The cricket test or Tebbit test was a controversial phrase coined in April 1990 by the Conservative politician Norman Tebbit in referring to the 'loyalty' or 'lack of loyalty' of immigrants and their children from certain parts of Asia and the Caribbean to the England cricket team. Tebbit suggested that those immigrants who root for their native countries rather than Great Britain in sports might not be sufficiently loyal to their new country.
Contents |
Tebbit, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, said: "A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It's an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?"[1]
Despite the possible confusion with 'Test Cricket', the phrase 'cricket test' and the associated loyalty concepts received a lot of media attention for many months after Tebbit's statement, and were widely discussed and argued over.
Much of the intended bite of the phrase, that is, accusing immigrants and their (often British-born) descendants of disloyalty to Britain has since been lost, for several inter-related reasons:
England is a largely urban, cosmopolitan society, with many inhabitants insistently proud of their links to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, as well as those more recently from Europe, across the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and beyond. It is difficult to discriminate between these sources of pride.[2]
For historical reasons, English nationalism is often regarded as being connected with ultra-right-wing and fascist political sympathies. It is only during sports events that English flags are very widely displayed, and supporters of other countries that may have a lot of English-born fans (e.g. India, Pakistan, Jamaica) like to display support in similar ways. [3]
Some Asian and Black British citizens in particular often feel that they are differentiated by their skin colour from and by other citizens, and that even in the 21st century, they are sometimes not accepted as citizens of equal standing with native English. Many believe that as their overseas origin is obvious, they might as well celebrate it and take pride in it. These attitudes, resulting from personal experience, are unlikely to be overcome by mere criticism with no accompanying social or political plans to change the situations that give rise to them.[4]
Academics studying issues around cultural assimilation have shown that it is a very complex phenomenon, not well suited to a single or simple 'test'. A British-born child of immigrant parents can often be very assimilated and culturally aligned with his ethnically native UK peers in his public life, while following his parents' cultural practices at home. A person of Pakistani descent may well support Pakistan in preference to England during an England vs Pakistan sports event, but could at the same time support England in a match against any other country.[5]
The perpetrators of the Glasgow International Airport attack and the 2007 London bombs were found to be reasonably assimilated into English society and no assessment of them similar to the 'cricket test' would have identified them as likely perpetrators. Instead, it is now widely accepted that disengagement from the democratic process, religious and political radicalisation are much clearer indicators. [6] Although some said the test could have prevented the London attack.[7]
The original premise of Norman Tebbit's 1990 statement 'A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass...' has never been proved. Since then, Tebbit has made a number of other controversial public statements that seem to leave no doubt on his overall uncompromising attitude to those of differing ethnic and religious backgrounds.[8]
References to the 'cricket test' now mainly appear in the media in terms of sports fans' direct behaviour rather than as a metaphor - team supported, colours worn, ticket-buying patterns, sportsmanship, nationalities of players, etc.[9]
National identity is now seen to be more flexible than first thought, especially in multicultural, urban societies where people commonly speak two or more languages, and may belong to families formed from multiple cultures. Mutability and complexity of national identity is a major reason for the restriction of the use of the phrase to literal, rather than metaphorical use. The whole issue is also a notably individual one, so that broad claims such as Tebbit's original statement can easily be accused of generalising and stereotyping.[10][11]