# The Ultimate Britishness Test



## Everness

Pretty soon people who want to become British citizens will need to pass a ''Britishness test" demonstrating a minimum standard of English and knowledge of government practices. 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/08/18/effort_ties_citizenship_to_britishness?mode=PF

Prime Minister Blair presents this as one of the measures his government is taking against terrorism. This poses a problem to me. I think that speaking better English and knowing a bit more of British history and government practices isn’t a bad idea. It will facilitate the process of acculturation of new immigrants. But to think that this will eventually have an impact on terrorism is, to say the least, a stretch.  Just think for a moment. How proficient in English were the suicide bombers that conducted the first wave of attacks in London? Some of them were college educated! I’m sure that they wrote impeccably and they even spoke with that cute British accent!

I think that some British politicians  are having second thoughts about having opened the doors to people from their former colonies. But I think it’s too late for this type of regrets. However, the problem isn’t multiculturalism and the goal shouldn't be to homogenize British society. (And we all know that “to homogenize” actually means “to whiten.”)

The problem Great Britain faces is the same problem our globalized world faces: how to negotiate cultural differences without resorting to violence. We shouldn’t try to impose our culture or religion on others but learn to respect cultures or religions that are different than ours. (Let's not forget that in the past we had pluralism of nations and now we have pluralistic nations, at least in the West.) Those who believe that the only solution is for a culture to suppress another one are just compounding things further. Britain won’t combat terrorism successfully by having foreign-born people speak proper English or memorize some dates and names. The real solution has nothing to do with language skills or knowledge of historical facts. It has to do with creating a society that values and embraces diversity of all kinds: racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, etc. and organizes itself around such multifaceted diversity.

In sum, if you Britons want to change something, just change your foreign policy, especially in Iraq. Otherwise, someone needs to remind you that your country is one of the few nations on this world that is doing fairly well in the multicultural department. I think that the key is Great Britain’s vast imperial experience! The recent problems you faced pursuing this goal shouldn't stop you from providing the world with a blueprint for dealing creatively and successfully with cultural and religious diversity.


----------



## timpeac

Everness - I'm sure the government is using terrorism as an excuse to introduce these new test they fear will be somewhat controversial otherwise. I agree with you in that I can see no way that such test will in any way reduce the threat of domestic terrorism.


----------



## Swettenham

As far as the Britishness test, I agree that it does not even address the issue, and that any obstacle to cross-cultural understanding will only make a bad situation worse.  In any case, who's to say that those who seek to destroy Britain may not study it more thoroughly than many decent citizens (and immigrants) who are more concerned with day-to-day problems?  Just a thought.


----------



## Nocciolina

Well, I know that in the past 6 years the Government has been feeding Citizen Studies into the National Curriculum. I see these Britishness tests as another attempt by the Government to promote British patriotism. To what end, I have no idea; seems to couse more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Nocciolina

I also do not think that it is the desire of the British government to homogenize Britain. There are many diverse ethnic groups living harmoniously in Britain. I think that it is right that British subjects and new immigrants are familiar with British institutions, traditions, customs etc. It allows for greater understanding and better integration.


----------



## Swettenham

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> I also do not think that it is the desire of the British government to homogenize Britain. There are many diverse ethnic groups living harmoniously in Britain. I think that it is right that British subjects and new immigrants are familiar with British institutions, traditions, customs etc. It allows for greater understanding and better integration.


Agreed.  A certain level of familiarity is rightly to be expected, even necessary.  In my ESL classes, I often drop in tidbits about US history.  I even gave one advanced student a Government textbook as additional reading practice.  I am playing the devil's advocate when I say it's okay for immigrants to be too busy to study their new homeland; I just think the government should tone down its anti-terrorism rhetoric, and not use that red herring to justify unrelated measures.  But I guess that makes me an idealist.


----------



## Everness

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> There are many diverse ethnic groups living harmoniously in Britain.



That's my whole point! If we were able to zoom out and look at our dear earth from a distance we would see two major problems: economic inequality and cultural diversity. The growing inequality between rich and poor nations is a serious development that isn't being addressed by the richest countries. But that issue should be discussed on another thread. The second problem is cultural diversity and this includes race, ethnicity, languages, religion, etc. Europe and North America have been at the receiving end of a steady immigration flux. As a result, they are becoming more and more multicultural societies. As I stated on a previous post, in the past we had pluralism of nations, each of them with distinct cultural characteristics, and now we have pluralistic nations, each of them showing a rich cultural rainbow. The cultural boundaries have been redrawn. 

