The Mosaic vs. the Melting Pot? A Roundtable and Podcast

2023-07-05 13:13:19

In the past century, "mosaic" and "crucible" appeared in North America as a concept to explain the relationship between Canadian and American with immigrant and cultural diversity. The origin of the word mosaic can be traced back to the book "Canadian Mosaics" published by John Murray Gibbon in 1938 and the crucible in Zangwill 's 1908 Israeli drama' s "melting furnace" It appeared.

These two concepts are still thoughtful about history and are still powerful today. They contain beliefs about collective ownership, upward liquidity and citizenship. These two phrases actually represent national ideology. This reflects how many Canadians and Americans think about integration and cultural and linguistic diversity.

Many Canadians believe that the crucible is the opposite of mosaic and official multiculturalism. However, as discussed by the participants of the roundtable discussion, when looking at the daily reality of North American cultural diversity, these two ideologies have much in common and obscure many similarities.

In this open roundtable discussion, five historians from the United States and Canada discussed the origins and development of the myths of these countries. Grace Delgado continues to show the importance of crucibles to the concept of citizenship. She studied how Arizona is currently mobilizing the idea of state ownership and exclusion. Patricia Burke Wood compares the concept of a mosaic and a furnace and associates them with today's multiculturalism. She criticized the simplicity of the words and emphasized their lofty idealism.

Russell Cazal dates back to racist ideas in Los Angeles in the 1940's and studied the beginnings of Canadian and American terminology multiculturalism. Randy Widis proposed the concept of interculturalism. David Atkinson clarifies the origins of the American crucible and emphasizes its importance in building a nation. He also talked about how many people, especially Randolph Born, challenged the crucible myths of the early 20 th century.

This roundtable discussion is part of the seminar funded by SSHRC held at Glendon College in late October 2012.

Benjamin Bryce is a doctoral student at the University of History of York University. He published articles and book chapters on immigration, ethnicity and language policy issues in Canada and Argentina.

In this article I will explain the pros and cons of mosaic and furnace theory. First, I will explain the two ideologies. In the "crucible" country like America, the former identity was after you became a new American identity. As all the US share this commonality, this will create a more homogeneous type of country. In multicultural or mosaic countries such as Canada, everyone appreciates each other's difference and Canadian identity. It sounds better than the other, but neither ideal has both advantages and disadvantages.

In the past century, "mosaic" and "crucible" appeared in North America as a concept to explain the relationship between Canadian and American with immigrant and cultural diversity. The origin of the word mosaic can be traced back to John Murray Gibbon 's book "Canadian Mosaics" in 1938, and in the drama "crucible" of Zangwill 1908, the crucible appeared in the public consciousness. These two concepts are still thoughtful about history and are still powerful today. They contain beliefs about collective ownership, upward liquidity and citizenship. These two phrases actually represent national ideology. This reflects how many Canadians and Americans think about integration and cultural and linguistic diversity.