Citizenship ceremonies in the UK. Do we really need this?

Integrate: take your part in a society in whatever way works.
Assimilate: become like someone else.

My argument is in favour of integration (we relate to one another) but not assimilation (we become like one another).

In linguistics we'd say that we want to be syntagmatic (in other words, like a sentence, an integrated semantic system of different elements working together) rather than paradigmatic (in other words, a list of identical elements, like a list of nouns).

A far more useful thing would be to get all 18-year-olds to sign a pledge which states that they take responsibility for everything that subsequently happens to them in their lives and waive the right to sue anyone else. "I hereby certify that if I am sacked from a job it has nothing to do with my race, colour, gender or creed but because I was crap at it. If I trip over a paving stone I will not sue Camden Council because I wasn't looking where I was going." Etc.

Citizenship ceremonies for 18-year-olds could be introduced, according to the home secretary.

It just struck me as a rather silly idea. As for Momus's ideas I do agree somewhat. As someone living in a culture that is not my own. I have learn the language and know the culture but I could never assimilate into it, even if I wanted. Perhaps a second generation could but I have no intentions of breeding here. However, I don't think that it is too much to expect for someone to learn a little of the language if they are planning on staying in another country with a different mother tongue for the long term it seems the polite thing to do. I recall when I lived in Manchester (Rusholme) one of the newly elected councillers didn't speak a word of English, only Punjab. I'm sure he dealt admirably with many of his local constituents and was sympathetic to their problems, but his lack of ability in English also served to alienate many others in the community. This is an exceptional case though, I'm sure we are not all planning on going abroad and standing for public office.

Someone said recently (can't remember where – here? radio? tv? papers?) that this govt was becoming like the last few years of the Major govt with no new policies but lots of dumb initiatives like cones hotlines and chewing gum wardens. I don't know if it's as bad as the mid 90s but I can see it happening.

People who don't put their hand in front of their mouth when they cough - cut their tongue out!

People who don't hear you the first time you say something to them, however loudly or clearly - cut their ears off!

People who drive through red lights, whether in a car, on a bicycle or on a rickshaw - cut their hands and feet off so they don't do it again!

Kids on the fucking 57 bus who won't TALK AT A REASONABLE VOLUME BUT HAVE TO SCREAM AND SCREECH ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE FUCKING JOURNEY AND EVERY OTHER FUCKING WORD IS LIKE OR YEAH OR INNIT - was the Hitler Youth that bad an idea?

The right of all managers to respond to anyone who refuses to do something you've asked because "it's not my job" to issue an immediate P45 and confirm to them with a smile: "not now it isn't!"

not ALL 18 year olds primary concerns are drinking til they puke it's not really worth pointing out but i will anyway.

xxpost

- We like tea
- We are pretty crap and muddle through
- We never had a decent revolution

Obviously, there are ways to do this well, and ways to do it badly, and New Labour usually takes the latter in matters such as this. Let's have citizenship ceremonies, conveniently forgetting that we actually aren't citizens, what this being a monarhcy and all.

xpost

I didn't mean that all Americans believe they are equal integral parts of the nation, more that that's the way it's constitutionally framed, although I confusingly inverted to the perspective of the citizen/subject. To illustrate: in the legal systems of the US and UK, criminal cases are prosecuted by The People in the US and the Queen in the UK.

W/r/t poor black teenagers in the US, I agree they might not feel part of the system as such but I think many would see themselves as proud to be American nonetheless. I haven't conducted any surveys though...

as today's inauguration ceremony reminds us, the U.S. is a deeply divided nation

Yes, but the main fault line isn't between those who do and don't want to retain the constitution as it stands. People might hate the president but they tend to love/respect the Presidency – granted, more as an ideal than as an office if you see what I mean.

I'll go and check if there's an ilx-votes-for-a-new-monarch thread, since you bring it up....

Yes we did, the 6 year multi-sided civil war not good enough for you?

Incidentally, the monarchy isn't mentioned in the Guardian article at all and we don't know if it will even play a part. I think raising political awareness here might be the objective rather than blindly pledging allegiance to a flag or whatever.