Great Britain is a great living example of West meets East in terms of population mix. They are doing a terrific job in managing cultural diversity creatively. So far, no one was seriously thinking about letting the myth of the melting pot take the driver's seat. However, this last announcement could be a first step in that direction. Then the terrorist attacks occured and people started to look funny at Middle and Far Eastern folks, the kind of you-are-not-British-enough  look. 

Our world needs to learn to embrace cultural diversity as a strength and not as a liability. Of course it's not an easy thing to do. People like Hitler tried to "homogeneize" culture and society by getting rid of culturally-diverse populations that didn't live up to his standards of what's culturally desirable. Today we can accomplish the same cultural cleansing in more subtle ways. I hope that GB, the only industrialized nation that really got it, doesn't change its mind and course because of a terrorist attack.  Again, GB shouldn't change its MO when it comes to dealing with cultural diversity. Stay the course on this issue and please change it in regards to the war in Iraq. If you do so, you'll be able to export that model to other countries that are betting on the return to ruthless or subtle monoculturalism as a way of taking care of business.


----------



## Swettenham

I wouldn't prefer to live in a purely multicultural way, as you seem to describe it, Everness, because I am simply too curious about other cultures.   I like to learn from them, and for them to learn from me.  I don't believe we should try to force each other to conform (in that, I agree), but I think we should open up to each other,  and I believe that in doing so, we will close the gaps, and eventually become more similar than we are different.  It's not something that should occur from the top down.  But I just don't understand why, if we're all living together in the same space, we should be strangers (that is, different, alienated, each culture goes about its own business and doesn't worry about the others).  I agree that diversity is a strength, but I think stubborn diversity (i.e. not bridging gaps between different communities) is a different story.  I agree that the government should not impose monoculturalism, but there is nothing wrong with all the people in one country contributing to a common culture.  I guess I am saying that if we let things take their natural course, monoculturalism will result, provided that we open our minds and hearts to each other.  I know that sounds like a cheesy speech, but I would challenge you (if you knew me personally) to pinpoint my culture.  I am a white American, but my Latino students and African American friends have told me I don't act like a white American.  I also don't act like a Latino or Black person.  There will always be diversity, even in the most monocultural nation.  But if we're going to redraw the boundaries, we might as well do away with them, and come closer together.


----------



## Swettenham

PS And this Britishness test will not accomplish that goal.  Only the people ourselves can accomplish it.


----------



## luar

I am sure that Blair would agree with the idea of exonerating from the "Britishness test" those who could sing, and live up to the standards of the song _No me llames_ extranjero by Rafael Amador. Here is the link: http://www.ewakulak.com/content/view/133/36


----------



## Benjy

hem, no? go to birmignham and take a walk through handsworth. white people arent allowed in there.. i know shop owners who have been hustled out for being the wrong colour. the race riots up in preston a few years back.

harmonious is not the words i would use to describe race relations in britain.



			
				Nocciolina said:
			
		

> I also do not think that it is the desire of the British government to homogenize Britain. There are many diverse ethnic groups living harmoniously in Britain. I think that it is right that British subjects and new immigrants are familiar with British institutions, traditions, customs etc. It allows for greater understanding and better integration.


----------



## Nocciolina

Benjy said:
			
		

> hem, no? go to birmignham and take a walk through handsworth. white people arent allowed in there.. i know shop owners who have been hustled out for being the wrong colour. the race riots up in preston a few years back.
> 
> harmonious is not the words i would use to describe race relations in britain.


 
Well, in an ideal world everyone would live harmoniously. I realise that racial problems are as much an issue in elswhere in the world. Through my experience these problems are usually born from ignorance, something that can hopefully remedied through education.


----------



## Everness

There isn't a single country in this world that doesn't have problems in the race/ethnic department. Britain isn't an exception. My point is that GB as a country has the type of mindset that goes beyond monoculturalism thus allowing diverse cultures, ideologies and religions to coexist.  

Let's use the BBC as an example. I live in the States and the only way to find out what's going on in Africa, for example, is by listening to NPR. Why? Because they carry the BBC news. You might like or dislike the BBC but you can't deny that it's one of the most widely recognized international broadcasters of radio programming. It transmits in 43 (!) languages to around 150 (!) million people throughout the world. And who funds it? The British government. The BBC World Service attempts to disseminate news around the world that are fair and politically neutral. I critically trust the BBC and I can't say this of any other news outlet. The BBC illustrates what Britain brings to the table in terms of creating a worldwide cultural environment that embraces diversity. It gives you different perspectives and allows you to draw your own conclusions. 

