As always, sources for all of my claims can be found in my public spreadsheet clickable through my main page. Additional resources are also provided for learning and exploring more 💚 Also, thank you all for the support while figure out my style and get everything setup. I know I have a long way to go in production quality, but this is a good place to start as I ramp up to potentially making videos more in the modern UA-cam style.
It would be great if you could do a video on Trumps campaign website as a example. But whatever you use as a example, everything you do to educate people is awesome.
I think you got the Melting Pot a bit wrong. The play wasn't about assimilation; It was about how immigrants affected how we defined America by comparing it to what happens to a molten metal when you add another metal to it - you get an alloy that's even stronger than the original metals by themselves. It was not until later on that the Melting pot became about assimilation, a bit of propaganda aided by the fact that few people actually read the work
You bring up a great point about the melting pot metaphor creating something stronger through blending. I agree the play celebrates the transformative power of diversity, but I also think it leans heavily into the idea of assimilation. David’s vision in the play talks about immigrants leaving behind Old World divisions and identities to become part of a unified American culture. While that sounds idealistic, it aligns with the idea of assimilation-immigrants adapting to fit a singular American identity rather than keeping distinct cultural traditions. I have some sources in my reference sheet that break this down, as there is a good Course Hero overview on this as well. I also think you’re spot on about how the metaphor evolved over time. The play’s more nuanced vision of shared transformation has often been reframed in modern rhetoric to focus even more on conformity.
@usa.mom.in.germany thanks for the response The Melting Pot is not a polemic. It's a story about millions of people with diverse experiences and POVs. It's inarguable that many immigrants struggled to "fit in" but the authors point is that regardless of their desires, their actions would lead to the forging of a New American.
It will also be hard because us Americans and the ones that need to hear this, won't be able to process it and won't want to hear it. Hence why the book is banned here in the US.
It was so peculiar when I lived in northeastern Pennsylvania when a lot of the immigration politics kicked off with a city in the region (Hazleton which tried via a law regulating housing.) I heard a lot of arguments about how the problem is "immigrants not assimilating, instead holding onto their languages and traditions" while living in a place where elderly first generation Irish, Italian, Polish and Russian immigrants were a large part of the population and still embraced their languages and traditions which the aforementioned complainers saw as "American traditions." My favorite specific incident was what there was a Latin American Food Festival at a park in Scranton which garnered criticism of "why do they need to have their own food festival? Why can't they just go to La Festa Italiana like everyone else?" - an annual Italian food and culture festival held on the streets around the county courthouse downtown.
I live in a small town where every year there's an Italian festival held for an entire week. They celebrate coming to America on their boats and so on. Yet those same Italian immigrants are some of the most racist people you will meet. I'll hear them bashing on people of color and complaining about the border, all while celebrating their own immigration to America, and it was not done legally, lol. They migrated during a time when it was easier to get away with it.
The melting pot idea is also teached in Peru. It always felt nice, but also sad as Peru has a lot of native americans and the melting pot is also about the erosion of their culture. I don't think is totally bad or a totally good idea, but is definitely an oversimplification. It never felt like forced assimilation in Peru, it was more like a pot that melts cultures slowly.
I don't think that immigrants to Peru have to lose their culture though. Wrong comparison. Look at all the Japanese who made Peru their homeland. One of them even become president.
@danielalveorodriguez7177 Yes, that's what I found interesting. It is not as she described in Peru, it seems the other way around. Where the native population and not as much the inmigrants are the ones that have to adapt their culture to external influences. People in the Andes were the ones forced to learn Spanish and change their religion and customs.
@ The United States is the only country in the world who claims to be the “land of the free”, but for most of its history people haven’t been free at all.
That is something I have always pointed out. What reason does any multiple gun owning U.S. citizen have to be afraid of migrants? As a Seneca Indian and 24 year U.S. Army Veteran, I am not afraid of white supremacist ass hats or Christian Nationalists because I own and have been well trained in the use of firearms. However, I prefer not to but will if threaten or anyone harms my family and friends. How can people who supposedly own firearms let politicians convince them to be scared of migrants, most who are just wanting a better life for themselves and their families. And as for borders, borders do not make a country, it is the people who make a country.
Because people aren't afraid of immigrants. That's a stupid strawman argument leftists love to make because it both demonizes and infantilizes their political opponents. Try making an honest attempt to understand the issues and then you won't have so much confusion.
When I was taught the Melting Pot ideal, legal vs illegal immigration wasn't brought up at all. What we learned was how various groups, such as Blacks, Irish, Chinese, Jews, etc. contributed to the building of American society and to American culture.
Wow you stirred up a hornet’s nest. 🐝 Professor Robert Reich posted a cartoon some time ago with three people sitting at a table all had a plate of cookies. The one in the middle whose plate was full of 🍪 🍪🍪🍪🍪 said to the guy on the right who had only one 🍪 on his plate pointing towards the dark haired guy on the left whose plate was empty: Watch out that guy wants to steal your cookie. 🍪 I think this says in a nutshell what’s going on here.
Immigrant crisis is a hoax, but when I suggest that mass shootings pose a greater threat, I am called un-American. By the way, nice sweater, good outfit for this video.
In 1999, when I was in the process of bringing my Chinese fiance over here, I attended an AFL-CIO event. An old friend told me to "Talk to him", pointing to an aide for our congress person. Among the things he told me was that Republicans have always restricted immigration because when they become citizens, they tend to vote Democratic. No one mentions this. I think that's because the Rs don't want to tell them to vote Blue, and the Dems don't want to dare them to try voting for someone else (like they've been doing to the working class for decades).
@@Thank.the.cosmos That’s a stretch. People use the phrase, “it’s gonna be a long day” meaning it’s going to be a difficult day, not to mean, the day is going to last longer than 24 hours.
We are really good at looking at a group or ethnicity, instead of individuals, thereby "hating" and fearing everyone in a group. It would be great if textbooks like the one you referenced were available here. Thanks for your insights!
My great great aunt and great great grandmother were Mi'kmaq and came from a reservation near Canada. I have really old photos of them. I always wished I had learned more about my heritage.
In Louisiana, we were taught it wasn’t a melting pot, but that it was a pot of gumbo. Like there are all these distinct ingredients, but that we’re all in the pot together. And that you don’t want it to be all one taste and texture - that’s just a soup. It all has to come together, with each ingredient being itself, no matter how small the amount, for the gumbo to be good. That was back in the 90s and 00s. What do you think of that metaphor?
That is a variatioin of the patchwork theory. It is one designed to push identities by race and is based on perceptions of power. It was designed by race activists to create dissencion and keep themselves relevant. Booker T Washington nailed the concept in 1901.
The ad that ran before this video was for a film that's definitely propaganda meant to normify war in the US and Americans turning on each other for basic needs. 😐
As an European observing this dynamic from a distance, I would never have thought the movie "The Matrix" was in fact a manifesto against US propaganda.
Interesting that the “Melting Pot” idea came about right around the same time as the movie “Birth of A Nation” (shown at the White House during the Woodrow Wilson Administration, and lauded by the president himself). American history is replete with examples of declarations of “who” is considered “American,” almost at the same time as it is also “dog whistling” who is NOT (nowadays it’s a fog horn).
In high school I remember being taught we were a "cultural mosaic", to distinguish ourselves from the American melting plot, because we let immigrants keep their culture instead of expecting assimilation. This is of course, a myth and propaganda as well.
I wonder if the same is true for NZ, and Australia as well since our countries (I'm from the US but including the 5 eye countries) all have a British colonial past and because of that have that superiority complex left over from our being British. For example, some of our republican lawmakers tried making an Anglo-Saxon caucus, which drew a lot of heat because at its core, it was founded on racial superiority from being.....British decent.
Excellent lecture! Organized, methodical, and clear. Thanks for the strong analysis. As an educator, I can only guess at the significant time this took you to prepare -let alone the additional editing and other work in making it a UA-cam video.🙏🏽
William Hogeland's books are great for learning about the early history of the US with an emphasis on tearing down myths of the founding. "The Hamilton Scheme" is his most recent, and it's great.
Nice work! I just hope that German students still learn how to spot propaganda in German before they finish school. I know I had to live through years and years of „how did Hitler rise up and what kind of language and propaganda helped this?“ in school.
This is exactly the thing. Germany has taken a big hard stand against what happened back in the 30s and 40s. And are therefore teaching their kids how to correctly address propaganda and misinformation in schools... But today a good 90% of that type of craziness comes from one place. From predominantly American social media. They are learning about it in English class because thats where it is. Not because they have an "anti-america course"
Thank you so much for doing this!! I really appreciate it. I just started this video, but I would also love good reading sources about the topic you're talking about in each video to further our knowledge.
It's not a melting pot, it's more of a mosaic. Human Nature keeps it form being a melting pot, but the US is easily the most diverse nation, religiously, ethnically and racially, and for the most part, everyone gets along. There's a definite assimilation of other cultures to the American lifestyle, but most groups surround themselves with like people.
AAnd you start with a massive fallacy that Native Americans were some sort of monolithic state. The fact is they were just as busy 'trespassing" and colonizing each other as every other group of peoples around the worrld.
@@RichardChappell1 It's not necessary for native Americans to have had a monolithic state, or for them not to have been fighting each other, to understand that Europeans acquired the U.S. almost entirely through coercion, force, trickery, signing treaties they had no intention of honoring, and worse things that YT won't let me say.
Nice summary. I would have liked you to ask the central, essential question you rightfully propagate in your last video: Why? Why is it that this is the reality? Who's gaining from the fact that the public thinks this way? On the other hand, you'd be treading dangerous ground, given _where_ you'd post this. I'm trying to keep things neutral as most of my comments keep "vanishing" recently.
I really appreciate your encouragement to go deeper with the “why” behind the Melting Pot myth and who benefits from it. You’re absolutely right that understanding the motivations is central to unpacking these narratives. In this video, I attempted to discuss this when highlighting how the Melting Pot myth functions as propaganda. For example, pointing out how it creates a narrative of broad inclusivity while reinforcing exclusionary practices. However, I could have more directly pointed out that this serves the interests of those looking to maintain power structures that rely on selective inclusion. However, discussing that those that contribute economically are embraced while marginalizing others may get at the same concept. I’ll keep this in mind for future content and see how I can explore these questions more directly. And sorry about your comments. I promise I only delete comments that are outright harassment or misinformation.
This level of integrity is unheard of. I'm blown away and left speechless. You're very special, I hope you realize that. Sending lots of love from a different part of Germany! ♥️
Same here, even when they just contain compliments. Meanwhile others that are harassing and demeaning and worse, get cart blanch. Then replies that only the poster can see but nobody else can. I wouldn't say anything if it wasn't for the fact communication is our most powerful tool.
First off: another great video. More long form videos, please. Second: the melting pot myth refers to an alloy that is stronger than its individual metals. However from my experience, the USA is more like a fruitcake. Delicious when it works together and baked well. However under any kind of pressure it crumbles and falls apart into its constituent parts. Nuts, orange peels, and all the other components become unglued and separate. It's also easy to cut apart by someone wielding the sharp knife of incendiary rhetoric or fear mongering. Fear has been the dominant factor in US politics over the last 70 years. The Red Scare under McCarthyism in the 50's and 60's. Communism taking over the world, hippies and drug abuse, rock songs and supposed links to Satanism or self-unaliving (see how censored that word has become since then?) trends. The threat of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction). Supposed demon worship in roleplaying games. Drug cartels, violence, stranger danger, supposed weapons of mass destruction in the 90's when the Soviet Union collapsed and the convenient communist threat dropped away. The war on drugs was created as a new scarecrow to scare the US public into conveniently looking at its internal systemic problems. Supposedly black rebellion in LA leading to chaos. Then 9.11. offered another huge opportunity to scare the US citizens, this time with something that wouldn't inconveniently vanish by glasnost and perestroika: the war on terrorism. Terrorism is available whenever you need it. Declare something a terrorist act, boom, the public cries out about it. Even when it barely rates as noteworthy in everyday crimes (cough, Luigi, cough). Immigrants, legal or illegal, have been lampooned by South Park ("They're taking our jobs!") since at least the mid 2000's. Still, drug cartels, crime rates, immigrants, 'evil, nasty Islamic fundamentalists' (note my air quote), and convenient scapegoats among the world's countries like Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, North Korea, Russia, etc. Wait long enough, everybody gets their time in the 'scary enemy ' limelight. As long as they keep the attention away from the US internal problems, fear sources are a great distraction. Point out the scary enemy du jour, and the great USA will be saved again by the heroes of the day. However that works only so long as people are still at least moderately content with quality of their lives. As long as they have something worth loosing that the current enemy can be pointed to and claimed to have their eyes on, then the US public will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, no matter how ridiculous it is. But when the American citizens have been pushed so far that they feel the cold, hard walls of reality hemming them in, with no more room to retreat, then they have _nothing_ more to loose by actually facing reality. If it is less painful to rip off the mountain of band-aids patched over their souls rather than drink the convenient Kool-Aid of a public enemy, then the entire system starts to wobble. That's the point the USA has reached right now. The people are angry, desperate, often hopeless, and beaten down, literally and figuratively. Be scared, you oligarchs, be very, very scared. The masses in the USA are beginning to recognize that without them, the system doesn't work. Oligarchs hoarding wealth without doing something worthwhile with it that improves the lives of society are becoming targets of the fear they have sown over decades. People are so afraid to loose the last vestiges of their dignity that they are willing to ask the big question:"Why am I getting less than 1/1000th of the CEO of the company I slave away my life on? Why do I allow myself to be disregarded and disrespected?"
@@RustyDust101 to be fair, the Communist Bloc actually would have liked to take over the world. They just have not been able to do so... among other things because of the US.
as a german, i never learned this in school. however it aligns largely with how i view the debate in the united states. what's the name of the book you found this in? we used access, i also know of green line, is it that?
Very much looking forward to your video on the "American dream." I'm impressed with Germany for studying U.S. propaganda in school. It's completely appropriate to understand this aspect of the country that dominates the world. I wonder how many other countries do that? My metaphor for immigration is a chunky stew rather than a melting pot. New people come and add their flavor to the stew, but they stay distinct and recognizable. I completely prefer stew; it tastes great, and I can choose a piece to savor more fully.
From the video: "Immigrants work in areas that rely on cheap labor like the construction business and restaurants. Their illegal status makes it impossible for them to rise and leave the underclass of the poor." A couple points: 1) Immigrants come to the U.S. because they believe that life in the U.S. will be better than in their home country. 2) The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. It seems likely that the succeeding generations born to illegal immigrants will quickly catch up to their U.S.-born peers. We know this regarding legal immigrants: "Both today and in the past, many immigrants earn less than U.S.-born workers upon first arrival and do not completely catch up in a single generation. But their children do. No matter when their parents came to the U.S. or what country they came from, children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than their U.S.-born peers. What’s more, their rates of mobility today are strikingly similar to rates of mobility in the past." Abramitzky, Ran, Leah Boustan, Elisa Jacome and Santiago Perez. 2021. "Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the United States over Two Centuries." American Economic Review, 111 (2): 580-608.
I guess the way it is used as propaganda, using Chomsky’s framework, ex: increase in housing costs, strain on budgets that would better serve veterans and U.S citizens. That is one example.
@@HenryClavo As I understand things immigrants in the U.S. are typically less strain on social welfare programs than native-born. From the CATO Institute: "Based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we find that immigrants consumed 21 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis in 2020."
Immigrants are a) more likely to live in poverty than US born citizens, b) they are more likely (by a lot) to be low income earners c) immigrants from Asia and Central and South America earn less than half the income of US natives. There's a reason why nativist sentiment is great in the US. because they tie immigrants with poverty and low class status.
@@danielalveorodriguez7177 While it's true that immigrants don't do as well as native born -- as the article I quoted above shows -- the children of immigrants do better than native born peers.
@@johnnypetro9314 I THINK IT LACKS NUANCE, YOU CANT ADD EVERY IMMIGRANT INTO ONE CATEGORY, ASIAN IMMIGRANTS EARN ALMOST 1.5 TO 2 TIMES THAN AVERAGE US BORN (INDIAN SUBCONTINENT,CHINESE (OTHER SE ASIANS TOO) WHO ARE MOSTLY IN STEM AND MEDICAL,BUSINESS FIELDS , BUT LATIN AMERCAN IMIGRANTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE IN LABOUR JOBS FOR 1ST GEN, THE SILICON VALLEY IS LITERALLY DOMINATED BY INDIANS AND CHINESE, ATLEAST MORE THAN 50%. INCOME OF AVG US BORN 65000$ AND INCOME OF AVG INDIAN 126000$ AND CHINESE (OTHER SE ASIANS) MORE THAN 90000$.
Fun fact in Scandinavian countries, children start learning how to spot misinformation and disinformation in elementary school. Primarily because of Russia and Trump.... 🙄
interesting that you say the German students are taught this way already....I know that this is going to the direction of politics, unfortunately. But what do you think about the rise of AfD in the context of the same propaganda teachings? I'd assume the Germans during school had learned the same techniques that you're talking about, and should've recognized what they're trying to do, by stoking the fear against immigrants. But why would they still choose that far right? Why not the rest of the parties in the Bundestag? If it's dissatisfaction against the incumbent traffic light party, why not just go back to CDU/CSU? And instead choose a party that unfortunately is more catered towards xenophobia? BTW, interestingly, if you learned the history of AfD, they're actually that, an "Alternative for Germany" and was originally a much more libertarian party, more so than the yellow party (FDP), and grew as...well, alternative, to Merkel's politics. Kinda like how BSW now got made. But then there was internal strife, and the original people who had made AfD got put to the side, and the more...anti-immigrant ones became center stage.
Problem here ? Germany has SIXTEEN different school systems as education is a state and not a federal law due to historic reasons. You might have noticed which German states are more prone to lean to the right politically. Sadly our democracy couldn't eadicate over 40 years of dictatorship and indoctrination in the East as easily as we hoped for. Don't forget that most of the teachers in the East who had studied there couldn't be replaced by those who grew up and studied in a democracy. The federal state oversees the curriculae but it was and is up the teacher to tranfer the contents to the student.
@@RoseRedRoseWhite Right you are. My bad, and I apologize to the OP. The U.S.'s current level of political propaganda makes me think more of comparing it to the Nazi regime than to present-day Germany.
Because America was so focused on being a "melting pot," most white Europeans lost their heritage in the quest to quickly become "American." My relatives came from 6 different countries, but were fully "Americanized" by the time my parents were born. The last relative who spoke their native language was my great grandma who died when I was a baby.. I only know one white family who hung onto their heritage (even performing German dances). The rest of us have a bland "typical white American" culture. I was always drawn to newer Americans who held onto their heritage. I've had friends from many different countries, and over the years, I learned more about their heritages than I did of my own. Some of my friends included me in their family gatherings, where I learned traditional dances, ate their wonderful food, and learned some phrases in their languages. I only know the names of and some facts about my ancestors.
Yeah, that's coming from such a backwards view. It's really an impressive level of historian's fallacy. "America" was never focused on being a melting pot. The concept was a description of what happens after any place has multiple cultures coming together. You've anthropomorphized America so you can place blame. But the reality is that your relatives are the ones who dropped their cultures and languages. Nobody "made" them do it. They do it because people don't necessarily see their "culture" as something specific - it's just what it is. You demonstate that with your own disparagement of your culture. They drop aspects of their previous life that they don't feel they need or that don't benefit them anymore. Guess what? It happens everywhere in every part of the world. it happens in India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. In Saudi Arabia, they've completely eeradicated their historical culture in favor of a form of Islamic modernism.
An interesting area to inquire would be the Indigenous Latino American population. "They" seemed to side with TRUMP on a couple topics, the economy, probably because they felt the brunt of inflation as did poor working class white did more than TRUMP class people did, those of much higher net worth. And second there was a "fear" sort of implied that Illegal Latino Aliens would dilute the US population of Latino's and compete for Jobs that Latino's already in America held. So, that rhetoric sort of pitted the already here with voting rights against those attempting to enter. Good Latino vs Bad Latino. Good Latino's vote for TRUMP?
Yeah, no. That's a strawman of what leftists think the latin American population thinks. Try listening to them when they tell you instead of thinking you know better. They recognize the leftists have been using them for a tool for years, and have started to realize they aren't getting anything back from it except a destroyed culture for their children. FYI, a questioni for you - when did the Latino Americans become indigenous? Before Spanish colonization? Or does indiginous have a new, expanded meaning now?
In the US, you're ok if you're from Irish, German or Scandinavian descent. Italians are kind of ok, as long as they acknowledge their inferior status. The rest are basically Untermenschen in the eyes of most Americans.
I was taught about the melting pot, but not in any way that you have described, i was taught in the 90s that it was an ideal to try to live up to, but the reality is that different cultures while they can coexist to a point will often clash as core beliefs are different.
Wow, I wish I had been taught that. I was taught a fairy tail of a pioneering society that accepts everyone, hard to swallow as my ancestors were killed for their land here.
@RichardChappell1 I'm speaking on my civics lessons in the early 2000s, in a very small rural town. It was in fact bullshit for my teacher to talk about the melting pot ideal and how great America is for that and then be openly racist to the few non white students the same day.
I first learned “the melting pot” was a lie while taking an inclusivity training for volunteering at a dance. It was disheartening especially since I had the positive associations from a children’s program called “School House Rock.”
The language you use that is currently in fashion about diversity vs assimilation is definitely charged with a particular viewpoint that is not at all accepted as true, neutral or evenhanded except among a relatively small section of well educated, affluent Americans that values particular terminology in order to convey its own propagandistic agenda. Just using plain English would be better. For example, illegal immigration is not how the country began. That starting point immediately distorts and reframes history with the intent of reshaping the origins of the United States in a way that doesn't serve the interests of honesty, truth, or reality. I'll grant that the intentions are good but the viewpoint is really highly filtered to fit a world view of a certain class of Americans and Europeans. The major European empires conquered and colonized the Americas. That is the origin of the United States as well as every other country in the western hemisphere. The idea or even suggestion that the British Empire ever intended to honor its word about leaving the west to the Indians is utterly absurd. That promise was a flat out lie from the very beginning and there was never any intention upon the part of any of the European empires to allow the natives inhabitants to live freely and have any sovereignty over any inch of land in the western hemisphere they found useful to their imperial enterprises. That is the reality and the truth of the origin of all European imperial conquest and colonization in this hemisphere. The politically correct language you use masks the truth and softens it in the extreme. I know academics like to be nice and trendy but it does no service to students not to point out the actual reality from the very beginning and explain to them why this was the case, why we now look at that imperial conquest and colonization in a much more negative light and why the people at the time engaged in that enterprise did not. Very few Europeans or those who descend from Europeans disapproved of what they were doing or why. They understood the harsh reality and brutality of what they were engaged in doing yet they pursued it anyway. They were quite conscious of the oppression, if not downright genocide, of the native population. Some didn't approve but they were few. Most thought it necessary for a greater good because they believed they were bringing civilization to the land and getting rid of the "savages" to establish that new world was justified i the long run. The Irish and the Germans who settled west of the Alleghenies did so with the tacit approval of the empire and everyone in the colonies knew it. The Scotch-Irish and the Germans were the tip of the spear for westward expansion of Americanized European civilization. The relentless drive to the west was unstoppable and was very intentional especially once the United States became independent. No treaties with the Indians have ever been honored in full and most weren’t honored at all. Just be honest about that. All of this is typically ignored in US classrooms because it's too complicated and nuanced to explain and frankly, many teachers, instead of just plainly stating the facts of the matter have adopted their own, also distorted version of how the US developed and why that is so heavy handed many "traditionalists" have gotten quite angry about it and the far right has exploited the lack of understanding of these people to divide the country over matters that really ought not to even be debated any longer because the facts and truth of the history is well established. I could go on about the melting pot myth which your view also distorts to advance a particular viewpoint that I don’t think is any more accurate than the traditional myth but purports to be revealing as not entirely true or inclusive. Suffice to say it wasn’t ever really intended to be inclusive until the past 30 or so years since it has been revised. Only now do we pretend that it should have been more inclusive which was never an issue because inclusion wasn't a priority or even a concern by the majority and certainly not by most historians until very, very recently. Assimilation is and always has been very real and does occur. Your viewpoint presents a different point of view that again softens and distorts the reality of how assimilation has worked and continues to work here. It’s not really a choice. American society has its own centripetal force and by the second generation almost everyone assimilates as a result of the socialization process and the fact that the majority point of view, the majority way of life and the majority desire to have national unity is reflected in that process. That force in an irresistible and inevitable one for immigrant families. They cannot stop it from happening. Americans, including the vast majority whose families were assimilated over the past 170+ years and whose traditions and cultural practices from the old country have either disappeared or have become so Americanized that they exist only on the margins of family tradition and sometimes ethnic tradition in a particular community. Otherwise, the Americans whose grandparents came here or even parents who came here are fully Americanized and will raise their children as American. Despite the racism and nativism that has occurred in the past and that remains today, each generation of immigrants whether legal or illegal have all been absorbed into the great melting pot and identify primarily as American not as a subset of American. I applaud your effort to try and get people to examine what they've been taught, but I think you would be far more effective if you dropped the trendy terms favored by the smarty pants professional managerial class and chose instead to be direct and speak plainly about the harsh reality of the past and how that shapes America today.
I'm not following what your point is here. You made several statements suggesting your mistrust for academia, but I'm not exactly sure what you're saying it is that's being distorted by academics. Your point about assimilation seems to be agreement with Aly's discussion of the melting pot myth, not contrary to it. Regarding your comment about "smarty pants" language, what specific examples can you find that are raising a concern for you, and what about them makes you uncomfortable?
@@hexwolfi Not following, or won't follow? It's pretty obvious where the post is going. He or she is talking about the false social justice that has been adopted by rich, predominantly white elitists and academia who feel the need to point out why everyone like them is bad - except them of course, because they recognize it and are better. So they swing to the progressive radicalism that is so common among them. And of course, describing how the author creates this completely unreasonable narrative about the "myth" and how it was the result of some unseen intentional effort of evil badness. The point is the discussion about sources and propaganda are reasonable, but then she spends the bulk of the video propagandizing. But the poster is trying to say that in less than specific terms because the rest of the progressive radicals will go nuts responding because they are unwilling to read. The reality is that the author's propaganda is so think and heavy, she obviously hasn't applied her own advice, and doesn't even seem to recognize it - which undermines the very point she is trying to make about analyzing material.
A lot of their relatives was planted in the US when the war World War II ended a lot of them someone went to South America, but a lot of them was plant right here in the US and what they did. They taught their children about how to do the same thing they did in Germany.
Ally may have personal opinions she hopes to further, but this is by definition not propaganda. It contains no appeal to emotion or moral stance other than being against propaganda. Where did she say America's exclusionary practices are bad? She probably thinks so, big all this video serves to do, is expose the myth for what it is: propaganda inconsistent with what America is actually like. Every time someone with a strong person opinion on the matter explains aspects of reality inconsistent with our state mythos is not propaganda. Having a bias is not the same as propagandizing. She's also pointing out how the melting pot myth is used to serve political goals by influencing us.
@@thomaspelletier7790 MY issue is why German Vs the US? Every video this woman does is pro Germany and anti USA, I believe because it gets clicks. Germany is a tiny country, that has it's own history of government doing wrong, yet it's somehow about the US. Sorry, I love the US and I feel very fortunate to have been born here.
@ it is very easy to believe that propaganda that you agree with isn’t propaganda. Again, i agree with alys propaganda narrative, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t propaganda. It is. She is using persuasive speech, that highlights only one perspective in a highly debated topic, with a desire to sway opinion. That is propaganda. For example, were she not a propagandist, she could discuss the various different opinions on her topics and leave her audience to form their own conclusions. This is something that once upon a time, even in America, people called journalism. Journalism, in this sense, hasn’t existed in my lifetime. So long that aly is probably too young to consciously understand what she is doing.
It's bizarre that you think it's wrong for a nation to "selectively decide" who is part of their country. Nations by nature are exclusive. Now you can criticize the US for that, but you better criticize every other nation on Earth as well
It is aimed at Americans because she is trying to inform US about how WE can distinguish propaganda. Clearly, we can't, or we wouldn't have MAGA threatening our country's well-being.
In this video, I am not criticizing the U.S. for making selective decisions (though I could in some ways, but that would be for another video). Instead, I am critiquing the Melting Pot myth for presenting a narrative of broad inclusivity while simultaneously marginalizing those striving to be part of the American identity, pushing them outside the bounds of what is deemed truly "American."
But thats not what America promises... Back in the day they called America the "melting pot", today they say "Diversity is our strength". Put that line into Google or UA-cam and you will see every single politician proudly telling us that. While the exact opposite is often true. What you are talking about is white supremacy or wild nationalism. And how it should be natural and to be expected of a country. And this idea that every other country is "just the same, or worse" is exactly that american exceptionalism talk, isnt it.
@@usa.mom.in.germany The melting pot was always about people who immigrated to our country legally, NOT people who jumped across the border. That’s the part that you’re missing.
We addressed this early in the video discussing how the U.S. was built on illegal immigration, but has built an identity using the melting pot to exclude people who seek American identity in the same way today.
There was an impressive level throughout this discussion of propaganda. Right from the beginning, the concept of the "melting pot" as a myth is presented as some perceived all-encompassing story that defines history. The reality is that it is more of an aspiration or target. And the discussion of underrepresented groups serve as a disqualification of that idea because then it can't be accurate unless it applies 100% is unreasonable as well. Very few things that exist in the world are 100% pure so to speak. The reality is that those underrepresented groups have had major impacts on the common American culture (as in the elements of culture that are shared pretty consistently) and it pretty much undermines that claim. That is not to say there hasn't been historical abuses and mistreatment. But in all fairness, that's history everywhere. Those underrepresented groups came from areas where there was substantial historical abuse and mistreatment. The fact is that common American culture is a mix of many, many contributing cultures legitimately described as a melting pot. It's much the same as any major trading center throughout history. Then there is the idea of the melting pot as cultures coming together in harmony and every group just getting along together is far more of a caricature of the melting pot concept - a form of strawman designed specifically that makes it easy to attack, which of course the author goes on to do. This discussion of the melting pot is loaded with nuance, which is opinion more than reality. The idea that it was some harmonious sharing of ideas may be something the author believed, but it is not typically presented that way - well maybe outside of academia which has been heavily manipulated to be heavily biased by certain p9litical movements. Then the entire discussion of "illegal" immigration is so thick with opinion and bias that it is far more propaganda that reasoned discussion. An added tool to recognize propaganda is to watch the negative claims presented and how they're presented. As shared by the story of the Richest Man in Babylon, we don't go to Omar the Brickmaker to learn about Diamonds. It's easy to look at someone who used to be part of, or left a group and see them as an "expert" purely because they were in that group, but they likely have some bias and the discussion is loaded. You can notice their negative claims are incredibly convenient. When the author presented her credentials as support for her expertise, I was pretty confident in thee bias that we would see. There's a very strong bias along these lines in the university environment, which has been heavily cross-pollinated across the nation as professors move around and write articles and books on their specific areas. In all fairness techniques the author has been sharing are effective and helpful, even with the highly biased discussion and examples. I am interested in many of the questions she has presented. What's the motivation, who's paying, etc. I'm interested, for example, why she is sharing this at this time. And why am I suddenly seeing a number of people sharing similar philosophies all feeling the need to "teach" critical thinking now with many of the same biased representation of the same information. Now when I follow the authors links, I see Criticism + Advocacy = Change. That's telling me something abut her motivation. Then following her links, I can see her political persuasion very clearly. Soo while we don't know whether these organizations she links to are sponsors, she has not been very open about her obvious intentions - which is to advocate for specific ideas so she can effect change - and what change, she is not sharing.
The point of this video is to analyze how this myth underpins common rhetoric used by politicians to motivate Americans to their cause on all sides of the political spectrum. Aly does not deny the reality that minorities have motivated substantial change; her argument is about what Americans tend to _believe_ is true, not what _is_ true. That said, the assessment that the author presented the melting pot myth as an "all-encompassing story" does not read at all as an accurate representation of this argument. Also, I want to remind you that simply calling out logical fallacies like "strawman" in an argument is not actually meaningful unless you demonstrate what makes the statement fallacious in context. You made a mention about her discussion of illegal immigration, but you didn't elaborate on that. What about that argument do you find to be untrue, offensive, or distorted? The author does not at any point rely on their credentials to legitimize their argument. What led you to this conclusion?
