• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Could you pass a US citizenship test?

Darat said:
Yeah but prior to independence it was “our“ army.
Click to expand...

I remember talking about that in school, how revolution-era colonists naturally thought of themselves as British. Paul Revere's famous cry of 'the British are coming' would have made no sense
 
Dabop said:
I wonder how many US posters could pass an Aussie one though...
(Scary, I was born here and lived here my whole life and barely passed!)

http://www.theaustraliantest.com/new-australian-citizenship-test/1
Some of them though were "huh??"
(My knowledge of the Torres Straight Islanders is practically zero, and have never met one, not surprising as there is only 4500 of them, yet there is a question about their flag.... didn't even know they had one....)
Click to expand...

18/20, but I'm a Brit. Can we come and live there if Brexit gets heavy? :)
 
Got 14 but I’ll claim 15. I misread WWI as WWII and picked Roosevelt. Thought it was odd they had the same question twice. Tiny phone screen.

Went the wrong way on my 50/50’s.

Not really fair comparison regarding U.S. citizens testing on any other country.

We could all pass trivia tests on Michael Jordan. Could Michael Jordan pass one on all of us?
:duck:
 
Spock Jenkins said:
Got 14 but I’ll claim 15. I misread WWI as WWII and picked Roosevelt. Thought it was odd they had the same question twice. Tiny phone screen.

Went the wrong way on my 50/50’s.

Not really fair comparison regarding U.S. citizens testing on any other country.

We could all pass trivia tests on Michael Jordan. Could Michael Jordan pass one on all of us?
:duck:
Click to expand...

Question #1: What is Thermal scratching?

a. head
b. chin
c. butt
d. crotch


Jordan would do okay.
 
rjh01 said:
I could not even answer the first question so I gave up.

Would not be as bad as the test they gave people wanting to get to Australia. It was called the "dictation test." All you had to do was write down a paragraph as dictated by an immigration official. This had to be in some European language. This was used to keep Asians out. It was very simple to ensure a person failed. They just gave them the test in some language the person did not understand. This test was used between 1901 and 1958.

Ref: http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/a-z/immigration-restriction-act.aspx
Click to expand...

I thought it could be in any language of Great Britian, not any European. So English, Welsh, Irish, Manx, Cornish, Scots etc
 
Thermal said:
I didn't realize that barracks expenditure was the problem, thought it was basically providing a free bed-and-breakfast for traveling soldiers
Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated. The feeding and housing for the British military in the 18th and early 19th century would be strange to modern soldiers.

Officers, being gentlemen, generally arranged their own billets and paid for their own food. On campaign, they could draw food at the same scale as their men, but quite often (at least in less remote areas) would employ their servants to prepare foodstuffs they had brought along with them (which would often include good wine and spirits). In towns officers either rented rooms or a house and either contributed to food purchased for the household or again, bought their own.

The various garrisons in the remote forts were housed and fed there.

Troops on the march were typically allocated space in various barns, inns and large homes along the march route, but were fed by their own rations (1 pound of beef or 1,5 pounds of pork, and 1 pound of potatoes per man per day, plus 8 ounces of vegetables/per man/week, plus 1 pound of bread per five men per day (or so, I'm going off memory here) and, depending on locale 1 pint of rum, 1/2 pint of wine or up to one gallon of small beer (less than 4%)) with the troops being responsible for cooking their own meals - although once in a more permanent camp cooks were often appointed.

Where it got tricky was in the urban centres where there were concentrations of troops, but no fortifications, or insufficient space for them. Here the British Army quartered the troops on the locals - people were told that you have to put up "x" number of soldiers in your house and feed them. The homeowner was supposed to provide them with food and drink at the same scale as the Commissary did. Homeowners were supposed to be compensated for the food and drink, but shortages of coin and general corruption often meant that homeowners took it in the shorts and had to accept IOUs or whatever foodstuffs the Commissary (not an actual part of the military, just the government office created to feed and cloth it) had to hand to compensate you.

There were also the general complaints that one would expect if you were told you had to allow several strangers to live in your house and that you'd be expected to cook for them and give them drink in exchange for some money back for said food and drink. Sometimes you'd get a good bunch who'd help out with chores, wouldn't make passes at your wife and daughters, and who wouldn't act like hooligans. And then there are the ones who rationalized that they were here for a good time, not a long time, and while the Sgt wasn't looking....

And from a military efficiency point of view it was less than optimal, as you needed to "beat the town" to assemble your troops if an emergency arose (literally done by sending the drummers out to sound the assemble).

The solution to those problem was to build permanent barracks. The problem was that Parliamentarians, whether British or colonial, were of the mind that such things cost $, and we don't want to pay any more taxes, so we won't pay for barracks, the Crown will eventually disband the units not on the frontier and our taxes will stay low....

So the problem was kicked down the road in the finest traditions of politicians everywhere.

When the troops weren't disbanded or sent to the frontier (because the 13 colonies were experiencing large amounts of civil unrest), they still needed to be housed somewhere, and the additional troops needed to keep the King's peace needed someplace to go - well, we can see where that went.
 
14/19 on the US
15/20 for Australia
32/33 for Germany - though picking the state I live in may be cheating.
22/25 on the Canadian test 01.

A lot of those question are pretty much universal western civics. I'm surprised how good I was at guessing for Australia, though.
 
This was my fav question. Made me laugh.
Who was the first Prime Minister of Canada?
Click to expand...

Hmm, no idea. Let's see what I can rule out:
Let's strike weird french name. They won't have a Quebecois as first prime minister.
Sir Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine
When we're at it, let's strike jew name:
Sir Isaac Brock
I'm sensing a pattern here. Let's strike gunpowder plot name
Sir Guy Carleton

Yup. This guy sounds very british:
Sir John A. Macdonald

Welcome to Canada, me.
 
Darat said:
I don't think it is wrong to expect someone wanting to become a citizen in a country to have to learn about that country and then pass a test, even if most of the current citizens couldn't pass a similar test. Outside of asylum and refugees if you want to become a citizen then it is up to you to demonstrate you know what that entails, the country's historical roots included.
Click to expand...

I repeat: this was not an official citizenship exam. The citizenship quiz angle was a gimmick to get people to pay atteantion to the quiz.
 
dudalb said:
I repeat: this was not an official citizenship exam. The citizenship quiz angle was a gimmick to get people to pay atteantion to the quiz.
Click to expand...
The Australian one I linked to was not the actual test, but collated questions that are used on the actual test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom