because they are different, not like us, this is a sign of further degradation of the ethnic group, a sign that the energy of suicide that came out in the last century is far from exhausted . What does the intelligentsia have to do with it? And who are officials, politicians, radio and TV producers? Who should educate, explain, teach tolerance day and night? A simple fact that every patriot would do well to think about: if we do not accept a million migrants a year, then by 2050 there will be 50 million of us left. Russia can still become the melting pot of humanity that America has become. And then the culture of the Eastern Slavs will not only save itself, but will also save many” 1 . This passage openly links two phenomena that, in the opinion of many public figures - usually unspoken, or even unconscious - inevitably appear in pairs. This is tolerance and the spread of European values and way of life to other nations, at least to those representatives who have chosen Western countries as their place of life.

At first glance, there is logic in this opinion. One of the pillars of Western civilization is the free self-expression of every person, which, among other things, is determined by national characteristics. Therefore, tolerance of manifestations of another culture in everyday life is a direct embodiment of European values. Let's try, however, to remember historical experience communication between Western societies and foreigners “at home”.

Mirzoev uses the phrase “melting pot” in his article. This epithet is usually applied to the United States of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it received numerous migrants from the Old World and fused them into a single American nation. But who were these migrants? The first settlers in America were the outcasts of Europe: Puritans, adventurers, exiles, poor people in search of a better life. The vast natural resources of the sparsely populated continent allowed many of them to rise, giving rise to the Great American Dream. The dream attracted many new settlers seeking to build happiness in a new, no-man's land with their own hands. They did not find a place for themselves in their homeland and were ready to renounce its traditions and customs. This readiness, combined with targeted government policy, allowed millions of Englishmen, Irish, Italians, Poles, and Jews to become Americans in the shortest possible time.

The fate of those for whom the torch of the Statue of Liberty did not serve as a guiding star was different. The descendants of black slaves, once brought from Africa, remained a closed community. Despite the abolition of slavery and the eradication of racial discrimination, a black American who has achieved a position in society is found in Hollywood films much more often than in life. The Chinese and Japanese, who due to the peculiarities of their national identity did not share the desire for individual success, were also reluctant to join American society. The Indians were not even given such an opportunity: the “five civilized tribes,” which began to successfully assimilate European culture, were evicted to the desert lands beyond the Mississippi as soon as the natural resources of their ancestral territories were considered too attractive 2 .

At the same time, the following fact attracts attention: during the formation of the American nation, the United States was by no means a tolerant country. And vice versa, when respect for the feelings of other peoples, primarily the oppressed, reaching the excesses of political correctness, became a universally binding value, the “melting pot” began to falter. The Mexicans and Puerto Ricans who have flooded America in recent decades are not too different in culture and mentality from the inhabitants of southern Italy, who poured into the country en masse at the beginning of the last century. However, their assimilation remains a headache for the authorities, who seem to have already come to terms with the fact that “Latinos” will never become ordinary Americans.

The experience of communicating with foreigners in Europe also does not inspire optimism. Before World War II, the populations of European countries were fairly homogeneous in nationally. Numerous peoples considered themselves Europeans. Catholics and Protestants, despite the most violent contradictions, remained Christians. Meetings with other civilizational worlds took place only at the edges of the continent: in Poland, the Baltic states, the Balkans, Sicily and Iberian Peninsula. The experience of the European outskirts gives the most different examples interactions, however, everywhere within several generations, other cultures, languages and national identities gave way to European ones. Jews and Gypsies, who were the only “internal strangers” in many countries of the continent, remained for centuries a source of irritation for the majority. This confrontation ended in the 20th century with the horrors of the Holocaust.

The third area of Western civilization has a very interesting experience of the coexistence of different peoples and races. It is so unusual that it is often singled out as a separate civilization, although the historical basis for this is clearly insufficient. I'm talking about Latin America. The Spanish colonialists initially differed little from their English colleagues and followers - and the population of the islands Caribbean Sea, the first to encounter them, was exterminated within the life of one generation. However, the large number and relatively high level of economic and social development of the local population, as well as the position catholic church changed the nature of emerging societies. Here, the European conquerors destroyed the nobility and priesthood of the conquered peoples, but the Indian peasants continued to live their lives under the rule of the new masters. Poverty and low social status passed down in the families of Indians, blacks and mulattoes from generation to generation, but they were not treated as a different breed of people. The difference in skin color did not prevent the residents of these countries from feeling like a single nation.