My purpose isn't to convince Britons that they live in one of the best countries in the world or that they should feel very proud of being Britons. I'm just saying that Great Britain has a controversial yet rich long history when it comes to international affairs that makes its contributions unique in the here and now. Many of us are looking forward to Britain's leadership in negotiating these difficult times. Will they step up to the plate?


----------



## Swettenham

Everness said:
			
		

> Many of us are looking forward to Britain's leadership in negotiating these difficult times. Will they step up to the plate?


MANY MANY MANY of us are looking forward to this.  PLEASE step up to that plate.  I know that the majority of the British population was against the war in Iraq— we should have listened to you!!!


----------



## Jonegy

Usual government balls up ! ! ! ! 

Did they not think that if they taught  "Brisitsh History"  to our immigrants this would FOSTER terrorist activity rather than de-fuse it.
The British Empire has a lot of things to be ashamed of.  It made a lot of money for a few people   -   very few.

Re: Citizenship taught in schools - as long as the above paragraph is taken into consideration and openly discussed - fair enough.  Just as long as the Singing of the National Anthem with  'hands-on-hearts'  bulls**t  every schoolday morning, football match, cricket match ect, etc,  doesn't follow.
As for helping our Friend and Ally in Iraq just as he helped us before  -  Our biggest Friend (although not an Ally) in WWII was Japan -  It the Yellow Peril hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour - Uncle Sam would have happily carried on building ships to sell to us -  then leaving all the shore lights well lit so the submarines could pop them off - so they could build more ships etc , etc,.........

Happy days ;-)


----------



## Swettenham

Here's how I look at it:  Because you reasserted our Friendship, the Average American values Britain's opinion much more than that of, say, France.  I believe that, after all that has happened, America is— ever-so-subtly— humbled.  And our hearts go out to those affected by the bombings in London.  At this point, you have a great deal of leverage.  I'm not going to say that the British will fix everything and make everything right again (let's not forget the innocent Brazilian man shot by the police), but I do have a hunch that the United Kingdom might handle the responsibility of world leadership a little more maturely than the Republic of Texas.  My point is, y'all are at a crossroads.  You have won America's hearts; maybe now you can change our minds.   What do you think?


----------



## Everness

Jonegy said:
			
		

> Did they not think that if they taught  "Brisitsh History"  to our immigrants this would FOSTER terrorist activity rather than de-fuse it.
> The British Empire has a lot of things to be ashamed of.  It made a lot of money for a few people   -   very few.



Your first statement (even if it's true) is a great example of self-deprecatory British humor! 

Let's go back to my original point. It would be stupid to assert that Britain has an impeccable resume, especially when it comes to its long history of international dealings. However, it's exactly the good and bad deeds on GB's resume that turns it into the only  country in the world that has the greatest chances of bringing different cultures, ideologies, and religions from the East and the West to the negotiating table. In terms of cultural diversity, Britain is, like it or not, the most experienced and believable broker in the international arena. However, it seems that GB is reluctant to step up to the plate. 

Just remember what happened to Jonah when he ran away from the Lord!   The story of Jonah


----------



## Nocciolina

LOL, I think you can relax safe in the knowledge that the hand on heart, National Anthem rendition will remain a North American phenomenon. However, I think that it is ridiculous to assume that teaching new immigrants of the British Empire will incite terrorism, or even resentment. I mean, other than the mafia who believes in vendettas, and sins of the fathers etc?? Many developed countries have commited attrocities in far off lands. I think it is the responsibility of subsequent generations to learn from this and ensure that it cannot be repeated however, I think it is ridiculous to expect those States to be held eternally responsible.
ps. is balls up the same as cock-up?


			
				Jonegy said:
			
		

> Usual government balls up ! ! ! !
> 
> Did they not think that if they taught "Brisitsh History" to our immigrants this would FOSTER terrorist activity rather than de-fuse it.
> The British Empire has a lot of things to be ashamed of. It made a lot of money for a few people - very few.
> 
> Re: Citizenship taught in schools - as long as the above paragraph is taken into consideration and openly discussed - fair enough. Just as long as the Singing of the National Anthem with 'hands-on-hearts' bulls**t every schoolday morning, football match, cricket match ect, etc, doesn't follow.
> As for helping our Friend and Ally in Iraq just as he helped us before - Our biggest Friend (although not an Ally) in WWII was Japan - It the Yellow Peril hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour - Uncle Sam would have happily carried on building ships to sell to us - then leaving all the shore lights well lit so the submarines could pop them off - so they could build more ships etc , etc,.........
> 
> Happy days ;-)


----------



## Jonegy

Sorry Swettenham, my posting was not meant as a personal attack  -  just the observations of an old cynic. (and the older I get the more cynical these politicians make me)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that our government could influence the actions of Uncle Sam.  Some decades ago, this may have been true but I can assure you that all the influence these days comes from your side of the Atlantic.  When Uncle Sam says "Jump!", our government asks "How high ?".

