Part of a series on
Immigration
General
Immigration by country Immigration policy Illegal immigration Internal migration
History and law
Border security Citizenship Repatriation Deportation Immigration law Externalization Indefinite leave to remain Migration diplomacy Non-refoulement Right of asylum Refugee Visa Voluntary return
Social processes
Social integration Immigrant assimilation Acculturation (Acculturation Gap) Persecution Social exclusion
Political theories
Civic nationalism Religious nationalism Replacement migration Social cohesion Nativism Multiculturalism Plurinationalism Ethnocentricism Foot voting
Opposition and reform
Criticism of multiculturalism Immigration reform Opposition to immigration White genocide conspiracy theory
Causes
Economic migrant War
v t e

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Social determinants of health Social determinants of health in poverty Social determinants of mental health Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism White Male Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Protestantism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Filipino Fulani Finnish Georgian Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Quebec Romani Romanian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movemenet in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime LGBTQ Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or assimilates the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group whether fully or partially.^[1]

The different types of cultural assimilation include full assimilation and forced assimilation. Full assimilation is the more prevalent of the two, as it occurs spontaneously.^[2] When used as a political ideology, assimilationism refers to governmental policies of deliberately assimilating ethnic groups into the national culture.^[3]

During cultural assimilation, minority groups are expected to adapt to the everyday practices of the dominant culture through language and appearance as well as via more significant socioeconomic factors such as absorption into the local cultural and employment communities.^[4]

Some types of cultural assimilation resemble acculturation in which a minority group or culture completely assimilates into the dominant culture in which defining characteristics of the minority culture are less obverse or outright disappear; while in other types of cultural assimilation such as cultural integration mostly found in multicultural communities, a minority group within a given society adopts aspects of the dominant culture through either cultural diffusion or for practical reason like adapting to another society's social norms while retaining their original culture. A conceptualization describes cultural assimilation as similar to acculturation^[5][6] while another merely considers the former as one of the latter's phases.^[1] Throughout history there have been different forms of cultural assimilation examples of types of acculturation include voluntary and involuntary assimilation.^[7]

Assimilation could also involve the so-called additive acculturation wherein, instead of replacing the ancestral culture, an individual expands their existing cultural repertoire.^[5]

Cultural assimilation may involve either a quick or a gradual change depending on the circumstances of the group. Full assimilation occurs when members of a society become indistinguishable from those of the dominant group in society.^[2]

Whether a given group should assimilate is often disputed by both members of the group and others in society. Cultural assimilation does not guarantee social alikeness. Geographical and other natural barriers between cultures, even if created by the predominant culture, may be culturally different. Cultural assimilation can happen either spontaneously or forcibly, the latter when more dominant cultures use various means aimed at forced assimilation.^[2]

Various types of assimilation, including forced cultural assimilation, are particularly relevant regarding Indigenous groups during colonialism taking place between the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. This type of assimilation included religious conversion, separation of families, changes of gender roles, division of property among foreign power, elimination of local economies, and lack of sustainable food supply. Whether via colonialism or within one nation, methods of forced assimilation are often unsustainable, leading to revolts and collapses of power to maintain control over cultural norms. Often, cultures that are forced into different cultural practices through forced cultural assimilation revert to their native practices and religions that differ from the forced cultural values of other dominant powers.^[2] In addition throughout history, voluntary assimilation is often in response to pressure from a more predominant culture, and conformity is a solution for people to remain in safety. An example of voluntary cultural assimilation would be during the Spanish Inquisition, when Jews and Muslims accepted the Roman Catholic Church as their religion, but meanwhile, many people still privately practised their traditional religions. That type of assimilation is used to convince a dominant power that a culture has peacefully assimilated yet often voluntary assimilation does not mean the group fully conforms to the accepted cultural beliefs.^[7]

The term "assimilation" is often used about not only indigenous groups but also immigrants settled in a new land. A new culture and new attitudes toward the original culture are obtained through contact and communication. Assimilation assumes that a relatively-tenuous culture gets to be united into one unified culture. That process happens through contact and accommodation between each culture. The current definition of assimilation is usually used to refer to immigrants, but in multiculturalism, cultural assimilation can happen all over the world and within varying social contexts and is not limited to specific areas.

