Comment by gottorf

I appreciate your viewpoint, though I disagree with some of it. I am not black, and I understand that this is a differentiating factor for some people. I personally know someone who has a troubled relationship with her family for, among other things, marrying a black man, so I know that old-school racism is still alive[0][1].

> They also didn’t owe it to anyone to “assimilate”

People around the world have wildly different expectations of what is considered normal behavior in public. In some parts of the world, defecating in public is acceptable. But I would not find it tolerable if someone were to originate from a place like that, come to this country, and engage in the same behavior. I would highly encourage such a person to assimilate to the norm in this country of not defecating in public, and were they not able to do so, I would be antagonistic against more of such people immigrating to this country.

I don't know whether in your anecdote the large Latin American group were tourists or people who live here. My expectations would be very different depending on it. Neither I nor anyone else expects tourists to be fluent in the local language and cultural customs. But conversely, I would not like to live in a country where I do not even speak the same language as my fellow countrymen; the very meaning seems to lose itself.

So, respectfully, I disagree fundamentally: those who choose to put down new roots in a different country absolutely do owe it to the existing inhabitants to assimilate. I, as an immigrant, owe it to existing Americans to assimilate to the American way of life. When in Rome, do as the Romans.

I believe there should always be open dialogue on what the culture exactly is to assimilate to, and such things should change slowly over time, but to suggest that nobody new owes anything to those who were there before seems neither true nor good immigration policy.

> To be blunt, I don’t have to assimilate shit and neither does a gay person who wants to walk around with their partner just to make other people comfortable

> I can’t possibly steel man why someone thinks it’s their right to tell another adult why they shouldn’t be able to date or marry who they choose whether it be someone of the same sex or someome of a different color.

Would you draw the line anywhere? Does any adult have the right to tell another anything, especially if they are of different groups (however you may slice and dice it)? Does anyone owe anything to the society around them? Are there norms that everyone is expected to adhere to, despite the fact that some people are naturally further away from those norms than others? Because it seems like the West has tried saying no to all of these questions for 50 years, and it has resulted in atomized and fractious societies where people, despite material wealth unimaginable to previous generations, are so, so unhappy.

I would like to live someplace where people treat each other fairly and as individuals, without regard for stereotypes of whatever cultural, ethnic, religious, sexual, or other background such individuals may belong to. I do not believe that this is at all possible without everyone playing by the same set of rules.

Let me extend your anecdote about your stepson, to illustrate my point: it is a failing if a white youth of the same size who was dressed exactly the same and behaved the same way did not get stopped and asked questions the same way your stepson did, only by virtue of the color of his skin. But it is equally a failing if white adult were to find a black youth's behavior to out of the ordinary in a negative way[2], but was not able to voice any concerns solely out of racial sensibilities. Both mean that one is putting immutable group characteristics over the individual.

My thesis is thus: we can either have a multiethnic society where we all debate what "the ordinary" is and agree to follow it (notwithstanding the likelihood that the debate, by virtue of numbers, ends up near the dominant group's preferences), or we can have monoethnic societies, either in parallel ("separate but equal" where each group plays by their own rules with minimal crossover) or as the eventual result of a vicious struggle between the factions that leaves only one standing. There is no alternative that is sustainable over the long term. My clear preference is the first.

[0]: But perhaps on life support, to quote Sowell.

[1]: As you have alluded to, one might reasonably believe that the current progressive viewpoint on race is making race relations worse.

[2]: Only a hypothetical example; I am not saying that your stepson was engaging in any behavior out of the ordinary. The same applies for any two different groups.