The UK was once independant of this influence (Suez etc and continued as such upto Margaret Thatcher's going into the Falkland Islands which according to news reports over here, the White House while not condemning it, was NOT 100% in agreement.

It was sometime after this that the change came.  I can't tie down a date or prticular occurence but I would dearly love to know the CAUSE of the change, because by the time Maggie had gone - things were not the same somehow.

Re: Iraq  -  In the UK, the government KNEW that about 80% of the electorate were against going into Iraq but went ahead anyway.  In the US they at least brought out the big propaganda and advertising men and hammered the untruths  out until people bought the con.  Which bring us back to the original topic  of Citizenship where the politicians (regardless of party) would dearly love to have the Great British Public believe that politicans do not tell lies.  If they weren't Liars they wouldn't last long as Politicians.

That's it - we know we're being shafted  but there's nothing we can do about it.

p.s.  Is there any way of bringing Guy Fawkes back to life ??  He had an interesting idea !!!


----------



## Everness

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> I mean, other than the mafia who believes in vendettas, and sins of the fathers etc??



There's always W...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/28/wirq228.xml


----------



## timpeac

Jonegy said:
			
		

> Re: Iraq - In the UK, the government KNEW that about 80% of the electorate were against going into Iraq but went ahead anyway.


That was the thing I found shocking. The people said they didn't want to go to war - but that's what governments are for, to make decisions on behalf of the people sometimes. However, Tony Blair's cabinet also said no (some even resigned over the issue) in short everyone said no, but TB went ahead anywhere. I can't think of a bigger "f**k you all I know best" from a PM (or at least a bigger one when it turns out they were wrong).

The nearest thing I can think of is no where near as important but was TB again, the millennium dome. For those who don't know what this was, TB thought it would be good to build a dome for the millennium to hold an exhibition. This was going to cost a fortune (if memory serves it ended up being £2billion!!!). Everyone said from the word go it was a terrible idea, and the exhibition was RUBBISH. It lost loads of money, which when you think they could have built about 10 hospitals for the money was nothing short of a national disgrace in my opinion.

The sooner we get rid of that meglomaniac TB the better in my opinion.

Edit - Also Tony Blair went to Blair on the sole platform that Iraq _had weapons of mass destruction_. GWB went to war on the platform that Saddam was a nasty guy.


----------



## Jonegy

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> LOL, ps. is balls up the same as cock-up?


 
LOL  - you got it - we tend to interchange them - and for no particular reason the I can think of. 

(you must have posted while I was typing out the last one


----------



## timpeac

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Nocciolina*
_LOL, ps. is balls up the same as cock-up?_



Depends how high you jump.


----------



## Everness

Jonegy said:
			
		

> You seem to be under the misapprehension that our government could influence the actions of Uncle Sam.



Not quite true... 

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...PK:34392~piPK:64256810~theSitePK:4607,00.html

_US President George W. Bush, after initially resisting Blair's ambitious goals, announced last Thursday that he will ask Congress to double US support for Africa by the target date, an increase that would take US assistance from $4.3 billion in 2004 to more than $8.6 billion in 2010._


----------



## Nocciolina

Everness said:
			
		

> There's always W...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/28/wirq228.xml


 
W. as in George W. No comment. I mean, the man is too ridiculous for words.


----------



## Everness

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> W. as in George W. No comment. I mean, the man is too ridiculous for words.



C'mon, let's be fair: his oratory has improved significantly. This article (slightly off topic) is a bit old but I still keep it in my Favorites folder.

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=651&catid=7


----------



## Swettenham

Jonegy said:
			
		

> Sorry Swettenham, my posting was not meant as a personal attack  -  just the observations of an old cynic. (and the older I get the more cynical these politicians make me)
> 
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that our government could influence the actions of Uncle Sam.  Some decades ago, this may have been true but I can assure you that all the influence these days comes from your side of the Atlantic.  When Uncle Sam says "Jump!", our government asks "How high ?"


No offense taken, Jonegy.  I've been enjoying this conversation.  All I'm saying is, well, first of all, as an American who protested the war and voted against the warmonger, I'm sorry we dragged you into this.  And second of all, maybe the situation is a little different now than it was then.  And maybe we can turn negatives into positives!!!  I know I'm naive, but it's worth considering, right?


----------

