Should would-be citizens have to learn the National Anthem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not singing - not just causing a disruption - was against school policy and grounds for detention. A Jewish friend of mine was given detention because he left his Hymn Book at home and didn't bring it to [the school's Anglican Christian] Chapel.

---

I suppose that can help me understand something about the origin of your bizarre stance on this matter :downcast: looks like there's some use for history after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I suppose that can help me understand something about the origin of your bizarre stance on this matter :downcast: looks like there's some use for history after all.

---

In hindsight I look back and think I had very good and a lucky education. I objected at the time to having to go to Chapel and sit through Bible readings while at school, having to sing the Aussie anthem despite being a Brit etc - now I'm still not keen on the Bible readings but I believe the sense of community and patriotism - even for guests of the nation not seeking citizenship - was a good thing.

I would like to add that even most of the proud-to-be-dutch not-wanting-immigrants here have trouble with the anthem, I think. Or at least with more than the first verse :p Which is about having German blood and serving the Spanish king...

Let's change our focus for a bit here, this debate has gotten hung up on the "anthem" and not the more fundamental question.

Do we simply want our immigrants to know the basics of how to live in our society (laws, knowledge of how to get a job, customs, safety etc...) or is it important that they also know a history of who we are? Does knowing that history make for a better citizen? Or is it something we want for the sake of passing down our identity to all who live here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

Let's change our focus for a bit here, this debate has gotten hung up on the "anthem" and not the more fundamental question.

Do we simply want our immigrant to know the basics in how to live in our society (laws, knowledge of how to get a job, customs, safety etc...) or is it important that they know a history of who we are? Does knowing that history make for a better citizen? Or is it something we want for the sake of passing down our identity to all who live here.

---

Or should we make sure they know both. Nobody is saying that things like the anthem are the only things needed to know.

Incidentally my initial point too wasn't about whether or not the anthem is useful - its about people objecting to it because it is against their beliefs.

Quote:

---

Or should we make sure they know both. Nobody is saying that things like the anthem are the only things needed to know.

---

The first part of how to function in that society we want for sure, but how important is knowing your countries history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And how would the answers differ if they were to immigrate to France or Belgium? You're not providing any reason at all for these people to feel close to England/Britain.

---

Well they're all in the EU anyway, right? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

If you've read my post you should be able to realise that I'd much rather abolish anthem-lessons http://www.theworldforgotten.com/ima...on_redface.gif


But, in all honesty, I think I would like to cut down a little on history. Not because history is unimportant but rather because I'd like for most kids to get the time required for them to have a better understanding of fewer but more important parts of their country's history. That being said, time in school is limited and I wouldn't mind if some of those hours of history were instead dedicated to statistics, probability, personal finances and possibly practical psychology. Anthems? Nah.

---

*declares war*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Well they're all in the EU anyway, right? :)



*declares war*

---

I'm not really into the discussion of if history should be taught in schools. For me that's an obvious yes... human history is incredibly important, and if taught correctly it's less about dates and places than it is about circumstances and their outcomes. (motives, goals, actions, reactions)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If someone doesn't have the finances to last a few weeks here, why are they coming?

---

:bulb:
If you're serious with this question, well...the answer is in the question. Chance at a better life, escaping horrible or oppressive behavior. Maybe its cause we deal with Cuba's runaways all the time, but I'm dumbfounded you're asking this.

Quote:

---

OK, so what's spending limit you put on the cheque per person then?

---

I have no idea what your cost of living is, or how wildly it varies across your country. I think the more important question would be, what stipulations should be tied to the support?

Quote:

---

Well given that I believe prostitution should be legalised, I wouldn't deport for that. If the people coming over are as ignorant and uneducated as you are implying then why on earth would you want them to educators?

