Gina Elliott

As soon as I started studying European migration at Georgetown, I was presented with the idea that the United Kingdom and United States have more in common than their shared history and language. Both countries are commonly referred to as “countries of immigrants” or “melting pots.” Citizenship rules in both countries depend more on where you are born than to whom you are born—something I had never before considered unusual. However, studying at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London this spring has shown me how problematic this idea of the “melting pot” can be, and how incorrect it is to assume that the two countries treat this issue in the same way.

I feel that the majority of Americans take the idea that America is a country of immigrants for granted. After all, we are still a relatively new country, and even people whose families have been in America for hundreds of years continue to describe their German-Austrian-Italian heritage. While Britain has just as long (in fact, being an older country, longer) history of immigration, studying migration to Britain from a British perspective has made me realize that the “melting pot” is still a relatively new, and sometimes challenged, idea in Britain. Furthermore, hearing the many viewpoints of my classmates at SOAS has led me to question the idea of the melting pot in America as well, and reconsider ideas that I had taken for granted.

On a superficial level, I am a lover of foods of all kinds, and feel that the best way to discover a country is to eat your way around it (I guess I should probably be grateful that London is too expensive for me to spend all day eating). So naturally, one of the first things I noticed about London is that there is a South Asian or Halal restaurant on every corner; around my area, these places are where you would pick up a midnight snack.

In 2001, the British Foreign Minister proclaimed chicken tikka masala a “national dish” of Britain, which reminds me of the ubiquity of white Chinese take-out containers in America. There may be a Chinatown in London, but it is nothing compared to the long string of South Asian restaurants and stalls that cover Brick Lane. But as my classes discuss the many issues in “multicultural” Britain, I have come to realize that this abundance of Asian restaurants may belie serious problems that should be addressed, and I have come to question whether we Americans are too quick to brush them under the carpet.

One question is what the image of a “melting pot” is itself supposed to signify. Is it all cultures melting together, or is it “new” cultures melting into the American/British one—essentially, leaving behind much of what makes them unique? In other words, is the British love of curry a sign of British acceptance of South Asian culture, or is it the only part of their culture that South Asians have been able to keep in the public sphere?

My class discussions have largely lambasted “multiculturalism” as political rhetoric that has little real impact—we are told that we must accept difference, so we say we accept difference. But do we put any effort into learning about and understanding other cultures that are melding with ours? There is a sense that, as a concept, “multiculturalism” over-simplifies very complicated issues.

On the other hand, I see a lot of reason for optimism in Britain. I think these discussions about considering difference are in themselves useful, and, in my experience, largely absent from American discourse. SOAS itself is one of the most diverse environments I have ever experienced, and I find the fact that people from all over the world, and from very different British backgrounds, can discuss these issues frankly extremely heartening.

Perhaps London is not representative of all of Britain, but I see conviviality between people from every different background every day in this city. My experience in SOAS classrooms has taught me to more critically examine what I see and hear, but that has not diminished my sense of London as a city that embraces many cultures, and manages to be greater for it.

I was inspired by Danielle Lee’s JYAN letter Christianity Across the Pond to consider the topic of Christianity in Britain, although from a different perspective. Two of my classes this semester brought up the idea of Christianity as the foundation of British law and values in a much more “official” way than it is in the United States—rather than a separation of Church and State, the Queen is the head of the Church of England.

However, as Danielle points out, there is a contrast between this apparent religiosity and the actual role religion plays in the life of average Britons. While many Britons do continue to go to church, religious participation is much lower in the UK than in the United States, and plays a much smaller role in public life. Danielle points out a contrast I have always found interesting, which is that the religion of a politician plays little role in the United Kingdom, whereas American presidential candidates fall over themselves to prove their Christianity.

I am most interested, however, in how this religious foundation (but apparent lack of religiosity) interacts with immigrants to Britain, who are often bringing in their own religions and practices.

On the one hand, I learned in my law class at SOAS how immigrants are trying to work within, or fight against, a system that has evolved out of Judeo-Christian values. One guest lecturer for my class, Prakash Shah, explained how he felt Christianity runs throughout the English law system, and how this undermines non-Christians in both direct and indirect ways.

For example, in the uproar surrounding Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses there was an attempt to prosecute Rushdie for blasphemy against Islam. However, the House of Lords decided that the blasphemy laws in England apply only to Christianity. In an increasingly diverse country, this kind of discrepancy may prove problematic.

There are also issues involving acts that may seem obviously criminal to someone with a Judeo-Christian background, but not to someone from a different background. It is difficult to decide whether someone should always be judged based on the values of the country they are in, especially if their own cultural or religious background changes the meaning or intention of the act they committed.

Of course, Britain is not alone in facing these issues of legal plurality, but I found it interesting to compare the response there to that in the United States, where Christianity may have less of an official role, but nonetheless does underpin the foundations of our legal system as well. Furthermore, I think Britain’s response is interesting because those religious foundations do not seem as important to Britons today. Some Britons may find it hard to come to terms with the fact that their legal system is inherently Christian, when they themselves no longer identify as such.

Members of religions other than Christianity are therefore continuing to fight in Britain for a somewhat equal representation in society. For example, there is an ongoing discussion about state funding of “faith schools”—it was a long battle for Muslim faith schools to receive the kind of funding that Christian and Jewish schools receive, and this is still a contentious issue.

Furthermore, Britain’s Christian affiliation means that prayer is allowed (and commonplace) in state schools, and religious education is compulsory for many years. Although this worship is described as “non-denominational,” it is Christian, and, of course, parents cannot guaranteed that their religious education teacher will be of the same faith as their children.

Once again, this raises issues that are not as prominent in the United States—should parents be allowed to withdraw their children from school prayer or religious education if they feel it undermines their own teachings? This often seems to devolve into an argument of assimilation versus integration, with some Britons saying that these are British traditions that immigrants must adapt to, while immigrants ask that the schools themselves adapt.

An interesting facet of this debate, however, is that this Christian element of schooling seems to come more out of tradition than out of a contemporary sense of religiosity. I therefore wonder whether discomfort with non-Christians comes from their different religion or, rather, their greater religiosity in general. Religion has become very much a background issue in Britain, so that when certain groups, especially Muslims, visibly express their religion through dress, eating, or prayer practices, there is a backlash against a public display of religiosity in itself. While non-Christians feel that Christianity is pervasive in Britain, many apathetically Christian Britons may see marks of Christianity as cultural rather than religious, and therefore deny a need to include other religions as well. This mix of state religion with a not-very-religious population makes Britain an interesting study for how to incorporate immigrants, and their different religions, into a society.