December 11, 2001

6:52 AM

Immigrants should have to swear an oath of allegiance to show their "clear primary loyalty" to BritainThis is the conclusion of a report looking into this summer's race riots. From the story: The report suggests that an oath of national allegiance on the Canadian model might help future race relations. The report says that a quarter of places in single faith schools, be they state or private, should be given to children of alternative backgrounds as a way of bridging the divide. What fresh madness is this?
posted by Summer (33 comments total)

But there is a problem with immigrants isolating themselves within small race-exclusive communities. They make a point of resolutely sticking with the culture of the country they abandoned, with seemingly no interest in the language, clothing, cuisine, etc of their new home. So it's not hard to see why people presume their motivations for emigrating were entirely economic. And this leads to the whole "they come over here and take our jobs" mentality which I believe is what these riots are all about.
posted by MarkC at 7:27 AM on December 11, 2001

Why shouldn't they stick with their culture? If people riot because of it, then it's a problem with the people rioting. In particular, given that all the riots were in areas of high unemployment, poor wages, etc, it's a problem with the unequal distribution of wealth in our society. And wtf has that got to do with oaths of allegiance?

This oath of allegiance thing is part of the "Americanisation" solution to racial tension - where we all become the kind of jingoistic flag saluting pricks that you see in abundance on the Internet. It's not at all clear that this is the best solution to the problem... It certainly isn't the kind of society I want to live in.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:42 AM on December 11, 2001

And oaths have so much meaning. People never say them just because they have to, and always believe in the oaths and will always remain committed to them.

Yeah, right. Just look at Bush and Ashcroft - they've already violated their oaths of office. But that's another thread.

Oaths are almost meaningless. Most people treat them as mere formalities, with no real substance. Just like saying "No" to those stupid questions at the airport.
posted by yesster at 7:50 AM on December 11, 2001

I have no problem with people keeping their own culture as long as they recognise that it has to fit within the framework of British society. A pledge of alegence has nothing to do with culture. It's simply a way of stating outright that taking British citizenship carries both rewards and responsibilities.

Andrew: I'm not sure I understand your POV. This is not necessarily a way of dealing with racial tension. It's simply a way of re-affirming for anyone who wants to live here that Britain is home country, and they should act as such.

How to avoid Asian "ghettos", or racial violence is a far more difficult problem, which I don't think can be easily done away with. Hopefully a Pledge of Allegience would help in saying to the racists that these people are Brith, no matter what colour their skin.
posted by salmacis at 7:54 AM on December 11, 2001

I have no problem with people keeping their own culture as long as they recognise that it has to fit within the framework of British society. A pledge of alegence has nothing to do with culture. It's simply a way of stating outright that taking British citizenship carries both rewards and responsibilities.

Andrew: I'm not sure I understand your POV. This is not necessarily a way of dealing with racial tension. It's simply a way of re-affirming for anyone who wants to live here that Britain is home country, and they should act as such.

How to avoid Asian "ghettos", or racial violence is a far more difficult problem, which I don't think can be easily done away with. Hopefully a Pledge of Allegience would help in saying to the racists that these people are Brith, no matter what colour their skin.
posted by salmacis at 7:54 AM on December 11, 2001

The thing is, the people doing the rioting are usually second or third generation, so technically not immigrants at all. So how this relates to the riots I don't know. What annoys me most about the report is the recommendation that single faith schools should include a quarter of children from different backgrounds. How about no single faith schools? Is that an idea?
posted by Summer at 8:03 AM on December 11, 2001

Why shouldn't they stick with their culture?

If someone has no interest in a country's culture, why would they even want to live there, if not for purely financial reasons?

And wtf has that got to do with oaths of allegiance?

I was commenting on this part of the article:

"The controversial suggestion in the Cantle report, which was commissioned by the home secretary, David Blunkett, follows on from comments made by the minister that immigrants should adopt British 'norms'. "
posted by MarkC at 8:05 AM on December 11, 2001

But there is a problem with immigrants isolating themselves within small race-exclusive communities. They make a point of resolutely sticking with the culture of the country they abandoned, with seemingly no interest in the language, clothing, cuisine, etc of their new home.