@@hexwolfi Let's start with the most basic one - 0:35, in her introduction Aly very specifically introduces her "credentials" (without actually identifying those credentials) as her qualification for deconstructing American rhetoric, and in her initial YT videos, she specifically claims that qualifies her. That's what led me to my conclusion. Her entire account in her own words is about educating others to her mode of thinking. Of course, her description is related to communication specifically. I'd suggest she is likely qualified to discuss techniques in propaganda from her communication education and experience. She is no more qualified to discuss history, politics and what is actually propaganda than any other adult. As to the rest, let's go in order. I suggest you read again for understanding, because I detailed the logical fallacies I claimed. I did not simply call them out. I disagree with you on the point of the video. Her ostensive point was to teach about propaganda and this was an example, but I suggest there is something more here. That is the motte, but the bailey is her idea that the US is corrupt and she uses this contrived theory to demonstrate it. Before you go off on another post saying I'm not justifying it, I have described exactly why I think so, between this and other posts on this. The entire point of her channel in her own words is to advocate a position and try to motivate change. That is exactly what propaganda is used for. "Aly does not deny the reality that minorities have motivated substantial change; her argument is about what Americans tend to believe is true, not what is true." Interesting that you seem to know what Aly meant vs what she said. That raises some interesting questions. Are you funded by the same folks so you can patrol the comments? But, let's get back to the topic - Aly sets up her premise that the play "The Melting Pot" drove the "myth" in the US, and specifically mentions at 1:44 how it was limited to European immigrants and excluded the commonly identified under-represented groups. She then went on to discuss how the play avoided the complexities of immigration. The problem is she obviously has not read the play as her premise is based on a complete misunderstanding of the play. The play is about an individual Russian and his survival through violent conditions that took the lives of his family, and his immigration to the US, along with his ideas and motivations for doing so. It doesn't even address general Western culture or immigration - just one individual. The reality is that there is no path from that play to the ideas she has presented here. There's a logic jump she is skipping. I'm betting she is basing it on the work (or others expanding on his work) of Werner Sollars who makes the association with assimilation, unfortunately, using only a surface interpretation of his comments. Her hinting at critical theory concepts gives an indication of where she is taking her analysis from. While she does talk about what Americans tend to believe is true - at least in her mind, she also presents a truth claim in her discussion about what the concept of the melting pot is and represents. She continually calls it a myth - and what's the definition of myth? A narrative or story of beliefs of events or traditions more symbolic that actual. Sure, there are some other , somewhat related definitions, but not that apply based on her usage. She is obviously using it to present the idea that the concept is a belief not grounded in fact. And as I explained in my comment, the metaphor is applicable and an accurate way to describe the American development. As to her discussion on immigration, there is so much misrepresentation that it could be another page of notes. Another commentor on the post did a pretty reasonable discussion of the fallacies in her analysis, and specifically her false association of historical events with modern issues. I won't duplicate them here. It's a dishonest manipulation. I'm not suggesting that Aly here is intentionally dishonest, but her sources definitely had ulterior motives. Ultimately, there is a lot of good information in her presentation. And this example could have been a good example had she kept to the basic concept and not expanded it to include the depth of her own propaganda. As it is, I would not recommend it to someone as a learning tool other than someone experienced and to use it as an example. More importantly, the timing is very suspect. In the last month, several brand new channels have popped up with women teaching "critical thinking," but in reality pushing a progressive radical narrative. And they suddenly show up on unrelated feeds to be exposed to massive audiences. That is indicative of large sums of money promoting the channels, which are not being disclosed.
Also, there are Indian Americans, Scandinavian Americans, Dutch Americans, African Americans, South Americans, Latin Americans, Polynesian Americans, etc, etc, etc. 🙂↔️
I love your videos, but all of this is irrelevant. None of it sparks outrage. None of it is any different than any other country hundreds of years ago. The difference is the number of illegal immigrants entering Germany year over year vs. the US. Germany's system only works because it's a relatively small country, with a limited number of illegal immigrants straining the system...I'm talking specifically about healthcare and schools. Nobody cares about the myth of a Melting Pot...what we want is a system that can actually work despite the huge number of immigrants coming here. It's the immigrants who believe the propaganda, not the citizens. Many of the current US citizens are looking at the rules and requirements to immigrate to European countries, because this one is a sinking catastrophe of morons, and finding out that Europe is really hard to immigrate to. Talk about tight borders!! How's the propaganda in Germany on that detail?
@@helloworld9044 Then you are a fool. There's no myth to care about. It's just a description of what happened due to the influx of people from around the world. Turning it into something else is just a dishonest attempt to manipulate people who are too ignorant to actually know and understand history.
@helloworld9044 You get me wrong...probably because I have a sharp tongue. I like her videos, but I'm challenging for better. Where are we actually being hoodwinked with propaganda? She has drawn powerful lines before, but not this one. How would the fabulous Germany actually solve the immigration problem in the US. To melt or not to melt is irrelevant to the problems facing the US today. You can care all you want, but I can't see how it's anything other than unfocused. She's smart...she can bring it home if she wants.
@@moose2154Germany is the second most populated country in Europe so why are you calling it small? (Turkey doesn't count because most of it is in Asia.) Its borders are different to countries in Southern Europe which are smaller like Italy, Greece, Malta and Spain who end up having immigrants cross into them by boat.
I’ve literally never heard anyone mention the term “melting pot” since history class in high school. You spend so much time analyzing something that was more relevant 100 years ago. Even your modern examples don’t mention anything about America being a melting pot.
Melting pot is a modern term. I've heard numerous times throughout the 2000s and late 90s. You will more likely hear it when referring to a gentrified area.
So you got stuck on that single use of a word instead of what was being said? Today, instead of "melting pot", they say things like "Diversity is our strength" Put that line into Google or UA-cam and you will see.
Why you may not directly hear the phrase Melting Pot, this video is not about the use of those words specifically. It is about how the myth of the Melting Pot - its ideas, rhetorical strategies, and contradictions - are still very much embedded in our discussion of immigration today as well as how it ties back into the greater national story of the American Dream, which is still repeated in our propaganda daily.
@captain_context9991 No, not just a single term, it’s the subject of the video. Her modern examples are about illegal immigration, not anything to do with America being a melting pot. Diversity is good but illegal immigration is a different issue than diversity.
Telling your viewers if they disagree with you then "they just need time to process" and perpetually talking with your hands makes it seem like you think the people watching your videos are stupid. This behavior is exactly why Kamala didn't get elected despite getting $1.5 bn in free money. It also makes your video seem more like propaganda than the viewpoints handled in your critique.
A high percentage of Americans can't read above a 5th grade level, and even if they can aren't considered functionally literate. A significant portion believe the world is 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days. Many Americans can't locate their own country on a map, or know that there are multiple countries in North America besides our own. Or even know North America is a continent they reside in. The largest contributions to the GDP are from all liberal cities. The most educated proportionately are in liberal cities, and the most revenue paid to the government is from liberal cities, so much so they can't invest in fixing their cities own problems like homelessness because so many taxes are siphoned off to subsidize red states, who vote for politicians who won't locally support policies to invest in their needs, so liberal cities have to neglecting what's most advantageous for their own cities. Voting for Trump isn't a flex. Saying Kamala losing due to perceived condescension is also indicative of idiocy, as politics isn't about your feelings, it's about empirically measuring and sorting out what's best objectively. 1+1=2 rather someone states it talking with their hands or may be condescending towards you. The consensus of most economists is that Trump's plans would ruin the economy and lead to a recession. Apparently the high risk of a recession is okay because you feel someone is being condescending towards you, and you want us to believe you're not stupid. Yikes.
As always, sources for all of my claims can be found in my public spreadsheet clickable through my main page. Additional resources are also provided for learning and exploring more 💚 Also, thank you all for the support while figure out my style and get everything setup. I know I have a long way to go in production quality, but this is a good place to start as I ramp up to potentially making videos more in the modern UA-cam style.
It would be great if you could do a video on Trumps campaign website as a example. But whatever you use as a example, everything you do to educate people is awesome.
I think you got the Melting Pot a bit wrong. The play wasn't about assimilation; It was about how immigrants affected how we defined America by comparing it to what happens to a molten metal when you add another metal to it - you get an alloy that's even stronger than the original metals by themselves.
It was not until later on that the Melting pot became about assimilation, a bit of propaganda aided by the fact that few people actually read the work
Well done.
You bring up a great point about the melting pot metaphor creating something stronger through blending. I agree the play celebrates the transformative power of diversity, but I also think it leans heavily into the idea of assimilation.
David’s vision in the play talks about immigrants leaving behind Old World divisions and identities to become part of a unified American culture. While that sounds idealistic, it aligns with the idea of assimilation-immigrants adapting to fit a singular American identity rather than keeping distinct cultural traditions. I have some sources in my reference sheet that break this down, as there is a good Course Hero overview on this as well.
I also think you’re spot on about how the metaphor evolved over time. The play’s more nuanced vision of shared transformation has often been reframed in modern rhetoric to focus even more on conformity.
@usa.mom.in.germany thanks for the response
The Melting Pot is not a polemic. It's a story about millions of people with diverse experiences and POVs.
It's inarguable that many immigrants struggled to "fit in" but the authors point is that regardless of their desires, their actions would lead to the forging of a New American.
This channel needs 330 million more subscribers
Absolutely
I sincerely hope this reaches the intended audience
Thats the thing. The people that needs to hear these things, never do. And while people like us see it, were not the people that needs to.
It will also be hard because us Americans and the ones that need to hear this, won't be able to process it and won't want to hear it. Hence why the book is banned here in the US.
I would kindly disagree. I think a quick scroll through the comments demonstrates that this has already reached a diverse audience 💚
@@dux_bellorum What book? If it's banned, I want it.
@@captain_context9991 That's why people like us need to spread it.
It was so peculiar when I lived in northeastern Pennsylvania when a lot of the immigration politics kicked off with a city in the region (Hazleton which tried via a law regulating housing.) I heard a lot of arguments about how the problem is "immigrants not assimilating, instead holding onto their languages and traditions" while living in a place where elderly first generation Irish, Italian, Polish and Russian immigrants were a large part of the population and still embraced their languages and traditions which the aforementioned complainers saw as "American traditions."
My favorite specific incident was what there was a Latin American Food Festival at a park in Scranton which garnered criticism of "why do they need to have their own food festival? Why can't they just go to La Festa Italiana like everyone else?" - an annual Italian food and culture festival held on the streets around the county courthouse downtown.