Social scientists rely on four primary benchmarks to assess immigrant assimilation: socioeconomic status, geographic distribution, second language attainment, and intermarriage.^[8] William A.V. Clark defines immigrant assimilation in the United States as "a way of understanding the social dynamics of American society and that it is the process that occurs spontaneously and often unintended in the course of interaction between majority and minority groups."^[9]

Studies have also noted the positive effects of immigrant assimilation. A study by Bleakley and Chin (2010) found that people who arrived in the US at or before the age of nine from non-English speaking countries tend to speak English at a similar level as those from English speaking countries. Conversely, those who arrived after nine from non–English speaking countries have much lower speaking proficiency and this increases linearly with age at arrival. The study also noted sociocultural impacts such as those with better English skills are less likely to be currently married, more likely to divorce, have fewer children, and have spouses closer to their age. Learning to speak English well is estimated to improve income by over 33 percent.^[10] A 2014 study done by Verkuyten found that immigrant children who adapt through integration or assimilation are received more positively by their peers than those who adapt through marginalization or separation.

There has been little to no existing research or evidence that demonstrates whether and how immigrant's mobility gains—assimilating to a dominant country such as language ability, socioeconomic status etc.— causes changes in the perception of those who were born in the dominant country. This essential type of research provides information on how immigrants are accepted into dominant countries. In an article by Ariela Schachter, titled "From "different" to "similar": an experimental approach to understanding assimilation", a survey was taken of white American citizens to view their perception of immigrants who now resided in the United States.^[11] The survey indicated the whites tolerated immigrants in their home country. White natives are open to having "structural" relation with the immigrants-origin individuals, for instance, friends and neighbors; however, this was with the exception of black immigrants and natives and undocumented immigrants.^[11] However, at the same time, white Americans viewed all non-white Americans, regardless of legal status, as dissimilar.

A similar journal by Jens Hainmueller and Daniel J. Hopkins titled "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants" confirmed similar attitudes towards immigrants.^[12] The researchers used an experiment to reach their goal which was to test nine theoretical relevant attributes of hypothetical immigrants. Asking a population-based sample of U.S. citizens to decide between pairs of immigrants applying for admission to the United States, the U.S. citizen would see an application with information for two immigrants including notes about their education status, country, origin, and other attributes. The results showed Americans viewed educated immigrants in high-status jobs favourably, whereas they view the following groups unfavourably: those who lack plans to work, those who entered without authorization, those who are not fluent in English and those of Iraqi descent.

As the number of international students entering the US has increased, so has the number of international students in US colleges and universities. The adaptation of these newcomers is important in cross-cultural research. In the study "Cross-Cultural Adaptation of International College Student in the United States" by Yikang Wang, the goal was to examine how the psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of international college students varied over time.^[13] The survey contained a sample of 169 international students attending a coeducational public university. The two subtypes of adaptation: psychological and socio-cultural were examined. Psychological adaptation refers to "feelings of well-being or satisfaction during cross-cultural transitions;"^[14] while socio-cultural refers to the ability to fit into the new culture.^[14] The results for both graduate and undergraduate students show both satisfaction and socio-cultural skills changed over time. Psychological adaptation had the most significant change for a student who has resided in the US for at least 24 months while socio-cultural adaptation steadily increased over time. It can be concluded that eventually over time, the minority group will shed some of their culture's characteristic when in a new country and incorporate new culture qualities. Also, it was confirmed that more time spent in a new country would result in becoming more accustomed to the dominant countries' characteristics.