Russia is often considered a country that has historically been highly tolerant of foreigners. Indeed, within our state borders, for many centuries, people belonging to different peoples, races and religions. However, these boundaries were very wide. In a country the size of a good continent, peoples and cultures could live under the shadow of a single state, practically without intersecting in everyday life. However, by the end of the 19th century the situation began to change. Large industry appeared, people gradually began to move to the cities, and new European trends made themselves felt - and then friction arose that was somewhat reminiscent of modern reports from Europe: “Every day traveling along the Neva, a man who believes in his strength and loves his homeland, it’s painful and hard to see all this; and especially when you approach the Chapel of the Savior by boat. The sailor shouts: “Savior,” - an Orthodox man who has not lost his faith, makes the sign of the cross - and what he sees in front of him, to horror: two nasty faces taken by General Grodekov from Manchuria, one, as I noticed, with the inscription “Shi -ji." Was there really no more suitable place for these Chinese gods, but it’s as if this most precious place for an Orthodox person was chosen to desecrate a historical shrine?” 3

Revolution, civil war, industrialization sharply increased the need for a unifying principle for people forced by fate and history to live and work together. And they gave birth to such a beginning. The ideology of communism smoothed out contradictions between peoples and cultures and, by the end of the existence of the USSR, made it possible to talk, albeit somewhat prematurely, about a single Soviet people. However, the Union fell, and the bonds that united it disappeared. Once again, as at the beginning of the last century, we must ensure the peaceful coexistence of all residents of our diverse Motherland.

Let's summarize our reasoning. In the world there are several models of coexistence of different peoples and cultures in one state:

1. The European model of “tolerance” provides for the equality of all people, regardless of nationality and culture, respect for national customs and traditions, and preferential rights for minorities over the majority. The key word is "diversity". Main disadvantage- novelty. Tolerance is more of a project than an operating model. No one has yet proven that it can ensure the long-term existence of a multinational society. Moreover, last years this is highly doubtful.

2. The North American model equalizes the rights of all members of society and provides ample opportunities to achieve individual success. Europeans like this life goal seems quite natural, and they successfully integrate into the new nation. It is more difficult for people of other cultures to adapt. The most intractable are excluded from the number of people, singling them out by race, biological characteristics. The key word for this model is “personal freedom”.

3.The Latin American model assumes a hierarchical society with fairly closed social groups and relatively low vertical mobility. In such a society, everyone is equally recognized as people, but there is a clear distinction between the “poor race” (Indians and blacks) and the “rich race” (whites) with a wide layer of mulattoes in between. The key word here is "hierarchy".

4. The Russian model of tolerance preserves national customs, traditions and ways of life as long as people are ready to serve one state. At the same time, the latter live in their historical territories and interact relatively little with each other. The key word of the model is “Motherland”.

The traditional Russian understanding of tolerance worked well for centuries, but now the situation has changed. The separate existence of peoples presupposes that each nation can provide for itself. This cannot be said about today's Russians: a number of low-paid professions are occupied by visitors from neighboring countries, since the Russians themselves either consider them unprestigious or are poorly suited for them due to low work ethics and drunkenness. An attempt to unite the indigenous inhabitants of Russia and recent immigrants into a single nation in a “melting pot” of peoples, as was done in the USA or the USSR, could yield results, but no one is creating such a “pot”. The birth of a new nation through ideology requires deep confidence among ideologists that they are right. There is no such confidence among major politicians and social movements in Russia. The recent heated debate surrounding the death of Father Daniil Sysoev, who - one of the few - preaching Christianity among guest workers from Central Asia, contributed as much as he could to the formation of a unified Russian identity based on Orthodoxy, shows that there is no one to heat up the “melting pot” in our country.

European tolerance is also of little applicability to our conditions, because it is, first of all, a project that requires strategy, funds and political will. Our state doesn’t have any of this now. Moreover, the usefulness and desirability of universal tolerance has recently begun to raise very strong doubts, and copying the mistakes of world leaders is the height of unreasonableness.

The system of interethnic relations that is now emerging in our country is somewhat reminiscent of the situation in Latin American countries. A common language and, to a certain extent, a common culture are preserved. Certain non-prestigious professions are gradually assigned to individual peoples, and with them the label of “poor” and “unreliable”. Such societies, unfortunately, are characterized by a certain (but not massive!) interethnic violence, in which the dominant people indicate the “place” for the rest. Reports of such violence regularly appear in our media: these are the outrages of “skins”, “fascists”, “nationalists”, and most often crimes and abuses of police officers. On the other hand, the foreigners themselves are not downtrodden natives, but young active people who came from other regions and countries and united into strong diasporas who can also protect themselves. This is more like the state of affairs in modern Europe.

The traditional practice of interethnic relations in Russia is very good, but is not applicable to today's conditions. The current practice is a chimera. Before bringing it into compliance with European or any other requirements, it must be thoroughly studied. At the same time, none of the models of interaction with foreigners known in history could solve all the problems that arose. Creating such a model can give our Motherland enormous strength, but it requires honesty, courage and a lot of intellectual work.

1 Vladimir Mirzoev “We are allowed gur-gur” - “The Art of Cinema”, No. 9, 2009.

3 V.V. Rozanov “Insults to Russian feelings”; cit. by - Rozanov V.V. Collected works. Terror against Russian nationalism (Articles and essays 1911). M.: Republic, 2005, p. 160

Latin American melting pot. The 19th century was the time of the formation of the Latin American nation. Latin America had a population of 60 million. There were 20 independent states. In 18 countries the population spoke Spanish, in Brazil - in Portuguese, in Haiti - in French.

Slide 9 from the presentation "Latin America in the 19th century". The size of the archive with the presentation is 1749 KB.

History 8th grade

summary of other presentations

“Russian culture of the late 19th century” - Ivan Ivanovich Shishkin. F.M. Dostoevsky. A mighty bunch. Realism. "Bogatyrs". Modest Petrovich Mussorgsky. Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev. "Forest distances." Upper shopping arcades (now the GUMA building in Moscow). Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Basic concepts. Nikolai Andreevich Rimsky - Korsakov. Nihilism. Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. "Oak Grove". "We didn't expect it." Conversation. Victor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov. Artistic culture of the peoples of Russia.

"Civil War 1917-1922" - Third stage Civil War(March 1919 - March 1920). Monks shot by the Bolsheviks. Posters from the Civil War 1917-1920. Stages of the civil war. Sending soldiers to the front. IN AND. Lenin. Victims of the Kyiv Emergency Commission. Civil war in Russia: causes, stages, results. The first communist Chinese unit to fight in Russia in the ranks of the Red Army. Results of the Civil War. In the spring of 1919, troops of the Western Front fought in Karelia, the Baltic states and Belarus.

“Organization “Narodnaya Volya”” - The last attempt on the life of Alexander II. Alexander II is dying. The hunt has begun. Narodnaya Volya. The failure of Narodnaya Volya. Emperor. First attempt. People's will. Explosion in the Winter Palace. Alexander II. Andrey Zhelyabov.

“Nadezhda Durova” - Durova N.A. The memory of Nadezhda Andreevna lives to this day. Nadezhda Durova. Durova, until a certain point, successfully managed to hide her gender. Memory of Durova N.A. Durova Nadezhda Andreevna. Durova retired. Durova N.A. in Elabuga. Junker. Childhood of Durova N.A. Mother. Thunder Patriotic War. Writer.

"Internal Policy of Nicholas I" - a brief description of Nicholas I. Policy in the field of education and culture. Measures to strengthen public administration. The fight against the revolutionary movement. The main directions of the domestic policy of Nicholas I. The investigation and trial of the Decembrists. Contemporaries about Nicholas I. The Peasant Question. Financial reform. Dynastic crisis. Domestic policy Nicholas I.

“Russia at the end of the 18th century” - Political system. Population of Russia. The territory of Russia at the end of the 18th century. Population. Territory. Russia at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries. The political system of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. Russia is a multi-religious state. Class system. Class and economic situation.