Shoulds aside, is this not within their rights? The idea that a country should have a normative culture imposed by the many and the powerful is ... help me out here, fascism? At the very least it's dangerous and racist nationalism.
posted by sudama at 8:13 AM on December 11, 2001

"...with seemingly no interest in the language, clothing, cuisine..." Do they know what they are missing?
posted by echelon at 8:21 AM on December 11, 2001

Vikram Dodd: "What Mr Blunkett chose to put in the public arena was talk of accepting the norms of British life, and not the real reasons for the segregation: the fact that whites resented what they saw as outsiders, and so helped keep Asians in ghettos. The grafitti in these areas of segregation do not attack ethnic minorities for their inability to decline verbs properly. They attack on the basis of skin colour. The white gang that stabbed Stephen Lawrence to death did not shout abuse about his failure to know when to use the subjunctive. They shouted: 'What, what nigger.' The Macpherson report into the Stephen Lawrence case identified the need for a radical change across the whole of society to root out racism."
posted by Carol Anne at 8:22 AM on December 11, 2001

I demand that all cultures and ethnicities be kept entirely apart from each other, so that they cannot pollute the perfect purity of other cultures. Religious syncretism will not be tolerated, and anyone found using a linguistic system that cannot be matched with their genetic background will be imprisoned.

Together, through our iron will, we can reach a future where nobody understands anyone else, and everyone is kept in chains by feudal warlords of perfect racial purity.
posted by aramaic at 8:32 AM on December 11, 2001

If someone has no interest in a country's culture, why would they even want to live there, if not for purely financial reasons?

Assuming that's true, and putting asides other obvious reasons such as wishing to live in a place where they won't be persecuted (one assumes) for very basic freedoms (like what they wear, or how they speak) What's wrong with moving somewhere so that your family can have a better way of life? Is that ideal somehow inimical to the idea that you love and respect your new country?

People give up a lot when they move to a new place. People shouldn't have to give up their culture. That's intricably tied in with their sense of self. If people move to a different country, they have the same rights as anyone. If I want to dress "differently" and make up my own language, are you going to deport me?

People shouldn't have to give up their past. Their sense of self.
posted by lucien at 8:39 AM on December 11, 2001

Nobody's asking anybody to give up their past. We're asking them to accept that moving to Britain implies a loyalty to Britain. Big difference.

Carol Anne: Nobody is saying racism isn't a problem in Britain, any more than in the States. Ghettos don't tend to exist because of planning. The tend to exist because immigrants want to be with others of the same background, while the indiginous popuation move out. Property prices also tend to fall in these areas, making them the only places new immagrants can afford to live. I think it's a shame that this happens, but it's not institutional.

sudama: There's nothing whatsoever facist in saying that if you want to immigrate to a country then you have to accept a certain loyalty to that country. Both Welsh and Urdo are accepted as languages within British society.
posted by salmacis at 8:50 AM on December 11, 2001

For what it's worth, the article says little about immigrant culture, rather chiefly segregation and citizenship. In the United States there certainly is an embracement of diversity in culture while requiring a certain amount of overriding nationalism, i.e. citizenship with loyalty owed to the greater society, and the development of a national identity separate from underlying ethnic or religious identity. This, of course, has been the path that many nations have followed in the last century or two; before Bismarck, there was no "Germany" as such; before Gandhi, there was no "India"; heck, even the Taliban were trying to enforce an Afghan nationalism that transcended ethnic and clan lines; and that challenge has not disappeared with them, it's going to be a major problem for the new government.

The US experience, being a primarily immigrant nation, is significantly different from many other countries in this regard; Wisconsinites, for instance, are not a separate ethnic group who have been here for hundreds of years. The US has generally had great success in assimilating immigrants within a generation or two such that they see themselves as "American" rather than N-American; which is not to say that we don't have problems with identity politics.

Britain seems to be in a transition where immigration is becoming a much larger factor than before. Until this generation, much of that immigration was from the Commonwealth, and those who came to Britain may have been steeped in expat/colonial culture. Now they come as emigrants from a young country. That certainly has to be a factor in how they see themselves. Such immigrants may strongly desire to use their time in the new country to get an education, start a career or build a business, then return to their home country to contribute (or exploit) those things. We're a more mobile society than we used to be, even globally mobile.

I don't know much about the Canadian model of allegiance oaths, but citizenship naturalization in the US certainly requires an oath, and I doubt you'd find few native-born citizens who think there's anything wrong with an oath in that instance. (It's significantly different from going around requiring oaths in other contexts from people already presumed to be citizens.) We tend to turn it into a sacred, even communitarian rite of passage. Last year they were dealing with some backlog and filled up Soldier Field in Chicago with hundreds of citizen applicants taking the oath en masse; it was something to see.

If someone wishes to live in the US without taking the oath, that's all right, too -- but they don't get to be citizens.

Oh, and Andrew: I'm proud to be a flag-waving prick. My grandfather was an immigrant and flew the flag every day for the rest of his life. He knew the value of his freedom; do you?
posted by dhartung at 9:07 AM on December 11, 2001

".....seemingly no interest in the language, clothing, cuisine, etc of their new home."