Figure 2 demonstrates as the length of time resided in the United States increase—the dominant country, the life satisfaction and socio-cultural skill increase as well—positive correlation.^[13]

In turn, research by Caligiuri's group, published in 2020, shows that one semester of classroom experiential activities designed to foster international and domestic student social interaction serve to foster international students’ sense of belonging and social support.^[15]

In a study by Viola Angelini, "Life Satisfaction of Immigrant: Does cultural assimilation matter?", the theory of assimilation as having benefits for well-being.^[16] The goal of this study was to assess the difference between cultural assimilation and the subjective well-being of immigrants. The journal included a study that examined a "direct measure of assimilation with a host culture and immigrants' subjective well-being."^[16] Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, it was concluded that there was a positive correlation between cultural assimilation and an immigrant's life's satisfaction/wellbeing even after discarding factors such as employment status, wages, etc. "Life Satisfaction of Immigrant: Does cultural assimilation matter?" also confirms "association with life satisfaction is stronger for established immigrants than for recent ones."^[16] It was found that the more immigrants that identified with the German culture and who spoke the fluent national language—dominant country language, the more they reported to be satisfied with their lives. Life satisfaction rates were higher for those who had assimilated to the dominant country than those who had not assimilated since those who did incorporate the dominant language, religion, psychological aspects, etc.

In the study "Examination of cultural shock, intercultural sensitivity and willingness to adopt" by Clare D’Souza, the study uses a diary method to analyze the data collected.^[17] The study involved students undergoing a study abroad tour. The results show negative intercultural sensitivity is much greater in participants who experience "culture shock."^[17] Those who experience culture shock have emotional expression and responses of hostility, anger, negativity, anxiety frustration, isolation, and regression. Also, for one who has traveled to the country before permanently moving, they would have predetermined beliefs about the culture and their status within the country. The emotional expression for this individual includes excitement, happiness, eagerness, and euphoria.

Another article titled "International Students from Melbourne Describing Their Cross-Cultural Transitions Experiences: Culture Shock, Social Interaction, and Friendship Development" by Nish Belford focuses on cultural shock.^[18] Belford interviewed international students to explore their experience after living and studying in Melbourne, Australia. The data collected were narratives from the students that focused on variables such as "cultural similarity, intercultural communication competence, intercultural friendship, and relational identity to influence their experiences."^[18]

Between 1880 and 1920, the United States took in roughly 24 million immigrants.^[8] This increase in immigration can be attributed to many historical changes. The beginning of the 21st century has also marked a massive era of immigration, and sociologists are once again trying to make sense of the impacts that immigration has on society and on the immigrants themselves.^[8]

Assimilation had various meanings in American sociology. Henry Pratt Fairchild associates American assimilation with Americanization or the "melting pot" theory. Some scholars also believed that assimilation and acculturation were synonymous. According to a common point of view, assimilation is a "process of interpretation and fusion" from another group or person. That may include memories, behaviors, and sentiments. By sharing their experiences and histories, they blend into the common cultural life.^[19] A related theory is structural pluralism proposed by American sociologist Milton Gordon. It describes the American situation wherein despite the cultural assimilation of ethnic groups to mainstream American society, they maintained structural separation.^[20] Gordon maintained that there is limited integration of the immigrants into American social institutions such as educational, occupational, political, and social cliques.^[5]

During The Colonial Period from 1607 to 1776, individuals immigrated to the British colonies on two very different paths—voluntary and forced migration. Those who migrated to the colonies on their own volition were drawn by the allure of cheap land, high wages, and the freedom of conscience in British North America.^[21] On the latter half, the largest population of forced migrants to the colonies was African slaves.^[22] Slavery was different from the other forced migrations as, unlike in the case of convicts, there was no possibility of earning freedom, although some slaves were manumitted in the centuries before the American Civil War.^[23] The long history of immigration in the established gateways means that the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies in the traditional gateways is more structured or established, but on the other hand, the new gateways do not have much immigration history and so the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies are less defined, and immigrants may have more influence to define their position. Secondly, the size of the new gateways may influence immigrant assimilation. Having a smaller gateway may influence the level of racial segregation among immigrants and native-born people. Thirdly, the difference in institutional arrangements may influence immigrant assimilation. Traditional gateways, unlike new gateways, have many institutions set up to help immigrants such as legal aid, bureaus, and social organizations. Finally, Waters and Jimenez have only speculated that those differences may influence immigrant assimilation and the way researchers that should assess immigrant assimilation.^[8]