I live in a small town where every year there's an Italian festival held for an entire week. They celebrate coming to America on their boats and so on. Yet those same Italian immigrants are some of the most racist people you will meet. I'll hear them bashing on people of color and complaining about the border, all while celebrating their own immigration to America, and it was not done legally, lol. They migrated during a time when it was easier to get away with it.
I'm a grad student studying the history of North American propaganda. Thank you so much for putting these videos out, they're so important right now
You mean your being steeped in propaganda, just as Aly has been.
The melting pot idea is also teached in Peru. It always felt nice, but also sad as Peru has a lot of native americans and the melting pot is also about the erosion of their culture. I don't think is totally bad or a totally good idea, but is definitely an oversimplification. It never felt like forced assimilation in Peru, it was more like a pot that melts cultures slowly.
I don't think that immigrants to Peru have to lose their culture though. Wrong comparison. Look at all the Japanese who made Peru their homeland. One of them even become president.
@danielalveorodriguez7177 Yes, that's what I found interesting. It is not as she described in Peru, it seems the other way around. Where the native population and not as much the inmigrants are the ones that have to adapt their culture to external influences. People in the Andes were the ones forced to learn Spanish and change their religion and customs.
@
The United States is the only country in the world who claims to be the “land of the free”, but for most of its history people haven’t been free at all.
That is something I have always pointed out. What reason does any multiple gun owning U.S. citizen have to be afraid of migrants? As a Seneca Indian and 24 year U.S. Army Veteran, I am not afraid of white supremacist ass hats or Christian Nationalists because I own and have been well trained in the use of firearms. However, I prefer not to but will if threaten or anyone harms my family and friends.
How can people who supposedly own firearms let politicians convince them to be scared of migrants, most who are just wanting a better life for themselves and their families. And as for borders, borders do not make a country, it is the people who make a country.
@@leeames9063 well, actually it is people plus borders plus state powers which make a country ^^
Making also the point that every white person in this nation is an immigrant.
Because people aren't afraid of immigrants. That's a stupid strawman argument leftists love to make because it both demonizes and infantilizes their political opponents. Try making an honest attempt to understand the issues and then you won't have so much confusion.
Excellent video , look forward to the next one 💗
As always, this was an excellent mini lecture
When I was taught the Melting Pot ideal, legal vs illegal immigration wasn't brought up at all. What we learned was how various groups, such as Blacks, Irish, Chinese, Jews, etc. contributed to the building of American society and to American culture.
Wow you stirred up a hornet’s nest. 🐝 Professor Robert Reich posted a cartoon some time ago with three people sitting at a table all had a plate of cookies. The one in the middle whose plate was full of 🍪 🍪🍪🍪🍪 said to the guy on the right who had only one 🍪 on his plate pointing towards the dark haired guy on the left whose plate was empty: Watch out that guy wants to steal your cookie. 🍪 I think this says in a nutshell what’s going on here.
From Oklahoma. Keep teaching and preaching.
From over here in very, very civilized Norway... Those are very different things. Teaching and preaching.
Unfortunately, I think you're preaching to the choir. But #*@#!! someone has to preach this stuff to someone. Louder!!!! please.
@@dinahnicest6525 Preaching to the choir is good; they need to listen to each other and harmonize. Then they go out and teach others to sing.
Immigrant crisis is a hoax, but when I suggest that mass shootings pose a greater threat, I am called un-American. By the way, nice sweater, good outfit for this video.
In 1999, when I was in the process of bringing my Chinese fiance over here, I attended an AFL-CIO event. An old friend told me to "Talk to him", pointing to an aide for our congress person. Among the things he told me was that Republicans have always restricted immigration because when they become citizens, they tend to vote Democratic. No one mentions this. I think that's because the Rs don't want to tell them to vote Blue, and the Dems don't want to dare them to try voting for someone else (like they've been doing to the working class for decades).
👍👍
You’re a hoax.
Can I move to Germany?
We are now in a German 1930’s moment here in the USA.
Ish…. Gonna be a long 4 years!
Get your passport and collect info about Canada and Europe.
It feels good to see as last one US citizen that realized the severity of the situation
The fact that you said, “Gonna be a long 4 years” means you know it’s not a 1930s moment. 🙄
@@SimonBellaMondolong 4 years = more than just the 4 years elected = dictatorship.
@@Thank.the.cosmos That’s a stretch. People use the phrase, “it’s gonna be a long day” meaning it’s going to be a difficult day, not to mean, the day is going to last longer than 24 hours.
@@brentweaver3092 you are free to apply for a visa for Germany.
Wonderful video - thank you for sharing. Subbed!
We are really good at looking at a group or ethnicity, instead of individuals, thereby "hating" and fearing everyone in a group. It would be great if textbooks like the one you referenced were available here. Thanks for your insights!
Being a person with Mi'kmaq heritage I appreciate your speaking truth about colonization.
My great great aunt and great great grandmother were Mi'kmaq and came from a reservation near Canada. I have really old photos of them. I always wished I had learned more about my heritage.
@@Shellyshocked You can still learn some things. Use the internet and connect. Id post links but that's not allowed anymore
Excellent!
In Louisiana, we were taught it wasn’t a melting pot, but that it was a pot of gumbo. Like there are all these distinct ingredients, but that we’re all in the pot together. And that you don’t want it to be all one taste and texture - that’s just a soup. It all has to come together, with each ingredient being itself, no matter how small the amount, for the gumbo to be good. That was back in the 90s and 00s. What do you think of that metaphor?
That is a variatioin of the patchwork theory. It is one designed to push identities by race and is based on perceptions of power. It was designed by race activists to create dissencion and keep themselves relevant. Booker T Washington nailed the concept in 1901.
there's a reason why this returning administration will do everything possible to abolish the department of education, it's embarrassing
Yup
How does that relate to this video?
@@AmateurHistorian999 because they're studying our current political climate .. hit replay button, turn the volume higher, and close captioning
Hahahahaha. The irony of your complaining about them being uneducated when you apparently have no understanding of the Department of Education...
The ad that ran before this video was for a film that's definitely propaganda meant to normify war in the US and Americans turning on each other for basic needs. 😐
@@gingerredshoes What's the film?
As an European observing this dynamic from a distance, I would never have thought the movie "The Matrix" was in fact a manifesto against US propaganda.
Taking the pill of understanding to see the world as it truly is or taking a pill to continue with the status quo
Interesting that the “Melting Pot” idea came about right around the same time as the movie “Birth of A Nation” (shown at the White House during the Woodrow Wilson Administration, and lauded by the president himself). American history is replete with examples of declarations of “who” is considered “American,” almost at the same time as it is also “dog whistling” who is NOT (nowadays it’s a fog horn).
We're more a jumble of salads drenched in ranch dressing.
not even that. We are just consummers or proletariat. period
@@danielalveorodriguez7177 nonsense
A great lecture, presented very well.
This video is amazing! Thank you so much.
Thank you for your service. The same myth is a hallmark of Canadian culture.
In high school I remember being taught we were a "cultural mosaic", to distinguish ourselves from the American melting plot, because we let immigrants keep their culture instead of expecting assimilation. This is of course, a myth and propaganda as well.
I wonder if the same is true for NZ, and Australia as well since our countries (I'm from the US but including the 5 eye countries) all have a British colonial past and because of that have that superiority complex left over from our being British. For example, some of our republican lawmakers tried making an Anglo-Saxon caucus, which drew a lot of heat because at its core, it was founded on racial superiority from being.....British decent.
Excellent lecture! Organized, methodical, and clear. Thanks for the strong analysis. As an educator, I can only guess at the significant time this took you to prepare -let alone the additional editing and other work in making it a UA-cam video.🙏🏽
Judging by what my kids do at school, they also compare the US to what happened/ happens in Germany / Europe for a bigger picture.
William Hogeland's books are great for learning about the early history of the US with an emphasis on tearing down myths of the founding. "The Hamilton Scheme" is his most recent, and it's great.
Nice work! I just hope that German students still learn how to spot propaganda in German before they finish school.
I know I had to live through years and years of „how did Hitler rise up and what kind of language and propaganda helped this?“ in school.
I am sure they are. But you are missing the point. Americans don't see how WE are falling for propaganda.
This is exactly the thing. Germany has taken a big hard stand against what happened back in the 30s and 40s. And are therefore teaching their kids how to correctly address propaganda and misinformation in schools... But today a good 90% of that type of craziness comes from one place. From predominantly American social media. They are learning about it in English class because thats where it is. Not because they have an "anti-america course"
Nobody in German school tells you about HOAs, healthcare, and the other not so nice stuff.
Land of the free, what a joke
HOAs are way down low on the list of issues. First world problems.
@@benyomovod6904 that's basic stuff from English education in German schools.
Thank you so much for doing this!! I really appreciate it. I just started this video, but I would also love good reading sources about the topic you're talking about in each video to further our knowledge.
I have them listed as Additional Resources on my spreadsheet. Same for the last video. I’ll start mentioning that in the actual video, perhaps 🙂
@usa.mom.in.germany thank you so much! The video is great. I shared it on BlueSky
It's not a melting pot, it's more of a mosaic. Human Nature keeps it form being a melting pot, but the US is easily the most diverse nation, religiously, ethnically and racially, and for the most part, everyone gets along. There's a definite assimilation of other cultures to the American lifestyle, but most groups surround themselves with like people.
The mosaic is a more recent concept, created by activists trying to push identities and divide people into power groups.
Thank you.
..think...all the immigrants ,has comeing without a permission of the native American tribes.????
AAnd you start with a massive fallacy that Native Americans were some sort of monolithic state. The fact is they were just as busy 'trespassing" and colonizing each other as every other group of peoples around the worrld.
@@RichardChappell1 It's not necessary for native Americans to have had a monolithic state, or for them not to have been fighting each other, to understand that Europeans acquired the U.S. almost entirely through coercion, force, trickery, signing treaties they had no intention of honoring, and worse things that YT won't let me say.
@@raineramelung7380 Exactly. And Americans of European descent really, really don't like it when you point that out.
@@RichardChappell1still trying to justify your invasion of another country and the subjugation of it people by your ancestors? Sad!
Right?! How sad to say the least for Americans.
Nice summary. I would have liked you to ask the central, essential question you rightfully propagate in your last video: Why?
Why is it that this is the reality? Who's gaining from the fact that the public thinks this way?
On the other hand, you'd be treading dangerous ground, given _where_ you'd post this. I'm trying to keep things neutral as most of my comments keep "vanishing" recently.
My comments mysteriously disappear also, especially left-leaning political ones.
I really appreciate your encouragement to go deeper with the “why” behind the Melting Pot myth and who benefits from it. You’re absolutely right that understanding the motivations is central to unpacking these narratives.
In this video, I attempted to discuss this when highlighting how the Melting Pot myth functions as propaganda. For example, pointing out how it creates a narrative of broad inclusivity while reinforcing exclusionary practices. However, I could have more directly pointed out that this serves the interests of those looking to maintain power structures that rely on selective inclusion. However, discussing that those that contribute economically are embraced while marginalizing others may get at the same concept.