"Why shouldn't they stick with their culture?"

"If someone has no interest in a country's culture, why would they even want to live there, if not for purely financial reasons?"

All of these comments have to do with a person's culture.

So salmacis when you say "Nobody's asking anybody to give up their past."

I disagree. Hence my response - "People shouldn't have to give up their culture...shouldn't have to give up their past. Their sense of self."
posted by lucien at 9:21 AM on December 11, 2001

Amartya Sen, an Indian resident of the UK and the 1998 Nobel laureate in economics, gave this speech on the subject of cultural identity.
posted by liam at 9:23 AM on December 11, 2001

But there is a problem with immigrants isolating themselves within small race-exclusive communities. They make a point of resolutely sticking with the culture of the country they abandoned, with seemingly no interest in the language, clothing, cuisine, etc of their new home. So it's not hard to see why people presume their motivations for emigrating were entirely economic.

This is a fair description of most English monoglots who move into Welsh Wales, yet whenever one of my lot suggests that these immigrants should learn Welsh they are ripped apart by the Labour party and the English press (including the Guardian.) Less than 5% of monoglot anglophones moving to a Welsh speaking area learn the indigenous language.
posted by ceiriog at 9:28 AM on December 11, 2001

"From the stands of the Empire Stadium
Come the heralds of the New Dark Age
With the simplicities of bigotry
And to whom all the world's a stage
These little John Bullshits know that the press
Will glorify their feats
So that the general public fear them
And the authorities say give 'em all seats
And the wasted seed of the bulldog breed
Is shouting here we go
What do they know of England who only England know"
posted by yerfatma at 9:30 AM on December 11, 2001

whilst we are on the subject, a recent Uk government report on population had this to add:
More immigrants, more pensioners, and fewer children. That is the picture of the UK in 25 years' time that emerges from the latest government estimates of the growing population.

The number of children will fall by more than 1m over the next 10 years before stabilising at about 11m. This will have profound implications for the education system, posing choices for the politicians about whether to cut class sizes or reduce the number of teachers and schools.

ceirog - on the upside, welsh speaking is on the increase.
posted by asok at 9:32 AM on December 11, 2001

whilst we are on the subject, a recent Uk government report on population had this to add:
More immigrants, more pensioners, and fewer children. That is the picture of the UK in 25 years' time that emerges from the latest government estimates of the growing population.

The number of children will fall by more than 1m over the next 10 years before stabilising at about 11m. This will have profound implications for the education system, posing choices for the politicians about whether to cut class sizes or reduce the number of teachers and schools.

ceirog - on the upside, welsh speaking is on the increase.
posted by asok at 9:33 AM on December 11, 2001

double trouble *hhis*
posted by asok at 9:34 AM on December 11, 2001

I fully understand that some people get frustrated when people post without reading the linked text, and fair enough. But in the same way, sometimes people don't seem to read prior posts.

salmacis, where you write - "sudama: There's nothing whatsoever facist in saying that if you want to immigrate to a country then you have to accept a certain loyalty to that country. Both Welsh and Urdo are accepted as languages within British society."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the comment that Sudema was responding to, which he helpfully repeats prior to making that point, was this one -

"But there is a problem with immigrants isolating themselves within small race-exclusive communities. They make a point of resolutely sticking with the culture of the country they abandoned, with seemingly no interest in the language, clothing, cuisine, etc of their new home."

Hence his response, which for the sakes of correct context I will also include-

"Shoulds aside, is this not within their rights? The idea that a country should have a normative culture imposed by the many and the powerful is ... help me out here, fascism? At the very least it's dangerous and racist nationalism."
posted by lucien at 9:35 AM on December 11, 2001

"[British-born blacks and Asians] may embrace Englishness, wear the national team shirt with pride, paint the cross of St George onto our cheek but when we attend cricket or football games and hear chants such as 'I'd rather be a Paki than a Turk', witness mass Nazi salutes, are spat on, and, at worst, are assaulted, it tends to make it difficult to cheer the country of our birth. "

(Source: Guardian: The Tebbit test is just not cricket.)

Quite. This is arrant nonsense. The madness, while fresh, is not without precedent.
posted by RichLyon at 10:10 AM on December 11, 2001

"From the stands of the Empire Stadium..."

As usual, Billy Bragg has something relevant to say about it.

