Most countries that try to assimilate immigrants, such as France and America, can point to a defining event when their national identity “began”; Britain did not have the same kind of revolution. But it has much else to inspire newcomers: a sweeping history that is also broadly progressive, a language everyone wants to speak, longer experience of racial diversity than most European nations. And “Britain” itself is a civic invention rather than an ethnic community, created in 1707 to supersede more blood-based notions of Englishness and Scottishness.
Skip to content
Boadicea's Chariot 
A follow up to my earlier post:
http://bearsy.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/immigration/
Hi Ara.
Not worth the C&P, in my opinion.
America’s history is surely one of traumatic but broadly successful assimilation of millions of ‘huddled poor’ from all over the world. Problems at the moment perhaps but I still believe that they will cope. It’s what they have done and will do.
France is having to cope with the legacy of colonial empire and may not be quite as good at the assimilation bit. We are struggling as well but I personally believe that we are a whole lot better at it than they are.
Moving on, America’s ‘defining’ events in terms of their national identity are surely the War of Independence and their Civil War. France has a national identity which is centuries older than that.
You might feel that Britain is just a ‘civic invention’ from 1707. Don’t agree. Too much history, too many shared experiences and, for me, too much pride in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ever believe that the construct should ever be dismissed so lightly.
Thanks John: I thought you might have a problem with the concept of Britain being a “civic invention”; not my words.
The main thrust of the comment, however, was in my opinion a reasonable rationale for why we may have more of a problem with assimilation than younger democracies. I take it you disagree, but may come back to you on why.
I read the article – and some of the comments.
I don’t think that it makes a scrap of difference whether there is a ‘defining event’ or not. I, also, get a little tired of the bit about Britain having a ‘longer experience of racial diversity’ than any where else.
It really is a bit of a myth that Britain, and only Britain, has accepted thousands upon thousands of immigrants over the centuries. It’s a myth that Britain has encouraged to show how tolerant she is – and it has led to people around the world seeing Britain as a ‘mongrel’ society and a ‘racial’ hotch-potch. It’s a myth that was designed to promote Britain’s image that has now come around to bite Britain in the …
Yes, Protestant refugees from Europe went there, just as Catholic refugees went elsewhere. Yes, Britain very kindly allowed Jews to resettle in the 17th C – after she had kicked them all out in the 13th C. Yes, people from around the world have been allowed to settle – but in what numbers? How welcome were they? And what did they do when they got there?
I would argue that the numbers compared with the greater population were few. They did, as most immigrants do, congregate in one area and depending on the economic climate, they were either ignored or hated by the local population.
Quite apart from the fact that the numbers of immigrants in the UK now are so great that many areas feel ‘swamped’ by them, there is a marked difference between earlier settlers and those settling now: there were no concessions made to the ‘incomers’ and there were distinct advantages, economical and social, for the newcomers to adopt and conform to the basic native culture – at least outwardly. Within a generation, most immigrants had become part of the wider community and identified themselves as British.
Interesting, Boadicea but I don’t agree with all your points.
I will, however, respond when when I am feeling a little more capable of stringing a sentence together.
I do agree with your last sentence completely though, which is why, despite the problems and with goodwill and determination on both sides, and a sensible government, integration can work.
Just a thought and probably an uneducated one at that. Have you ever thought of the Roman Empire and the assimilation of many, different races through service in their army? Rome didn’t appear to have any problem with integration and we are talking about a lot of people over many years.
Actually Toc, that is an interesting point. It was a success story but for different reasons perhaps? Will ponder, thank you.
Why should there be goodwill and determination on both sides – and what has the government got to do with it? Former migrants moved to Britain and made themselves acceptable to the indigenous population, without government interference – except perhaps to charge them double tax as ‘foreigners’. Government ‘interference’ has probably caused more resentment than the immigrants themselves…
We moved to Australia – the Ozzies didn’t ask us to come – it was our choice.
Tocino I think we need Janus to answer this one!
My point was, Boadicea, that I believe government policy for the last thirteen years, has legislated with disastrous effect to make it their business; multiculturalism is the name of the game and too many concessions, which has resulted in the indigenous population having no goodwill.
Right Araminta! A bit of misunderstanding. I see we are saying much the same thing – not just ‘no goodwill’, but a lot of resentment.
I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be help for migrants to settle, but the emphasis should have been to integrate, assimilate and participate. The latter seems to be, all too often, ignored.
Agreed, Boadicea, and on that note, I had better go to bed. 🙂
See you tomorrow.
In the UK, amongst other imports we had a huge influx of McAlpine’s Fusiliers. 🙂
Tocino, you’re right: the Romans ‘accepted’ some foreigners (barbari) to the extent that they recruited them as soldiers. However the ‘noblest Romans’ (to misquote the Bard) got all the perks throughout the periods of the republic and early empire, until the pressure from the far-flung nations proved too much and even non-Romans became Emperors. By then the game was up! The empire was split into East and West and the influence of the inner circle dissolved.
That the United States has always accepted the “huddled masses” is one of the USA’s most cherished, but not necessarily accurate, myths. To begin with the impoverished, huddled masses of Europe would not be able to afford the fare. Maybe, maybe families would pinch in together to send one or two out over time but “masses” would hardly be an apt description. Many were people of some means — middle class who wanted to try to make some more money, young sons from large families who wouldn’t inherit nearly enough to make life liveable back home, or those simply wanting more excitement than they could find back home. When “tired, huddled masses” really did come — such as the Irish during the famines, the Italians fleeing from extreme poverty and persecution, Jews fleeing from all of the above, or Slavs searching for a better life they were hardly treated warmly. Many were forced to move into ghettoes in order to protect themselves and to have a better chance for survival. Even if that has broken down to a great extent now you can still see traces of that in major cities. In San Francisco, for example, there is Russian Hill, North Beach (Little Italy), Chinatown, Japantown (Little Osaka), usw.