I’ll keep this in mind for future content and see how I can explore these questions more directly. And sorry about your comments. I promise I only delete comments that are outright harassment or misinformation.
This level of integrity is unheard of. I'm blown away and left speechless. You're very special, I hope you realize that.
Sending lots of love from a different part of Germany! ♥️
Same here, even when they just contain compliments. Meanwhile others that are harassing and demeaning and worse, get cart blanch. Then replies that only the poster can see but nobody else can. I wouldn't say anything if it wasn't for the fact communication is our most powerful tool.
@@dinahnicest6525 Careful there...
First off: another great video. More long form videos, please.
Second: the melting pot myth refers to an alloy that is stronger than its individual metals. However from my experience, the USA is more like a fruitcake. Delicious when it works together and baked well. However under any kind of pressure it crumbles and falls apart into its constituent parts. Nuts, orange peels, and all the other components become unglued and separate. It's also easy to cut apart by someone wielding the sharp knife of incendiary rhetoric or fear mongering.
Fear has been the dominant factor in US politics over the last 70 years. The Red Scare under McCarthyism in the 50's and 60's. Communism taking over the world, hippies and drug abuse, rock songs and supposed links to Satanism or self-unaliving (see how censored that word has become since then?) trends. The threat of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction). Supposed demon worship in roleplaying games. Drug cartels, violence, stranger danger, supposed weapons of mass destruction in the 90's when the Soviet Union collapsed and the convenient communist threat dropped away. The war on drugs was created as a new scarecrow to scare the US public into conveniently looking at its internal systemic problems.
Supposedly black rebellion in LA leading to chaos.
Then 9.11. offered another huge opportunity to scare the US citizens, this time with something that wouldn't inconveniently vanish by glasnost and perestroika: the war on terrorism. Terrorism is available whenever you need it. Declare something a terrorist act, boom, the public cries out about it. Even when it barely rates as noteworthy in everyday crimes (cough, Luigi, cough).
Immigrants, legal or illegal, have been lampooned by South Park ("They're taking our jobs!") since at least the mid 2000's. Still, drug cartels, crime rates, immigrants, 'evil, nasty Islamic fundamentalists' (note my air quote), and convenient scapegoats among the world's countries like Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, North Korea, Russia, etc. Wait long enough, everybody gets their time in the 'scary enemy ' limelight.
As long as they keep the attention away from the US internal problems, fear sources are a great distraction. Point out the scary enemy du jour, and the great USA will be saved again by the heroes of the day.
However that works only so long as people are still at least moderately content with quality of their lives. As long as they have something worth loosing that the current enemy can be pointed to and claimed to have their eyes on, then the US public will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, no matter how ridiculous it is.
But when the American citizens have been pushed so far that they feel the cold, hard walls of reality hemming them in, with no more room to retreat, then they have _nothing_ more to loose by actually facing reality. If it is less painful to rip off the mountain of band-aids patched over their souls rather than drink the convenient Kool-Aid of a public enemy, then the entire system starts to wobble.
That's the point the USA has reached right now.
The people are angry, desperate, often hopeless, and beaten down, literally and figuratively.
Be scared, you oligarchs, be very, very scared. The masses in the USA are beginning to recognize that without them, the system doesn't work. Oligarchs hoarding wealth without doing something worthwhile with it that improves the lives of society are becoming targets of the fear they have sown over decades. People are so afraid to loose the last vestiges of their dignity that they are willing to ask the big question:"Why am I getting less than 1/1000th of the CEO of the company I slave away my life on? Why do I allow myself to be disregarded and disrespected?"
This was a good read.
@@RustyDust101 to be fair, the Communist Bloc actually would have liked to take over the world. They just have not been able to do so... among other things because of the US.
as a german, i never learned this in school. however it aligns largely with how i view the debate in the united states. what's the name of the book you found this in? we used access, i also know of green line, is it that?
she wrote the book
Very much looking forward to your video on the "American dream."
I'm impressed with Germany for studying U.S. propaganda in school. It's completely appropriate to understand this aspect of the country that dominates the world. I wonder how many other countries do that?
My metaphor for immigration is a chunky stew rather than a melting pot. New people come and add their flavor to the stew, but they stay distinct and recognizable. I completely prefer stew; it tastes great, and I can choose a piece to savor more fully.
I’d love a long conversation on this topic between you and someone like Lisa Corrigan. Is this something you’d be open to?
From the video: "Immigrants work in areas that rely on cheap labor like the construction business and restaurants. Their illegal status makes it impossible for them to rise and leave the underclass of the poor."
A couple points:
1) Immigrants come to the U.S. because they believe that life in the U.S. will be better than in their home country.
2) The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.
It seems likely that the succeeding generations born to illegal immigrants will quickly catch up to their U.S.-born peers.
We know this regarding legal immigrants:
"Both today and in the past, many immigrants earn less than U.S.-born workers upon first arrival and do not completely catch up in a single generation. But their children do. No matter when their parents came to the U.S. or what country they came from, children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than their U.S.-born peers. What’s more, their rates of mobility today are strikingly similar to rates of mobility in the past."
Abramitzky, Ran, Leah Boustan, Elisa Jacome and Santiago Perez. 2021. "Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the United States over Two Centuries." American Economic Review, 111 (2): 580-608.
I guess the way it is used as propaganda, using Chomsky’s framework, ex: increase in housing costs, strain on budgets that would better serve veterans and U.S citizens. That is one example.
@@HenryClavo As I understand things immigrants in the U.S. are typically less strain on social welfare programs than native-born. From the CATO Institute: "Based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we find that immigrants consumed 21 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis in 2020."
Immigrants are a) more likely to live in poverty than US born citizens, b) they are more likely (by a lot) to be low income earners c) immigrants from Asia and Central and South America earn less than half the income of US natives.
There's a reason why nativist sentiment is great in the US. because they tie immigrants with poverty and low class status.
@@danielalveorodriguez7177 While it's true that immigrants don't do as well as native born -- as the article I quoted above shows -- the children of immigrants do better than native born peers.
@@johnnypetro9314 I THINK IT LACKS NUANCE, YOU CANT ADD EVERY IMMIGRANT INTO ONE CATEGORY, ASIAN IMMIGRANTS EARN ALMOST 1.5 TO 2 TIMES THAN AVERAGE US BORN (INDIAN SUBCONTINENT,CHINESE (OTHER SE ASIANS TOO) WHO ARE MOSTLY IN STEM AND MEDICAL,BUSINESS FIELDS , BUT LATIN AMERCAN IMIGRANTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE IN LABOUR JOBS FOR 1ST GEN, THE SILICON VALLEY IS LITERALLY DOMINATED BY INDIANS AND CHINESE, ATLEAST MORE THAN 50%. INCOME OF AVG US BORN 65000$ AND INCOME OF AVG INDIAN 126000$ AND CHINESE (OTHER SE ASIANS) MORE THAN 90000$.
Q: what age are the students who are studying this content? Just curious…
These are students in the 11th -13th grades. Keep in mind this is in the their English (2nd language) courses.
Fun fact in Scandinavian countries, children start learning how to spot misinformation and disinformation in elementary school. Primarily because of Russia and Trump.... 🙄
@@dux_bellorum Excellent!
interesting that you say the German students are taught this way already....I know that this is going to the direction of politics, unfortunately. But what do you think about the rise of AfD in the context of the same propaganda teachings? I'd assume the Germans during school had learned the same techniques that you're talking about, and should've recognized what they're trying to do, by stoking the fear against immigrants.
But why would they still choose that far right? Why not the rest of the parties in the Bundestag? If it's dissatisfaction against the incumbent traffic light party, why not just go back to CDU/CSU? And instead choose a party that unfortunately is more catered towards xenophobia?
BTW, interestingly, if you learned the history of AfD, they're actually that, an "Alternative for Germany" and was originally a much more libertarian party, more so than the yellow party (FDP), and grew as...well, alternative, to Merkel's politics. Kinda like how BSW now got made. But then there was internal strife, and the original people who had made AfD got put to the side, and the more...anti-immigrant ones became center stage.
Problem here ? Germany has SIXTEEN different school systems as education is a state and not a federal law due to historic reasons.
You might have noticed which German states are more prone to lean to the right politically. Sadly our democracy couldn't eadicate over 40 years of dictatorship and indoctrination in the East as easily as we hoped for.
Don't forget that most of the teachers in the East who had studied there couldn't be replaced by those who grew up and studied in a democracy.
The federal state oversees the curriculae but it was and is up the teacher to tranfer the contents to the student.
It would be interesting to see american propaganda versus german propaganda.
I second that. I know the Nazi propaganda pretty well, and I'd like to see you (channel host) compare and contrast.
@@AmateurHistorian999 German propaganda is not Nazi propaganda, WTH?
@@RoseRedRoseWhite Right you are. My bad, and I apologize to the OP. The U.S.'s current level of political propaganda makes me think more of comparing it to the Nazi regime than to present-day Germany.
@@RoseRedRoseWhite Right you are. My bad, and I apologize to the OP.
@@RoseRedRoseWhite The comparison to Nazi propaganda seemed more true to life.
Because America was so focused on being a "melting pot," most white Europeans lost their heritage in the quest to quickly become "American." My relatives came from 6 different countries, but were fully "Americanized" by the time my parents were born. The last relative who spoke their native language was my great grandma who died when I was a baby.. I only know one white family who hung onto their heritage (even performing German dances). The rest of us have a bland "typical white American" culture. I was always drawn to newer Americans who held onto their heritage. I've had friends from many different countries, and over the years, I learned more about their heritages than I did of my own. Some of my friends included me in their family gatherings, where I learned traditional dances, ate their wonderful food, and learned some phrases in their languages. I only know the names of and some facts about my ancestors.
Yeah, that's coming from such a backwards view. It's really an impressive level of historian's fallacy. "America" was never focused on being a melting pot. The concept was a description of what happens after any place has multiple cultures coming together. You've anthropomorphized America so you can place blame. But the reality is that your relatives are the ones who dropped their cultures and languages. Nobody "made" them do it. They do it because people don't necessarily see their "culture" as something specific - it's just what it is. You demonstate that with your own disparagement of your culture. They drop aspects of their previous life that they don't feel they need or that don't benefit them anymore.
Guess what? It happens everywhere in every part of the world. it happens in India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. In Saudi Arabia, they've completely eeradicated their historical culture in favor of a form of Islamic modernism.
An interesting area to inquire would be the Indigenous Latino American population.
"They" seemed to side with TRUMP on a couple topics, the economy, probably because they felt the brunt of inflation as did poor working class white did more than TRUMP class people did, those of much higher net worth.
And second there was a "fear" sort of implied that Illegal Latino Aliens would dilute the US population of Latino's and compete for Jobs that Latino's already in America held. So, that rhetoric sort of pitted the already here with voting rights against those attempting to enter. Good Latino vs Bad Latino. Good Latino's vote for TRUMP?
Yeah, no. That's a strawman of what leftists think the latin American population thinks. Try listening to them when they tell you instead of thinking you know better. They recognize the leftists have been using them for a tool for years, and have started to realize they aren't getting anything back from it except a destroyed culture for their children.
FYI, a questioni for you - when did the Latino Americans become indigenous? Before Spanish colonization? Or does indiginous have a new, expanded meaning now?
In the US, you're ok if you're from Irish, German or Scandinavian descent. Italians are kind of ok, as long as they acknowledge their inferior status. The rest are basically Untermenschen in the eyes of most Americans.
I was taught about the melting pot, but not in any way that you have described, i was taught in the 90s that it was an ideal to try to live up to, but the reality is that different cultures while they can coexist to a point will often clash as core beliefs are different.
Wow, I wish I had been taught that. I was taught a fairy tail of a pioneering society that accepts everyone, hard to swallow as my ancestors were killed for their land here.
@@gaycryptidhours I suggest that is how you interpreted it. That is not how it's presented in any media or texts until very recently as a strawman..
@RichardChappell1 I suggest that you take a moment to reflect on how the modern story of thanksgiving is told, and that it is propaganda.
@RichardChappell1 I'm speaking on my civics lessons in the early 2000s, in a very small rural town. It was in fact bullshit for my teacher to talk about the melting pot ideal and how great America is for that and then be openly racist to the few non white students the same day.
I first learned “the melting pot” was a lie while taking an inclusivity training for volunteering at a dance. It was disheartening especially since I had the positive associations from a children’s program called “School House Rock.”
The language you use that is currently in fashion about diversity vs assimilation is definitely charged with a particular viewpoint that is not at all accepted as true, neutral or evenhanded except among a relatively small section of well educated, affluent Americans that values particular terminology in order to convey its own propagandistic agenda. Just using plain English would be better. For example, illegal immigration is not how the country began. That starting point immediately distorts and reframes history with the intent of reshaping the origins of the United States in a way that doesn't serve the interests of honesty, truth, or reality. I'll grant that the intentions are good but the viewpoint is really highly filtered to fit a world view of a certain class of Americans and Europeans. The major European empires conquered and colonized the Americas. That is the origin of the United States as well as every other country in the western hemisphere. The idea or even suggestion that the British Empire ever intended to honor its word about leaving the west to the Indians is utterly absurd. That promise was a flat out lie from the very beginning and there was never any intention upon the part of any of the European empires to allow the natives inhabitants to live freely and have any sovereignty over any inch of land in the western hemisphere they found useful to their imperial enterprises. That is the reality and the truth of the origin of all European imperial conquest and colonization in this hemisphere. The politically correct language you use masks the truth and softens it in the extreme. I know academics like to be nice and trendy but it does no service to students not to point out the actual reality from the very beginning and explain to them why this was the case, why we now look at that imperial conquest and colonization in a much more negative light and why the people at the time engaged in that enterprise did not. Very few Europeans or those who descend from Europeans disapproved of what they were doing or why. They understood the harsh reality and brutality of what they were engaged in doing yet they pursued it anyway. They were quite conscious of the oppression, if not downright genocide, of the native population. Some didn't approve but they were few. Most thought it necessary for a greater good because they believed they were bringing civilization to the land and getting rid of the "savages" to establish that new world was justified i the long run. The Irish and the Germans who settled west of the Alleghenies did so with the tacit approval of the empire and everyone in the colonies knew it. The Scotch-Irish and the Germans were the tip of the spear for westward expansion of Americanized European civilization. The relentless drive to the west was unstoppable and was very intentional especially once the United States became independent. No treaties with the Indians have ever been honored in full and most weren’t honored at all. Just be honest about that. All of this is typically ignored in US classrooms because it's too complicated and nuanced to explain and frankly, many teachers, instead of just plainly stating the facts of the matter have adopted their own, also distorted version of how the US developed and why that is so heavy handed many "traditionalists" have gotten quite angry about it and the far right has exploited the lack of understanding of these people to divide the country over matters that really ought not to even be debated any longer because the facts and truth of the history is well established. I could go on about the melting pot myth which your view also distorts to advance a particular viewpoint that I don’t think is any more accurate than the traditional myth but purports to be revealing as not entirely true or inclusive. Suffice to say it wasn’t ever really intended to be inclusive until the past 30 or so years since it has been revised. Only now do we pretend that it should have been more inclusive which was never an issue because inclusion wasn't a priority or even a concern by the majority and certainly not by most historians until very, very recently. Assimilation is and always has been very real and does occur. Your viewpoint presents a different point of view that again softens and distorts the reality of how assimilation has worked and continues to work here. It’s not really a choice. American society has its own centripetal force and by the second generation almost everyone assimilates as a result of the socialization process and the fact that the majority point of view, the majority way of life and the majority desire to have national unity is reflected in that process. That force in an irresistible and inevitable one for immigrant families. They cannot stop it from happening. Americans, including the vast majority whose families were assimilated over the past 170+ years and whose traditions and cultural practices from the old country have either disappeared or have become so Americanized that they exist only on the margins of family tradition and sometimes ethnic tradition in a particular community. Otherwise, the Americans whose grandparents came here or even parents who came here are fully Americanized and will raise their children as American. Despite the racism and nativism that has occurred in the past and that remains today, each generation of immigrants whether legal or illegal have all been absorbed into the great melting pot and identify primarily as American not as a subset of American. I applaud your effort to try and get people to examine what they've been taught, but I think you would be far more effective if you dropped the trendy terms favored by the smarty pants professional managerial class and chose instead to be direct and speak plainly about the harsh reality of the past and how that shapes America today.
I'm not following what your point is here. You made several statements suggesting your mistrust for academia, but I'm not exactly sure what you're saying it is that's being distorted by academics. Your point about assimilation seems to be agreement with Aly's discussion of the melting pot myth, not contrary to it. Regarding your comment about "smarty pants" language, what specific examples can you find that are raising a concern for you, and what about them makes you uncomfortable?
@@hexwolfi Not following, or won't follow? It's pretty obvious where the post is going. He or she is talking about the false social justice that has been adopted by rich, predominantly white elitists and academia who feel the need to point out why everyone like them is bad - except them of course, because they recognize it and are better. So they swing to the progressive radicalism that is so common among them. And of course, describing how the author creates this completely unreasonable narrative about the "myth" and how it was the result of some unseen intentional effort of evil badness.
The point is the discussion about sources and propaganda are reasonable, but then she spends the bulk of the video propagandizing. But the poster is trying to say that in less than specific terms because the rest of the progressive radicals will go nuts responding because they are unwilling to read.
The reality is that the author's propaganda is so think and heavy, she obviously hasn't applied her own advice, and doesn't even seem to recognize it - which undermines the very point she is trying to make about analyzing material.
A lot of their relatives was planted in the US when the war World War II ended a lot of them someone went to South America, but a lot of them was plant right here in the US and what they did. They taught their children about how to do the same thing they did in Germany.
She got that Dennis Quaid mouff
I have Bells Palsy. You should consider not commenting on people’s appearances.
Wow. How rude.That is a bad look, and really bad form to mock others for their appearance.
Compared to a celebrity.... offended
@@Wwooaah Ok incel.
please speak more slowley. thanks
You can control the speed in the upper right corner of the video
as someone who recently had one: if it's been awhile don't forget a hearing check, if you're able to.
Personally i love Aly’s perspective, but we should address the elephant in the room. She is delivering an anti-propaganda propaganda. Oh… the irony
Well, she is fighting fire with fire ...
Ally may have personal opinions she hopes to further, but this is by definition not propaganda. It contains no appeal to emotion or moral stance other than being against propaganda. Where did she say America's exclusionary practices are bad? She probably thinks so, big all this video serves to do, is expose the myth for what it is: propaganda inconsistent with what America is actually like. Every time someone with a strong person opinion on the matter explains aspects of reality inconsistent with our state mythos is not propaganda. Having a bias is not the same as propagandizing. She's also pointing out how the melting pot myth is used to serve political goals by influencing us.
@@thomaspelletier7790 MY issue is why German Vs the US? Every video this woman does is pro Germany and anti USA, I believe because it gets clicks. Germany is a tiny country, that has it's own history of government doing wrong, yet it's somehow about the US. Sorry, I love the US and I feel very fortunate to have been born here.
Wow. How's what she's saying propaganda? Serious question. Is she telling you lies? on purpose?
@ it is very easy to believe that propaganda that you agree with isn’t propaganda. Again, i agree with alys propaganda narrative, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t propaganda. It is. She is using persuasive speech, that highlights only one perspective in a highly debated topic, with a desire to sway opinion. That is propaganda.
For example, were she not a propagandist, she could discuss the various different opinions on her topics and leave her audience to form their own conclusions. This is something that once upon a time, even in America, people called journalism. Journalism, in this sense, hasn’t existed in my lifetime. So long that aly is probably too young to consciously understand what she is doing.
It's bizarre that you think it's wrong for a nation to "selectively decide" who is part of their country. Nations by nature are exclusive. Now you can criticize the US for that, but you better criticize every other nation on Earth as well
It is aimed at Americans because she is trying to inform US about how WE can distinguish propaganda. Clearly, we can't, or we wouldn't have MAGA threatening our country's well-being.
In this video, I am not criticizing the U.S. for making selective decisions (though I could in some ways, but that would be for another video). Instead, I am critiquing the Melting Pot myth for presenting a narrative of broad inclusivity while simultaneously marginalizing those striving to be part of the American identity, pushing them outside the bounds of what is deemed truly "American."
But thats not what America promises... Back in the day they called America the "melting pot", today they say "Diversity is our strength". Put that line into Google or UA-cam and you will see every single politician proudly telling us that. While the exact opposite is often true. What you are talking about is white supremacy or wild nationalism. And how it should be natural and to be expected of a country. And this idea that every other country is "just the same, or worse" is exactly that american exceptionalism talk, isnt it.
@@usa.mom.in.germany The melting pot was always about people who immigrated to our country legally, NOT people who jumped across the border. That’s the part that you’re missing.
We addressed this early in the video discussing how the U.S. was built on illegal immigration, but has built an identity using the melting pot to exclude people who seek American identity in the same way today.
There was an impressive level throughout this discussion of propaganda.
Right from the beginning, the concept of the "melting pot" as a myth is presented as some perceived all-encompassing story that defines history. The reality is that it is more of an aspiration or target. And the discussion of underrepresented groups serve as a disqualification of that idea because then it can't be accurate unless it applies 100% is unreasonable as well. Very few things that exist in the world are 100% pure so to speak. The reality is that those underrepresented groups have had major impacts on the common American culture (as in the elements of culture that are shared pretty consistently) and it pretty much undermines that claim. That is not to say there hasn't been historical abuses and mistreatment. But in all fairness, that's history everywhere. Those underrepresented groups came from areas where there was substantial historical abuse and mistreatment. The fact is that common American culture is a mix of many, many contributing cultures legitimately described as a melting pot. It's much the same as any major trading center throughout history.
Then there is the idea of the melting pot as cultures coming together in harmony and every group just getting along together is far more of a caricature of the melting pot concept - a form of strawman designed specifically that makes it easy to attack, which of course the author goes on to do. This discussion of the melting pot is loaded with nuance, which is opinion more than reality. The idea that it was some harmonious sharing of ideas may be something the author believed, but it is not typically presented that way - well maybe outside of academia which has been heavily manipulated to be heavily biased by certain p9litical movements.
Then the entire discussion of "illegal" immigration is so thick with opinion and bias that it is
far more propaganda that reasoned discussion.
An added tool to recognize propaganda is to watch the negative claims presented and how they're presented. As shared by the story of the Richest Man in Babylon, we don't go to Omar the Brickmaker to learn about Diamonds. It's easy to look at someone who used to be part of, or left a group and see them as an "expert" purely because they were in that group, but they likely have some bias and the discussion is loaded. You can notice their negative claims are incredibly convenient.
When the author presented her credentials as support for her expertise, I was pretty confident in thee bias that we would see. There's a very strong bias along these lines in the university environment, which has been heavily cross-pollinated across the nation as professors move around and write articles and books on their specific areas.
In all fairness techniques the author has been sharing are effective and helpful, even with the highly biased discussion and examples. I am interested in many of the questions she has presented. What's the motivation, who's paying, etc. I'm interested, for example, why she is sharing this at this time. And why am I suddenly seeing a number of people sharing similar philosophies all feeling the need to "teach" critical thinking now with many of the same biased representation of the same information. Now when I follow the authors links, I see Criticism + Advocacy = Change. That's telling me something abut her motivation. Then following her links, I can see her political persuasion very clearly. Soo while we don't know whether these organizations she links to are sponsors, she has not been very open about her obvious intentions - which is to advocate for specific ideas so she can effect change - and what change, she is not sharing.
So many words, so much rubbish and a very obvious desire to denigrate education!
Just called you out!
The point of this video is to analyze how this myth underpins common rhetoric used by politicians to motivate Americans to their cause on all sides of the political spectrum. Aly does not deny the reality that minorities have motivated substantial change; her argument is about what Americans tend to _believe_ is true, not what _is_ true. That said, the assessment that the author presented the melting pot myth as an "all-encompassing story" does not read at all as an accurate representation of this argument. Also, I want to remind you that simply calling out logical fallacies like "strawman" in an argument is not actually meaningful unless you demonstrate what makes the statement fallacious in context.
You made a mention about her discussion of illegal immigration, but you didn't elaborate on that. What about that argument do you find to be untrue, offensive, or distorted?
The author does not at any point rely on their credentials to legitimize their argument. What led you to this conclusion?
@@hexwolfi Let's start with the most basic one -
0:35, in her introduction Aly very specifically introduces her "credentials" (without actually identifying those credentials) as her qualification for deconstructing American rhetoric, and in her initial YT videos, she specifically claims that qualifies her. That's what led me to my conclusion. Her entire account in her own words is about educating others to her mode of thinking. Of course, her description is related to communication specifically. I'd suggest she is likely qualified to discuss techniques in propaganda from her communication education and experience. She is no more qualified to discuss history, politics and what is actually propaganda than any other adult.
As to the rest, let's go in order. I suggest you read again for understanding, because I detailed the logical fallacies I claimed. I did not simply call them out.
I disagree with you on the point of the video. Her ostensive point was to teach about propaganda and this was an example, but I suggest there is something more here. That is the motte, but the bailey is her idea that the US is corrupt and she uses this contrived theory to demonstrate it. Before you go off on another post saying I'm not justifying it, I have described exactly why I think so, between this and other posts on this. The entire point of her channel in her own words is to advocate a position and try to motivate change. That is exactly what propaganda is used for.
"Aly does not deny the reality that minorities have motivated substantial change; her argument is about what Americans tend to believe is true, not what is true." Interesting that you seem to know what Aly meant vs what she said. That raises some interesting questions. Are you funded by the same folks so you can patrol the comments? But, let's get back to the topic - Aly sets up her premise that the play "The Melting Pot" drove the "myth" in the US, and specifically mentions at 1:44 how it was limited to European immigrants and excluded the commonly identified under-represented groups. She then went on to discuss how the play avoided the complexities of immigration. The problem is she obviously has not read the play as her premise is based on a complete misunderstanding of the play. The play is about an individual Russian and his survival through violent conditions that took the lives of his family, and his immigration to the US, along with his ideas and motivations for doing so. It doesn't even address general Western culture or immigration - just one individual. The reality is that there is no path from that play to the ideas she has presented here. There's a logic jump she is skipping. I'm betting she is basing it on the work (or others expanding on his work) of Werner Sollars who makes the association with assimilation, unfortunately, using only a surface interpretation of his comments. Her hinting at critical theory concepts gives an indication of where she is taking her analysis from. While she does talk about what Americans tend to believe is true - at least in her mind, she also presents a truth claim in her discussion about what the concept of the melting pot is and represents. She continually calls it a myth - and what's the definition of myth? A narrative or story of beliefs of events or traditions more symbolic that actual. Sure, there are some other , somewhat related definitions, but not that apply based on her usage. She is obviously using it to present the idea that the concept is a belief not grounded in fact. And as I explained in my comment, the metaphor is applicable and an accurate way to describe the American development.
As to her discussion on immigration, there is so much misrepresentation that it could be another page of notes. Another commentor on the post did a pretty reasonable discussion of the fallacies in her analysis, and specifically her false association of historical events with modern issues. I won't duplicate them here. It's a dishonest manipulation. I'm not suggesting that Aly here is intentionally dishonest, but her sources definitely had ulterior motives.
Ultimately, there is a lot of good information in her presentation. And this example could have been a good example had she kept to the basic concept and not expanded it to include the depth of her own propaganda. As it is, I would not recommend it to someone as a learning tool other than someone experienced and to use it as an example.
More importantly, the timing is very suspect. In the last month, several brand new channels have popped up with women teaching "critical thinking," but in reality pushing a progressive radical narrative. And they suddenly show up on unrelated feeds to be exposed to massive audiences. That is indicative of large sums of money promoting the channels, which are not being disclosed.
U.S. Americans. 😂
It never gets old
We aren't the only country of the American continents. It's selfish ignorance to think US citizens are the only Americans.
@@MichiganFresh I think it's pretty clear from the context that no one was suggesting that.
Also, there are Indian Americans, Scandinavian Americans, Dutch Americans, African Americans, South Americans, Latin Americans, Polynesian Americans, etc, etc, etc.
🙂↔️
I love your videos, but all of this is irrelevant. None of it sparks outrage. None of it is any different than any other country hundreds of years ago. The difference is the number of illegal immigrants entering Germany year over year vs. the US. Germany's system only works because it's a relatively small country, with a limited number of illegal immigrants straining the system...I'm talking specifically about healthcare and schools. Nobody cares about the myth of a Melting Pot...what we want is a system that can actually work despite the huge number of immigrants coming here. It's the immigrants who believe the propaganda, not the citizens. Many of the current US citizens are looking at the rules and requirements to immigrate to European countries, because this one is a sinking catastrophe of morons, and finding out that Europe is really hard to immigrate to. Talk about tight borders!! How's the propaganda in Germany on that detail?
I care, you make your own youtube channel.
@@helloworld9044 Then you are a fool. There's no myth to care about. It's just a description of what happened due to the influx of people from around the world. Turning it into something else is just a dishonest attempt to manipulate people who are too ignorant to actually know and understand history.
@helloworld9044 You get me wrong...probably because I have a sharp tongue. I like her videos, but I'm challenging for better. Where are we actually being hoodwinked with propaganda? She has drawn powerful lines before, but not this one. How would the fabulous Germany actually solve the immigration problem in the US. To melt or not to melt is irrelevant to the problems facing the US today. You can care all you want, but I can't see how it's anything other than unfocused. She's smart...she can bring it home if she wants.
@@moose2154Germany is the second most populated country in Europe so why are you calling it small? (Turkey doesn't count because most of it is in Asia.)
Its borders are different to countries in Southern Europe which are smaller like Italy, Greece, Malta and Spain who end up having immigrants cross into them by boat.
@@moose2154there is no such thing as "illegal immigrant" here in germany.
I enjoyed the laughs at your openly ignorant and racist video
I’ve literally never heard anyone mention the term “melting pot” since history class in high school. You spend so much time analyzing something that was more relevant 100 years ago. Even your modern examples don’t mention anything about America being a melting pot.
Melting pot is a modern term. I've heard numerous times throughout the 2000s and late 90s. You will more likely hear it when referring to a gentrified area.
So you got stuck on that single use of a word instead of what was being said? Today, instead of "melting pot", they say things like "Diversity is our strength" Put that line into Google or UA-cam and you will see.
Why you may not directly hear the phrase Melting Pot, this video is not about the use of those words specifically. It is about how the myth of the Melting Pot - its ideas, rhetorical strategies, and contradictions - are still very much embedded in our discussion of immigration today as well as how it ties back into the greater national story of the American Dream, which is still repeated in our propaganda daily.
@captain_context9991 No, not just a single term, it’s the subject of the video. Her modern examples are about illegal immigration, not anything to do with America being a melting pot. Diversity is good but illegal immigration is a different issue than diversity.
As George Carlin once said, "it's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Telling your viewers if they disagree with you then "they just need time to process" and perpetually talking with your hands makes it seem like you think the people watching your videos are stupid. This behavior is exactly why Kamala didn't get elected despite getting $1.5 bn in free money. It also makes your video seem more like propaganda than the viewpoints handled in your critique.
A high percentage of Americans can't read above a 5th grade level, and even if they can aren't considered functionally literate.
A significant portion believe the world is 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days. Many Americans can't locate their own country on a map, or know that there are multiple countries in North America besides our own. Or even know North America is a continent they reside in.
The largest contributions to the GDP are from all liberal cities. The most educated proportionately are in liberal cities, and the most revenue paid to the government is from liberal cities, so much so they can't invest in fixing their cities own problems like homelessness because so many taxes are siphoned off to subsidize red states, who vote for politicians who won't locally support policies to invest in their needs, so liberal cities have to neglecting what's most advantageous for their own cities.
Voting for Trump isn't a flex. Saying Kamala losing due to perceived condescension is also indicative of idiocy, as politics isn't about your feelings, it's about empirically measuring and sorting out what's best objectively. 1+1=2 rather someone states it talking with their hands or may be condescending towards you.
The consensus of most economists is that Trump's plans would ruin the economy and lead to a recession. Apparently the high risk of a recession is okay because you feel someone is being condescending towards you, and you want us to believe you're not stupid. Yikes.
A propagandist spewing propaganda.
Excellent!