TASK
1.
Is the melting pot theory an instrument of intelligence and discrimination?
Melting pot is not a theory of
intelligence and discrimination instrument,
as a melting pot
of a theory dealing
with the rights of society
and mutual respect / appreciate each other between masyarakat.Jadi despite newcomers /
people that affect their lives there, they
still appreciate their cultures with each other
2.
Please explain the history of melting pot itself?
The founders of this great nation wanted to
build a new world where people converge not only to start a new life but to be
part of a common way of living. There is supposed to be a unique National
Identity that is adopted, the sooner the better, by all immigrants. This ideal,
however, is not simple to implement as people are not impersonal laborers: they
carry their own cultural baggages with them.
The "melting pot" metaphor comes
from the 1908 play, The Melting Pot, by Israel Zangwill (1864-1926). It refers
to the American assimilation experience of immigrants in the US by the
expression "the Great Alchemist melts and fuses all nations and
races." The ingredients in the pot which represent people of different
ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs are processed until their previous
identities are melted away and blended into a uniform product.
In American literature, an early use of the
concept of immigrants "melting" into the receiving culture may be
found in the writings of John Hector St. John (1735-1813): "Here
individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and
posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."
President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), a
separatist on many issues related to races, said this to new immigrants:
"And while you bring all countries with you, you come with the purpose of
leaving all other countries behind you -- bringing what is best of their
spirit, but not looking over your shoulders and seeking to perpetuate what you
intended to leave behind in them." (Obviously, American pragmatism can be quite
patronizing.
Today, not only are the US demographics
changing in profound and unprecedented ways, but so too are the very notions of
assimilation and the melting pot. "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One)
remains the national motto, but what does that mean in the present reality?
There is a sense that, especially as
immigrant populations reach a critical mass in many communities, it is no
longer the melting pot that is transforming them, but they who are transforming
American society.
American "culture" remains a
powerful force that influences people both domestically and around the world.
But several factors have combined in recent years to allow immigrants to
resist, if they choose, the assimilation that had once been considered
irresistible.
Some sociologists argue that the melting
pot often means little more than "Anglo conformity" and that
assimilation is not always a positive experience. With today’s emphasis
industrial competitiveness and acceptance of cultural diversity, it has become
easier for immigrants to avoid the melting pot entirely. The metaphor itself is
falling out of fashion and is increasingly replaced by such terms as the
"mosaic" and, less poetically, the "salad bowl," metaphors
that convey more of a sense of fragmentation in describing this nation of
immigrants.
The current message to immigrants might as
well be: "Come as you are, and stay as you are."What does this imply?
While we, as a nation, are implicitly embracing the notion of cultural
diversity, we do not yet have any practical policies and mechanisms that,
first, articulate what cultural diversity really means; second, recognize that
cultural diversity is part of the national agenda; and, third, support its
productive realization in the ways we all live, work and play together. (Canada’s
Multiculturalism may be a relevant case-study.There is a fine line between tolerance and
lacking a common vision. National unity and strength are at risk when people
begin to disconnect from the fabric and think of themselves as separate
threads.But, alas, such unity and strength cannot be realized by simplistically
pouring the gray concretes of
McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, The Simpsons and the likes all over the country.
ESAY
In the midst of
incessant wave of criticism and attacks against the new policies of President
George W. Bush on Iraq and the Middle East, even from Congress controlled by
the Democrats, the end of January, foreign policy makers in Washington offers a
strategic partnership that is interesting to Indonesia.
In
the midst of incessant wave of criticism and attacks against the new policies
of President George W. Bush on Iraq and the Middle East, even from Congress
controlled by the Democrats, the end of January, foreign policy makers in
Washington offers a strategic partnership that is interesting to Indonesia.
Why not. Currently
the U.S. government is preparing an investment agreement with Indonesia that
bilateral trade between the two countries is expected to rise to 40 percent. And
this agreement was made within the framework of a free trade agreement FTA
(free trade agreement) with Indonesia. And
according to the information, this is one of the policy priorities of the
United States in Southeast Asia for 2007.
And
isyrat seems indeed quite serious as this information is expressed by David
Katz, Director of Asia Pacific Affairs at the U.S. Trade Representative's
office. This
means that Bush's policy to establish an investment agreement with Indonesia
informed the public of a fairly authoritative source.
This
trend indicates that an important political achievement for the United States
in foreign relations with Indonesia, but at the same time indicates that the
United States is in dire need of Indonesia as a reliable ally (reliable ally).
Bush's
new strategy to add approximately 21,500 military personnel to Iraq, and a cue
to escalate the conflict to Iran and Syria, it seems America is in desperate
need of political and diplomatic support from the Southeast Asia region. And
for that, the support from the Philippines and Thailand have been the
traditional American allies, it is less likely sufficient for the designers of
strategy and foreign policy in the White House.
Inevitably,
the Muslim-majority Indonesia about 90 percent, would be one of the main
considerations. But
ironically, the Indonesian Islamic culture moderates and appreciate the
diversity of cultures and even a pretty high tolerance for the presence of
other religions, it is not likely to be quite positive factor for the
Americans. Because
for Americans, the characteristics of the people of Indonesia are moderate
Islam and supporting cultural pluralism would be meaningless if it can not be
the mainstay of U.S. allies in both the strategic cooperation in the political
and military. Especially
if you have to be American allies to join the fight against America's enemies
such as Iran, Syria or North Korea.
Just
for illustration, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the two countries which have
been considered Islamic understanding Islam represents a fairly harsh and
puritanical. Both
Arabia and Pakistan, an Islamic state that sensible Wahhabist main agenda is to
purify the Islamic teachings that mimic raw style Islamic Middle East. Not
only in terms of conditions of Islam as the state ideology, but even to the
ritual and style of dress.
But
America is in fact not at all disturbed by the trend of Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia to adopt a centrist Wahabi Islam. Even
when Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviet Union's military, armed resistance
groups that are dominated by the Islamist Taliban purists and Pro Pakistan
which is an Islamic state berpahamkan hardline Wahabi, yet Americans still
think of them as allies. Because
of the time it is important for America: Neither Pakistan nor the Taliban
Islamic group based in Afghanistan, agreed to fight the Soviet occupation
forces in Afghanistan. That
Pakistan and the Taliban is a radical Islamic group, Americans simply do not
care.
Thus,
it is misleading to say that the Americans are very concerned to enforce the
understanding of Islam liberal or moderate pro pluralism in Muslim countries
such as Indonesia. Can
be used as long as American allies, radical Islam or Islamic puritan attitude
is not a basis for outlining the White House foreign policy to the
Muslim-majority countries.
In
the history of bilateral relations between Indonesia and America, there's
actually a fairly interesting one. As
Americans face the communist bloc countries like the Soviet Union and the
People's Republic of China in Southeast Asia in the cold war period around the
1960s, including Indonesia, U.S. to face the threat of the Communist Party of
Indonesia (PKI), forced to forge alliances with some of the party or political forces that are
considered anti-PKI.
Thus,
in addition to the Army, the U.S. decided to ally with the Islamic Party and
the modernist-leaning Masyumi tend ideological understanding in applying his
Islam. Actually
in a very liberal American perspective and supporting pluralism and even
included a secular state, tactical support to Masyumi when in fact it remains
an oddity or anomaly. But
as a strategy to stem the communist influence in Southeast Asia is a priority
of American foreign policy, it is kind of weird alliance was considered
perfectly natural.
The
question then, did this purely political calculation to establish a tactical
alliance with the U.S. in Muslim countries? Or
is there something even more strategic in their calculations and strategy architect
of American foreign policy. For
example, some concern that the presence of an Islamic power that is deeply
rooted in the community culturally a country that is regarded as a threat more
real Americans.
Because
if we look at prototype and profile Muslim communities berpahamkan wing
puritanical Wahhabi Muslims and Egyptian-style Ihwanul referring to Muhammad
Qutub Islamic movement leaders, despite their puritanical and radical in
religious understanding, but basically many of the educated middle class-based
and berkultur big cities. That
is, although they are radical in religious understanding, but may develop into
a revolutionary in political, economic and legal. Plus,
as a Muslim communist purists, but based on the big cities, in fact they do not
have intensive contacts with the rural culture that generally adheres to Islam
based on tradition and local culture.
In
other words, the strategists and foreign policy America has had a political
calculation that no matter how large forces based puritanical Wahabi Islam and
Muslims Ihwanul models referring to Muhammad Qutub, still it is a Political
Enclave (Pocket political) power base and influence remains finite and measurable.