Britain did allow some settlement, as you said. In the 18th century and, unless my memory fails me which it often does, into the 19th a good number of Germans settled in England, especially.
Many had intended to try their luck in the Americas but either didn’t have the money to make it all the way across the Atlantic or decided that they simply liked Britain enough to stay there.
Germans, not usually being a people to stick with each other or wanting to stick out too much quickly started to blend in. John Betjeman, for example, was from a family of German extraction. (Bremen, I believe) Then there were, of course, the moneyed French in the late 18th century who preferred to keep their heads firmly attached to their necks. It seems that to-day, especially after Blair, the matter of race and racial identity as a political affiliation has become too common place. It is a technique used by otherwise ideologically bankrupt parties. (In the USA identity politics are exploited by the Democrats and wedge-issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage are exploited by the Republicans)
Christopher
In the early 1800s the Overseers of the Poor in some British parishes used parish funds to pay for people to go to Canada, America and Australia. There are, I believe, quite a few cases where they charted ships to take several hundred at a time.
There were ‘illegal’ immigrants into the States even in the 1880s! I’ve got a case where a brother went to England and took his sister and her family back to the States under the pretence of her being his wife – in another instance a widow travelled under her husband’s name and trade with her daughter from England to the US.
It is odd what you say about Germans. Many emigrated to South Australia, and they did stay together there. It was not a good idea – since Australia interned virtually all of them during the First World War. One still finds people speaking German on a daily basis there – but they also speak excellent English (Strine) too!
I think Christopher has a point here; his comment #14, They were amazingly picky about where the “huddled poor” originated. They welcomed white immigrants from Europe, but I believe most Asians were barred entry to the US or refused citizenship until the 1940’s. I can’t find out much about this so I could be wrong.
This seems to support the above:
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307112004ebyessedo0.1716272.html
Araminta
Much the same in Australia…
In some ways, of course, that policy made the ‘problems’ of immigration easier. Same colour, similar ethnic grouping, similar cultural background, and compatable (almost!) religions. Far easier for the ‘host’ population to ‘overlook’ migrants, and far easier for ‘migrants’ to lose themselves in the ‘host’ population. And far fewer changes for immigrants to make…
Asian immigration becomes trickier as the United States, in its quest for land, ploughed over several countries to get its way. Hawai’i has had Asian immigration for a long time and a majority of the population remain at least partially Asian — the Japanese are the largest group followed by Filipinos and the Chinese. This started during the time of the Kingdom of Hawai’i when, realising that they needed to expand their population and were in desperate need of workers, the King invited the Japanese to come live and work in Hawai’i. He also sought out great minds in Europe and the UK and brought many with him. Interestingly enough, he originally wanted to bring people from India but the UK wasn’t too keen on that. The first immigrants to California were Chinese quickly followed by Japanese — the Chinese came during the Gold Rush where they were originally welcomed but, after gold began running out, were harangued. It would get so bad that mobs would wait by the docks and hang the Chinese as they got off the boat.
The Japanese would generally come to farm. They were hated as well. Much of the time they were only allowed to use the worst farmland. They were hated even more when they would out-produce whites with the best farmland. Japan, being a land of poor soil quality, was a great place to learn innovative techniques. Yes, you are correct — Asians were not allowed to become citizens until after WWII. American-born Asians were citizens because of Constitutional law (and they did want to change that, as well but found it too difficult). They were also blocked from owning land directly and often had to hold it through their children, if they were born in the USA.
The USA, however, has always been hostile to poor immigrants — the Irish were treated terribly. All around were signs that read “INNA” — Irish need not apply. Italians, Slavs, and Jews were not treated much better. What the USA wanted was people from North-Western Europe and Great Britain with money and skills. Anyone else was crushed. (Great Britain the island, once again the Irish — in the UK or not were unwelcome)
True. I just find that the old Australian policy could be quite quirky at times.
Lebanese Christians were considered white but Lebanese Muslims were not. (David Malouf’s grandparents were among Lebanese Christian immigrants)
Many of the Germans who went to South Australia were in religious movements which were not too terribly well tolerated in Germany — Germans have never been the most tolerant of people, despite the general acceptance of eccentricity. The ones who went to Australia were often more likely to stick together. The Japanese during WWII were interned in the Western USA. The US colony of Hawai’i was exempted from this because by taking away the Japanese they would have made the economy collapse.
Christopher
Quirky is just about right! The Dictation Test was the quirkiest and was quite obviously designed to keep out anyone who was not wanted. It’s worth reading!
By coincidence I was watching a rerun of Ned kelly while you were commenting yesterday evening. Was that just a story or did British Australia stigmatise the Irish newcomers?
Having read a fairly well researched book on Kelly, it would seem that, while there is little doubt that the family were often on the wrong-side of the law, they were also the subject of some fair amount of harassment. That does not, of course, excuse Kelly’s later murders.
Just as an aside, Australian immigration policy in the 1960s was so blatantly racially focussed, that their immigration staff in their consulates in India had colour swatches, a la Dulux, to determine the degree of “whiteness” of Anglo-Indian applicants! How much pickier than that can you get???
CWJ
It does not surprise me one bit.
Bravo said:
No, in fact they are not. You quoted a few words out of context from an earlier post of mine, this one to be precise, and did not have the courtesy to provide a link to the original. So no, Bravo, not impressed at all.
Not with me, Bravo. I dare say others may wish to discuss it, that is entirely up to them.
Link