So I ask again: What is the radical difference? If Canada does not take measures (and I assume it does not) to prevent mixing between groups, or between "races", which seems to be the local obsession around here, then those groups will over time mix with each other, they won't remain unaffected. Which sounds like the American melting pot, to my ears.
Canadian government and society are rarely involved in active segregation.
American governments and society are frequently involved in active segregation.
Is that clear?
Am I misinterpreting? Did we find common ground? What is your response?
You are referring to past American policies. By decree of the American supreme court, segregation became illegal in the 1960s. The Canadian policy of multiculturalism was established in the 1970s. In other words, both countries have become more tolerant in recent decades, as have all Western countries, really. It does not seem fair to me to compare Canada today with the US in the 1960s and before. Canada may not have the US's history of slavery and segregation, but I'd be surprised if it deviated from the Western norm before the 1970s. The general "argument" in the thread still seems to be that Canadians are tolerant and enlightened and Americans are narrow-minded and intolerant. The US makes immigrants Americans, while Canada... doesn't make immigrants Canadians?
What we should look at is what those countries are like today.
From
here:
In practice, as Daniel noted, the dominant white culture expects the immigrants and browns to conform to their ideals
This obsession with skin color is perplexing. I have argued (online) with (Swedish) right-wing populists, and even many of them are much less interested in skin color compared to what lots of people on this forum apparently are.
And no matter what skin color you have, if you move to another country, you will often have to adapt to some of the customs, practices and ways of doing things there. Hardly unique for the US, and I could bet you a lot of money that it is also true for Canada.
while simultaneously appropriating major elements of those cultures
This nonsensical concept again. The melting pot means that various cultural elements become part of the greater whole, the pot, so to speak. Like hamburgers and pizzas, like we discussed earlier. Cultures evolve by adopting foreign influences. This is only a problem if you consider intermixing to be a problem.
Over here, potatoes are an important part of our food. Yet it is by no means native to this part of the world. It came originally from South America, and was introduced here in the 17th century, probably by returning soldiers from the 30 Years War. It has become an important part of our cuisine by cultural evolution over the centuries.
I'd say that pretty much every decently sized city with people from all sorts of backgrounds are kind of melting pots today. Different cultures meet, influence each other, and evolve as a response. Again, only a problem if you consider intermixing to be a problem.
segregating 'foreigners' from the 'real america', and making it damn hard to actually melt into the pot.
Compared to here, it doesn't seem the case. The American success at integration has been considered something we should learn from.