What needs to be tackled is the level of ignorance about stuff like what the major parties actually stand for, what these various political terms actually mean, the basics of things like the tax system etc etc. We covered this a bit on Why is Religious Education part of the curriculum but not Political Education?

this has become very blurry in the last ten years though hasn't it? and perhaps the idea of 'opposing parties, opposing views' is becoming redundant thanks to new Labour?

I think what you regret is that Britain hasn't had the kind of romantic revolution that looks sexy when fictionalized. Essentially, the CW and the GR established once and for all that the monarch could not just do as s/he pleased. The Reform Acts of 1832 and of 1867 and the Representation of the People Act of 1884 gave most common men the vote about as early as anywhere. Instead of the failed revolutions of 1830 and 1848, you had the Chartists, who, while sometimes violent, intended to enter Parliament not overthrow it. Of their stated aims;
Universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21,
Equal-sized electoral districts,
Voting by secret ballot,
An end to the need of MPs to qualify for Parliament, other than by winning an election,
Pay for MPs, and
Annual Parliaments, only the last has not yet been achieved and perhaps it's better that britain isn't constantly under the thrall of political campaining.
By the time a profligate landed gentry had halfway spent themselves out of their houses, the Parliament Act of 1911 (which was achieved largely through Edward VII's threat to create enough Liberal peers to get Asquith's budget passed) effectively ended the aristocracy's veto over the democratic will of the people. By the end of WWI, there was universal male suffrage and votes for women over 30. Post WWII taxation broke the economic backs of the aristocracy who could now only keep their land if they could make it profitable. At the same time Atlee et al. instituted one of the most far-ranging attempts to improve the lot of common people ever tried so quickly in a democracy. Again, none of the bloodthirsty joy of the guillotine and Your Monarch may have prerogatives but should s/he dare to use them rashly, s/he would most certainly lose the Crown. Your government framework is no worse, really, than many others in the world yet you keep muddling through. None of it is very pretty or dashing, but it has been no less effective as two Russian revolutions, three French, two, at least, in Germany, and countless others in insuring the ameliorative progress of your nation.

As to citizenship ceremonies, why not? If they encourage people to know something about the mores, values, duties and expectations of the country to which they have emigrated and if they now wish to enjoy all the rights which their fellow citizens, the indigenous people enjoy, I'm all for it. I have been to two here in the U.S. and while they contain some probably unavoidable cant (like much of American life), they are, like most initiation ceremonies, rather thrilling and sometimes poignant.

This idea that Citizenship Ceremonies will encourage social cohesion is PR guff. To improve society you tackle the REAL issues - poverty, lack of resources, lack of opportunities. But that's difficult, takes time and doesn't come in a nice soundbite.

This idea that Citizenship Ceremonies will encourage social cohesion is PR guff. To improve society you tackle the REAL issues - poverty, lack of resources, lack of opportunities. But that's difficult, takes time and doesn't come in a nice soundbite.

I have nothing against tackling REAL issues but cheap cynicism and a lack of appreciation for ceremony and the psychological baubles that accompany it ain't gone move us forward either.

(Sorry for being a curmudgeon today. Harrrumph)

Someone said recently (can't remember where – here? radio? tv? papers?) that this govt was becoming like the last few years of the Major govt with no new policies but lots of dumb initiatives like cones hotlines and chewing gum wardens. I don't know if it's as bad as the mid 90s but I can see it happening.

-- beanz (beanzil...) (webmail), January 20th

Correct analysis Tories had run of big policies they were just obsessed with Privitisation and nothing else.

However New Labour are falling into the trap of over regulation and interference - it will ultimately be their downfall in 2009. They are obsessed with implementing daft controlling systems: Citizenship Ceremonies, ID Cards etc

I wouldn't say I'm being cynical, it's just that knowing New Labour, their citizenship ceremonies will be filled with New Age bollocks and meaningless Third Way guff. Go read Francis Wheen's How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World.

And as Dadaismus says, it's a bit late to carry on trying to work out what Britishness is.

'What was the third way? No-one knew, but it appearred to be somewhere between the second coming and the fourth dimension.'

Didn't Mussolini invent the term Third Way?