---

convenient, legalise the most likely profession you're going to end forcing them into. I like that idea :up:

and educators were just one example; but there is something to be said about the amazing effects a quality education has in removing one's ignorance, without removing their experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Incidentally my initial point too wasn't about whether or not the anthem is useful - its about people objecting to it because it is against their beliefs.

---

So, you'd be okay if they memorize some words to pass a "test" (which most anyone can do), but you're not okay with them saying the lyrics don't reflect their beliefs? :confused: Wouldn't you rather they know the text and have an opinion, than just rote memorizing some meaningless words...to pass a test?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

So, you'd be okay if they memorize some words to pass a "test" (which most anyone can do), but you're not okay with them saying the lyrics don't reflect their beliefs? :confused: Wouldn't you rather they know the text and have an opinion, than just rote memorizing some meaningless words...to pass a test?

---

I'm not OK with it being removed because its against their beliefs. I'm happy for it to be removed because other things are more important etc ... but if you come to the country you don't get to pick and choose which bits of it to accept based on your beliefs and reject everything else.

Let's baptize the lot of 'em while we're at it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're not providing any reason at all for these people to feel close to England/Britain.

---

Learn this:

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save The Queen

Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save The Queen.

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save The Queen!

Now do you feel British?

Quote:

---

Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,

---

:haha: my favourite lines in a national anthem :up:

I do not see what's wrong with "God save our gracious Queen".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

I'm not really into the discussion of if history should be taught in schools.

---

Ok. Why are you interjecting into the discussion Minx and I just started to say that you're not interested in the discussion we just started?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Ok. Why are you interjecting into the discussion Minx and I just started to say that you're not interested in the discussion we just started?

---

I wrote that to perhaps curb the discussion back on track. I do think the comment I gave hit the nail on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

I wrote that to perhaps curb the discussion back on track. I do think the comment I gave hit the nail on the head.

---

You mean to try and shut down a discussion we're interested in and force us to discuss whatever it is you're interested in. That sort of behavior pissed me off back on Atari when the IRC crowd would use it on whoever they'd taken a recent dislike to, and it really irks me here, directed at me. If you're not interested in something you don't need to say that unless you're already party to the discussion. All you need to do is keep quiet and ignore it. And if you want to discuss something all you need to do is start doing so. If others are interested they'll reply. If they're not interested you should take the hint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You mean to try and shut down a discussion we're interested in and force us to discuss whatever it is you're interested in. That sort of behavior pissed me off back on Atari when the IRC crowd would use it on whoever they'd taken a recent dislike to, and it really irks me here, directed at me. If you're not interested in something you don't need to say that unless you're already party to the discussion. All you need to do is keep quiet and ignore it. And if you want to discuss something all you need to do is start doing so. If others are interested they'll reply. If they're not interested you should take the hint.

---

Sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

:bulb:
If you're serious with this question, well...the answer is in the question. Chance at a better life, escaping horrible or oppressive behavior. Maybe its cause we deal with Cuba's runaways all the time, but I'm dumbfounded you're asking this.

---

I'm also a bit astounded at the lack of thought which is displayed in that question.

Not to mention that his own country (and pretty much all the other European countries as well, while we're at it) plays a large part in why Africa is generally such a chaotic continent. Colonialism with its arbitrary drawing of borders really didn't do them any favours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I would like to add that even most of the proud-to-be-dutch not-wanting-immigrants here have trouble with the anthem, I think. Or at least with more than the first verse

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

:p Which is about having German blood and serving the Spanish king...

---

Our national anthem is only the 3rd verse of the song. The 1st one is a bit problematic due to the borders it proclaims (and this little accident between '33 and '45) and the 2nd one is just plain silly.

Because Africa was a much better continent before the 19th century...