Rock stars-- is there anything they don't know?
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2001

Speaking of oaths, I actually got my citizenship for the United States last October and swore the oath. Someone said something about the oath being meaningless earlier in the thread, but my oath to the US actually meant something to me and I don't think I was alone in that. It was a very moving thing to be in a room with about 800 people from 70 different countries (including Afghanistan) and all become Americans at the same time. Sorry if I sound like a sap - but it is true.
posted by rks404 at 12:45 PM on December 11, 2001

rks404 - it meant something to you -- great

but, in general, asking for an oath is completely ineffective

Regardless of your actual beliefs, if you're asked "will you pledge your loyalty to " and the only answer that will get you in is "yes," then what do you suppose people are going to say? That's why I likened it to those worthless questions they ask at the airport.
posted by yesster at 1:31 PM on December 11, 2001

Note to self: if loaning money to yesster, get a promissory note in writing.
posted by dhartung at 2:54 PM on December 11, 2001

Oh, and Andrew: I'm proud to be a flag-waving prick. My grandfather was an immigrant and flew the flag every day for the rest of his life. He knew the value of his freedom; do you?

I have no idea what kind of person you are and I'm sure you know your grandfather better than me, but I don't see how forcing someone to live the way others want increases the freedom within a country. Nor do I see why I have to behave as you expect to demonstrate that I value freedom. In fact, with all your expectations of how others should behave, I'm quite confused about exactly what you value freedom for. Did your grandfather proudly proclaim how much he valued this freedom to force others to wave flags?
posted by andrew cooke at 2:57 PM on December 11, 2001

but I don't see how forcing someone to live the way others want increases the freedom within a country.

I see little to admire in required uniformity or voluntary segregation...Social attitudes that are forced are not honest. Mainstream society will find it hard to change their viewpoint on newcomers who build their own ghettos. Diversity taken to the extreme=balkanization.
posted by Mack Twain at 7:21 PM on December 11, 2001

Maybe I've just fundamentally misunderstood the entire thread. Some pepole are saying that this whole thread is about forcing immigrants to give up their (old) culture. I disagree. An Oath of Allegience says nothing about that, or segregation, voluntary or not.
posted by salmacis at 1:30 AM on December 12, 2001

I think the problem, salmacis, is that the government is saying immigrants should take an oath of allegiance in order to make them feel more 'British' and prevent segregation. It's the government that doesn't understand that an oath of allegiance isn't about that. That's my problem with it. Polly Toynbee in the Guardian today says more or less what I think about it. I tried linking directly but it didn't work for some reason.
posted by Summer at 4:04 AM on December 12, 2001

One of the things that makes Britain today so rich is its diversity, which does result from having so many different and varied cultures thriving within.

So whilst I have a lot of reservations about David Blunkett's proposals, and especially the wording thereof, there are certain provisions mentioned that would be, IMO, a fine idea.

English lessons. I worked for over a year as a volunteer in an inner-city primary school in a deprived area of Manchester, and my main task was to help the children with their reading. Around sixty to seventy percent of the children were of asian (read: indian, pakistani, bangladeshi) descent, and problems would crop up when we'd be having reading sessions. I'd listen to them read, and help them, then, as I'd say to all the kids, I'd ask if they were practising at home, and was there anyone to help them, and listen to them read? The answer from a lot of the kids was that their parents didn't, which has nothing to do with race at all, it's just parents who are too busy or unwilling to make time for their kids' education.

But the reply from a significant proportion of the asian kids was that their parents didn't speak English, and that they didn't speak English at home, so it was they (aged 6 or 7) who were in fact helping their younger brothers and sisters to read, and that there was no-one to help them.

Now, I've got several very good friends who don't speak English at home - in fact, my friend Parul spoke only Gujarati until the age of five, and learned English at school. But the point was that their parents could and did speak very good English, and helped them wherever they could.

If immigrants don't have the necessary language skills, I think it should be compulsory for the government to provide language teaching, and equally compulsory for those whose English isn't adequate, to take such teaching.

I wouldn't want to deny anyone's culture, to deny anyone the right to live where they wanted, or even speak what they wanted in their own homes and communities. But in order to take part in wider society - to get a job, to go to school, it's crucial that people aren't prevented from doing so by language barriers.
posted by kitschbitch at 4:47 AM on December 12, 2001

In fact, not only English language lessons but also education about the British way of life would help to enable immigrants to integrate into society - many of us will have been on holiday to a foreign country with strange customs, currency, transport systems etc. Imagine coming to a country to live permanently, where would be the place you head for? A place with the people and customs from the country you just came from, a support network at first, but a crutch if you were unable to learn the language.
But then education is not as cheap and doesn't win as many votes as blaming the people they purport to help.
posted by Markb at 7:27 AM on December 12, 2001