Tolerance

D.W. Griffith, the guy who made Birth of a Nation (the movie often credited with beginning A) the revival of the Ku Klux Klan and B) the feature-length film) later made another, even longer epic called Intolerance. In an era where movies that did anything more than linear story-telling with minimal time-sequence cuts he tried to weave into Intolerance three or four different stories in three or four different time periods...it was a costume/period piece involving the Babylon (if I recall correctly) as its furthest back and ...Las Angeles? as its furthest forward.
Intolerance wove themes in which the acceptance of others was examined. By today's standards it is a tame, uncomplicated tale but at the time it was extremely deep and investigated areas not typically examined by movies. It has often been explained as his apology for making Birth of a Nation. Maybe. Personally, I think attributing motives to people that they themselves either implicitly or explicitly rejected (as he is reputed to have done) or never commented on is at best conjecture and at worst a desire to retroactively put apologists beliefs into the memories of someone who has passed on.
It is worth seeing Intolerance even though it can be difficult to watch. The storyline is classic in the search for what people will accept and what they will reject...and why.
That WHY is actually the point of this piece. The U.S. has woven into our mythology that we were built as a "Melting Pot". This mythology is both true and false. Often times people with an agenda of wishing the U.S. to have a guilty conscience about our past (and there is PLENTY there to feel guilty about) will overlook anything true about the Melting Pot concept and point to failures such as slavery, the Chinese working the railroads, and more as evidence no such concept existed in reality.
I would point out that those particular cases are actually examples of the Melting Pot working; for example, the music of Stephen Foster (Camptown Races, Swannee River, and many, many other songs) were explicitly designed to recreate the sound and feel of slave songs. It was "melting together" cultures...much as a style of clothes washing called the Chinese Laundry became part of Americana.
Were there abuses of the people involved? Pretty much a rhetorical question. And a shameful answer.
And more cases of the Melting Pot failing are easy to see. The political wars of New York and Chicago were largely race or nationality (and to a lesser extent, religious) driven. Native Americans were often excluded from participation.
Yet parts of theses various cultures did indeed become mainstream. Jazz, Ragtime, and "spirituals" are all directly attributable to the blacks, for example...in fact, much of vaudeville was based around "black entertainment" (and if you find THAT phrase offensive, you should see what I cleaned it up from).
The problem for many Melting Pot objectionists is that not all newcomers...whether Irish, Asian, or other...and not many long-time residents...Native Americans, Hispanics, blacks...were fully accepted. And that is largely but not completely true.
The ones that were accepted...whether immigrant or extant minority...were the ones, by and large, who "bought into the system". Chief Bender was a popular baseball player, Will Rogers an extremely beloved entertainer, for example...and greats of other colors and nationalities come to mind, including a man NOW relegated to a role as "inventor of the peanut".
And that is when the "Melting Pot" concept work. Right or wrong, moral or immoral, a Melting Pot only works when people assimilate. We can (and doubtless would) argue all year over the validity of forcing Native Americans to assimilate...but in my case, with other immigrants...no. I am very one-sided here. I stand strongly AGAINST the "Honor Diversity" stuff..no, I honor UNITY. Yes, I do believe people who come here should speak English just as I believe U.S. citizens who travel to other countries should speak the language of the country, not their own.
Do I mean differences are not acceptable? Of course not. What I do mean is emphasizing differences causes problems. Always has, always will.
I mean moving into a country and insisting on maintaing your old customs and habits, that causes problems. It breeds resentment, anger, fear and hatred. Let's look at an example.
Many Mexicans celebrate El Dia de Muerto, the "Day of the Dead". Included are celebrations that often visit cemetaries. This is all good. Noboyd is hurt, nobody is forced to go along and participate, business does not come to a halt, etc. The only ones affected are those participating.
Contrast that with the refusal of the Imam to shake a hand because she is a woman. Why, then, did you move to a country where women are "allowed" to hold power? If you find that offensive, get out of Holland. Is that asking too much?
Melting Pots only work when people subjugate their former culture in the interests of unity. There can be long, interesting, helpful discussions about what can and/or should change...but the reality is, insisting on being separate, especially when you IMMIGRATED, is a recipe for disaster.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11569485/site/newsweek/page/2/