Well there's an argument for slavery and ruthless exploitation if ever I heard one. No doubt you guys are feeling prouder by the minute :o

Yeah, that argument must've worked really well in US courts: "Well, your honor, the natives here in America were such a lawless and barbaric bunch, we only did them a favour!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well there's an argument for slavery and ruthless exploitation if ever I heard one. No doubt you guys are feeling prouder by the minute :o

---

Slavery in Africa was going on long before the white man stepped foot there and it would still be widespread if not for Britain. Britain was single-handedly responsible for ending the trans-continental slave trade as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well there's an argument for slavery and ruthless exploitation if ever I heard one. No doubt you guys are feeling prouder by the minute :o

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Slavery in Africa was going on long before the white man stepped foot there and it would still be widespread if not for Britain. Britain was single-handedly responsible for ending the trans-continental slave trade as well.

---

Exactly. British Colonialism had many problems, slavery was not caused by it but was finished by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Slavery in Africa was going on long before the white man stepped foot there and it would still be widespread if not for Britain. Britain was single-handedly responsible for ending the trans-continental slave trade as well.

---

Of course, but one good deed does not erase centuries of villainy :downcast: I was however talking about the US, so a little tangent. As for slavery in Africa, well

Yeah, that was a good one. One of our finer hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well there's an argument for slavery and ruthless exploitation if ever I heard one. No doubt you guys are feeling prouder by the minute :o

---

How's that relevant to Khen's absurd claim that British colonialism was responsible for the current state of Africa?

He shouldn't say things like that when really it was the French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

How's that relevant to Khen's absurd claim that British colonialism was responsible for the current state of Africa?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The actual post

Not to mention that his own country (and pretty much all the other European countries as well, while we're at it) plays a large part in why Africa is generally such a chaotic continent. Colonialism with its arbitrary drawing of borders really didn't do them any favours.

---

Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of African conflicts have little to do with international borders.

I can't comment on that, you'll have to look for someone with more knowledge of Africa's history and who also has some integrity

Hopefully none of your patients ever make an argument you disagree with. Wouldn't want to hear about an unnecessary amputation on the news.

Are you high? You can't go a single day without meeting patients you disagree with or who disagree with you. What was the point you were trying to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of African conflicts have little to do with international borders.

---

Yeah, there's of course the present schemes by the G20 which are disguised as "developmental aid" which in reality don't really help the countries in question.

I'm thinking of stuff like building dams for hydroelectrical power where the money for said dams flows right back to the G20 because the locals don't possess the expertise to build it.

Because providing clean, cheap and sustainable electricity to other people is in our interests solely. :bulb:

If we wanted to spend billions on creating jobs we could just as easily to it at home - and end up with the infrastructure here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Exactly. British Colonialism had many problems, slavery was not caused by it but was finished by it.

---

But wasn't that because it was cheaper to exploit workers who worked for next to nothing rather than housing, feeding and providing other essentials for slaves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Because providing clean, cheap and sustainable electricity to other people is in our interests solely. :bulb:

If we wanted to spend billions on creating jobs we could just as easily to it at home - and end up with the infrastructure here.

---

Those dams are not cheap. And they're also not clean - they usually involve massive ecological damages due to the flooding of large areas which also require displacement of former residents. Just because it's "water" it's not automatically clean.

And, as I said, it's a cheap trick - the giving countries "donate" money for the project which, due to the lack of experts and professionals in the project country, flows right back to the giving countries. Which means that the money intended for developing countries just turned into industry subventions. Genius, really. You get to say: "Hey, but we did something for those poor devils!" and you get to support your own industry at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knux897

But wasn't that because it was cheaper to exploit workers who worked for next to nothing rather than housing, feeding and providing other essentials for slaves?

---

No, it was because for centuries slavery was viewed as wrong.

Had it been a simple case of cheaper we could just not use slaves ourselves, but instead we reached out and enforced a global ban on the slave trade and fought for stopping it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, it was because for centuries slavery was viewed as wrong.

Had it been a simple case of cheaper we could just not use slaves ourselves, but instead we reached out and enforced a global ban on the slave trade and fought for stopping it.

---

And no doubt you were loved by your enemies for that :downcast: