Polyethnicity Today and the Arab World

The origins of polyethnicity and the issues it presented as discussed by McNeill in the assigned article was incredibly fascinating. That it was promoted and encouraged by three factors: conquest, disease, and trade, is also interesting. The dynamic between natives of a particular area and the foreigners who "conquered" or inhabited it seems to be also the origin of current day desires for ethnic homogeneity, deeply rooted in the ideas that foreigners may oppress and enforce cultural aspects onto another group. It seems strange that the US who promotes itself as a country of freedom and as a meltingpot in someway desires elements of homogeneity. In a country where we are all essentially immigrants, this is impossible. (Unless, of course, we were to host another holocaust similar to the genocide of the Native Americans and wipe out all cultural groups we decided we don't like.) However, it seems citizens often exercise preferences of one ethnic group or culture over another as far as who inhabits the country.
Polyethnicity today seems to occur from factors much different from those of pre-1750. What exists now may be the result of previous migrations and also of people transplanting as a means of improving quality of life. Although these reasons for moving into another culture are incredibly valid, that does not mean that residents will be all together sympathetic or accepting of their new fellow citizens, which is all too common in this country and evident, especially considering current circumstances with immigration laws regarding our neighbors to the south.
Additionally, I found the article extracted from the Econimist, A Special Report on the Arab World worth considering in regards to issues of polyethnicity. In the beginning, I found it entertaining that the author(s) had to explain that "the Arab World" was not entirely made up of just Arabs and that they in fact, somehow have different cultures within this one area in addition to varied religious beliefs and that they do not all speak the same language. The author essentially had to break apart the common stereotypes held in the US. Since the Economist is an English newspaper, perhaps it is not just Americans but rather all English-speakers that are ignorant to issues and common facts of the Middle East. Which is horribly sad.
Anyhow, the author goes into great detail concerning the violent issues the Middle East which, if oversimplified, breaks down into an inability to agree on important matters. I was reminded of what we learned of the Dogma of Otherness and the significance of tolerating disagreement and valuing differences, be them religious or political standpoints. It seems "the Arab World" needs to employ both the Dogma of Otherness and also a bit of open-mindedness to the prospect of sharing land with people who diverge from a single category in almost any aspect, or polyethnicity.
A. Gorno