In
such circumstances, the United States in another wing, the easier it will create
a new class in the field of intellectual / academic, technological, economic
and military, which at first glance with the current seaspirasi minded and
puritanical Islamic and radical groups like that, but
it is actually another class that has nothing to do with Islamic agendas such
puritan. Rather
it is an entirely new social classes serving schemes and American political
agenda in the political, economic and legal.
The
problem, though Americans have done so far, or at least has given wind to the
creation of a constellation of such conditions and in Indonesia, but in
practice is not entirely successful, as the Americans in Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan.
In
Saudi Arabia, if we listen to the work of documentary film titled Fahrenheid
Michael More, there was revealed the interesting fact that in the era of George
Bush Senior, Bush family is already established business cooperation with some
of the royal family of Saudi Arabia, even with some members of Osama bin Laden.
So
that even though Osama in its development has become rebels against the Saudi
royal family, but the business relationship that exists between the Bush family
and Osama bin Laden is certainly still a big question. Even
when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were bombed by terrorists who claimed
the White House conducted by Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden.
That
is, there was a time when Americans have to tolerate and even cooperate with
radical Islamic understanding as adopted by the Saudi royal family and Osama
bin Laden.
In
Pakistan, despite the radical Islamist Wahabi style dominates public life, but
in real terms the actual American political group allied with the military
under the command of General Musyaraf as a social class that actually has
nothing to do with Islamic agendas of various groups that dominate the Islamic
puritan social and cultural
rights in Pakistan.
Thus,
the U.S. established a strategic alliance with Pakistan while still giving wind
to some degree that does not jeopardize the strategic interests of the U.S. and
the Pakistan military. Why
it could be done by Americans so easily? Due
to the existence of a puritanical Islamic group does not provide a conducive
situation for the community to provide an opinion critical of the authorities,
let alone raise a force citizens against the authoritarian regime.
So
also in Saudi Arabia, as well as unconditioned creation of a public opinion
that is critical of the authorities, it is still difficult from the community,
even among elite palace of critical internal and pro-reform, to raise a force
of resistance to the Saudi kingdom.
And
at the same time, as a strategic move against Pakistan imposed America, the
architects of foreign policy in Washington to establish a strategic alliance
with the leading members of the Saudi Kingdom is regarded as a key player.
In
Indonesia, the Americans have recognized until now difficult to establish a
strategic alliance with Indonesia and permanent. Although
there are groups such as Islamic purists are generally incorporated in the
Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), but in terms of the influence of Islam that
they built are still very limited and measurable. This
means that there are many other good balancer United Development Party (PPP),
the National Awakening Party (PKB)-based traditional Islamic NU, and even the
National Mandate Party (PAN), which although leaning modernist and urban-based,
but intellectually and understand Islam still relatively tolerant and moderate.
Not
to mention that some elements of cultural-based moderate Islam and who still
has a strong influence in both the Golkar Party and the Indonesian Democratic
Party of Struggle (PDI-P), which incidentally is still the two largest parties
that dominate the House of Representatives seat, at least until the next
election in 2009.
The
number of layers of players who determine the policy and political control of
the country's political institutions, making it difficult to implement the
American "foreign policy of the door" in Indonesia.
Thus,
the offer of investment agreements with Indonesia, would have to be observed
further development. Therefore,
the clause will be redirected to the investment agreement to develop trade in
agriculture, services, intellectual property rights as well.
This
is interesting, considering the agribusiness sector and services sector
currently is a business that became the basis of the efforts of various groups
of middle class Muslims in Indonesia. Even
the interesting facts that must be observed is, that the Bogor Agricultural
Institute (IPB) since the first group of students known as the base of the wing
Puritan Islam as incorporated in the Indonesian Student Action Unit (WE) and
Hamas.
While
in the service sector of Information Technology, for example, is now a Muslim
middle class base of a wide spectrum of understanding Islam.
Therefore,
Gary Clyde Hufbauer optimism of the Peterson Institute for International
Economics that the investment agreement could increase bilateral trade by 40
percent, aganya still need to be studied in more detail again.
*I think we as citizens of Indonesia must have a strong determination to maintain and preserve our own culture, should not we as
citizens of Indonesia themselves do
not know the culture that exist
in our country, because they are too popularize the culture
of the people who end we waste pnya what
our country so that other countries can easily grab and recognize our own culture