Furthermore, the advancement and integration of immigrants into the United States has accounted for 29% of U.S. population growth since 2000.^[24] Recent arrival of immigrants to the United States has been examined closely over the last two decades. The results show the driving factors for immigration including citizenship, homeownership, English language proficiency, job status, and earning a better income.^[25]

Canada's multicultural history dates back to the period European colonization from the 16th to 19th centuries, with waves of ethnic European emigration to the region. In the 20th century, Indian, Chinese and Japanese were the largest immigrant groups.^[26]

Canada remains one of the largest immigrant populations in the world. The 2016 census recorded 7.5 million documented immigrants, representing a fifth of the country's total population.^[27] Focus has shifted from a rhetoric of cultural assimilation to cultural integration.^[28] In contrast to assimilationism, integration aims to preserve the roots of a minority society while still allowing for smooth coexistence with the dominant culture.^[26]

Legislation applying the policy of "protection" over Aboriginal Australians (separating them from white society^[29]) was adopted in some states and territories of Australia when they were still colonies, before the federation of Australia: in the Victoria in 1867, Western Australia in 1886, and Queensland in 1897. After federation, New South Wales crafted their policy in 1909, South Australia and the Northern Territory (which was under the control and of South Australia at the time) in 1910–11. Mission stations missions and Government-run Aboriginal reserves were created, and Aboriginal people moved onto them. Legislation restricted their movement, prohibited alcohol use and regulated employment. The policies were reinforced in the first half of the 20th century (when it was realized that Aboriginal people would not die out or be fully absorbed in white society^[29]) such as in the provisions of the Welfare Ordinance 1953, in which Aboriginal people were made wards of the state. "Part-Aboriginal" (known as half-caste) children were forcibly removed from their parents in order to educate them in European ways; the girls were often trained to be domestic servants.^[30] The protectionist policies were discontinued, and assimilationist policies took over. These proposed that "full-blood" Indigenous Australians should be allowed to “die out”, while "half-castes" were encouraged to assimilate into the white community. Indigenous people were regarded as inferior to white people by these policies, and often experienced discrimination in the predominantly white towns after having to move to seek work.^[29][31]

Between 1910 and 1970, several generations of Indigenous children were removed from their parents, and have become known as the Stolen Generations. The policy has done lasting damage to individuals, family and Indigenous culture.^[29]

At the 1961 Native Welfare Conference in Canberra, Australian federal and state government ministers formulated an official definition of "assimilation" of Indigenous Australians for government contexts. Federal territories minister Paul Hasluck informed the House of Representatives in April 1961 that:^[32]

The policy of assimilation means in the view of all Australian governments that all aborigines and part-aborigines are expected eventually to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs, hopes and loyalties as other Australians. Thus, any special measures taken for aborigines and part-aborigines are regarded as temporary measures not based on colour but intended to meet their need for special care and assistance to protect them from any ill effects of sudden change and to assist them to make the transition from one stage to another in such a way as will be favourable to their future social, economic and political advancement.

In January 2019, the newly elected Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro stripped the Indigenous Affairs Agency FUNAI of the responsibility to identify and demarcate Indigenous lands. He argued that those territories have very tiny isolated populations and proposed to integrate them into the larger Brazilian society.^[33] According to the Survival International, "Taking responsibility for Indigenous land demarcation away from FUNAI, the Indian affairs department, and giving it to the Agriculture Ministry is virtually a declaration of open warfare against Brazil’s tribal peoples."^[34]

During the 19th and 20th centuries, and continuing until 1996, when the last Canadian Indian residential school was closed, the Canadian government, aided by Christian Churches began an assimilationist campaign to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples in Canada. The government consolidated power over Indigenous land through treaties and the use of force, eventually isolating most Indigenous peoples to reserves. Marriage practices and spiritual ceremonies were banned, and spiritual leaders were imprisoned. Additionally, the Canadian government instituted an extensive residential school system to assimilate children. Indigenous children were separated from their families and no longer permitted to express their culture at these new schools. They were not allowed to speak their language or practice their own traditions without receiving punishment. There were many cases of violence and sexual abuse committed by the Christian church. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada concluded that this effort amounted to cultural genocide. The schools actively worked to alienate children from their cultural roots. Students were prohibited from speaking their native languages, were regularly abused, and were arranged marriages by the government after their graduation. The explicit goal of the Canadian government, through the Catholic and Anglican churches, was to completely assimilate Indigenous peoples into broader Canadian society and destroy all traces of their native history.^[35]

During Croatia’s personal union with Hungary, ethnic Croatians were pressured to abandon their traditional customs in favor of adopting elements of Hungarian culture, such as Catholicism and the Latin alphabet. Because of this, elements of Hungarian culture were considered part of Croatian culture, and can still be seen in modern Croatian culture.^[36]

Throughout the Kingdom of Hungary, many citizens, primarily those who belonged to minority groups, were forced to convert to Catholicism. The forced conversion policy was harshest in Croatia and Transylvania, where civilians could be sent to prison for refusing to convert.^[37] Romanian cultural anthropologist Ioan Lupaș claims that between 1002, when Transylvania became part of the Kingdom of Hungary, to 1300, approximately 200,000 non-Hungarians living in Transylvania were jailed for resisting Catholic conversion, and about 50,000 of them died in prison.^[38]

A major contributor to cultural assimilation in South America began during exploration and colonialism that often is thought by Bartolomé de Las Casas to begin in 1492 when Europeans began to explore the Atlantic in search of "the Indies", leading to the discovery of the Americas. Europe remained dominant over the Americas' Indigenous populations as resources such as labor, natural resources i.e. lumber, copper, gold, silver, and agricultural products flooded into Europe, yet these gains were one-sided, as Indigenous groups did not benefit from trade deals with colonial powers.^[39] In addition to this, colonial metropoles such as Portugal and Spain required that colonies in South America assimilate to European customs – such as following the Holy Roman Catholic Church, acceptance of Spanish or Portuguese over Indigenous languages and accepting European-style government.^[40]

Through forceful assimilationist policies, colonial powers such as Spain used methods of violence to assert cultural dominance over Indigenous populations.^[41] One example occurred in 1519 when the Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés reached Tenochtitlán – the original capital of the Aztec Empire in Mexico.^[42] After discovering that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, Cortés killed high-ranked Aztecs and held Moctezuma II, the Aztec ruler, captive. Shortly after, Cortés began creating alliances to resume power in Tenochtitlán and renamed it Mexico City. Without taking away power through murder and spread of infectious diseases the Spanish conquistadores (relatively small in number) would not have been able to take over Mexico and convert many people to Catholicism and slavery. While Spaniards influenced linguistic and religious cultural assimilation among Indigenous peoples in South America during colonialism, many Indigenous languages such as the Incan language Quechua are still used in places such as Peru to this day by at least 4 million people.

In the course of the colonization of New Zealand from the late-18th century onwards, assimilation of the indigenous Maori population to the culture of incoming European visitors and settlers at first occurred spontaneously. Genetic assimilation commenced early and continued – the 1961 New Zealand census classified only 62.2% of Māori as "full-blood Maoris".^[43] (Compare Pākehā Māori.) Linguistic assimilation also occurred early and ongoingly: European settler populations adopted and adapted Māori words, while European languages affected Māori vocabulary (and possibly phonology).^[44]

In the 19th century colonial governments de facto encouraged assimilationist policies;^[45] by the late-20th century, policies favored bicultural development.^[46] Māori readily and early adopted some aspects of European-borne material culture (metals,^[47] muskets,^[48] potatoes^[49]) relatively rapidly. Imported ideas – such as writing,^[50] Christianity,^[51] monarchy, sectarianism, everyday European-style clothing,^[52] or disapproval of slavery^[53] – spread more slowly. Later developments (socialism,^[54] anti-colonialist theory,^[55] New Age ideas^[56]) have proven more internationally mobile. One long-standing view presents Māori communalism as unassimilated with European-style individualism.^[57]

Wikiquote has quotations related to Cultural assimilation.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cultural assimilation.

• Asian-Nation: Asian American Assimilation & Ethnic Identity
• From Paris to Cairo: Resistance of the Unacculturated
• Unity and Diversity in Multicultural Societies