This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why did the media say very little about Islam and Muslims in Britain before 9/11?
The most significant change in social attitudes in Britain since the 1990s has to be the mass hostility towards Muslims and Islam. The same phenomenon has also taken place in the US but the difference is that Muslims were an almost invisible group of people in the US in the 1990s whereas they comprised a large section of the post-war immigrant population in Britain.
The troublesome and challenging immigrant group in Britain during the 1960s to the 1990s was the black Jamaicans. They carried out a disproportionate amount of crime; the riots in Brixton, Toxteth, and Tottenham during the 1980s; educational underachievement and difficult to teach children in schools; drug dealing; and they were at the epicentre of race relations.
Muslims were far from an invisible group during the 1960s to the 1990s but they were just lumped in with non-Muslim Asians by the media and society rather than singled out as a specific group of people or faction of society. The race relations community saw it as convenient to label all people except white Europeans as black. The media rarely published anything specific about Muslims or Islam in Britain until the public demonstrations in Bradford against Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses in 1989. This was a short lived affair that had little impact on public opinion and the situation died down in the 1990s. At no time during the 1960s to the 1990s did the public or the media use Muslim or Islam and terrorism together in the same sentence. Terrorism in Britain was something carried out by the IRA.
Since 9/11 barely a day has gone by without the media having something (usually negative) to say about Muslims and Islam in Britain. It has reached a point where Islam is portayed by the media as the enemy of society, like communism was during the Cold War, and now Muslims rather than black Jamaicans have become not just the most troublesome and challenging immigrant group but a potential fifth column.
If Islam and Muslim immigration really is as bad as the media portrays it to be then why were journalists not more outspoken about it during the 1960s to the 1990s?
The troublesome and challenging immigrant group in Britain during the 1960s to the 1990s was the black Jamaicans. They carried out a disproportionate amount of crime; the riots in Brixton, Toxteth, and Tottenham during the 1980s; educational underachievement and difficult to teach children in schools; drug dealing; and they were at the epicentre of race relations.
Muslims were far from an invisible group during the 1960s to the 1990s but they were just lumped in with non-Muslim Asians by the media and society rather than singled out as a specific group of people or faction of society. The race relations community saw it as convenient to label all people except white Europeans as black. The media rarely published anything specific about Muslims or Islam in Britain until the public demonstrations in Bradford against Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses in 1989. This was a short lived affair that had little impact on public opinion and the situation died down in the 1990s. At no time during the 1960s to the 1990s did the public or the media use Muslim or Islam and terrorism together in the same sentence. Terrorism in Britain was something carried out by the IRA.
Since 9/11 barely a day has gone by without the media having something (usually negative) to say about Muslims and Islam in Britain. It has reached a point where Islam is portayed by the media as the enemy of society, like communism was during the Cold War, and now Muslims rather than black Jamaicans have become not just the most troublesome and challenging immigrant group but a potential fifth column.
If Islam and Muslim immigration really is as bad as the media portrays it to be then why were journalists not more outspoken about it during the 1960s to the 1990s?
Scroll to see replies
" At no time during the 1960s to the 1990s did the public or the media use Muslim or Islam and terrorism together in the same sentence."
That is not altogether true. In the 1970s there were marches all across the nation to repatriate Pakistanis and televised speeches calling for their repatriation. Yes the IRA were known for terrorism but Muslims were still major political enemies, it's nothing new. The reason why terrorism is being associated more and more is because there's more and more Islamic terrorism?
Also The Riots in that Farm estate in Tottenham was not due to crime, it was an outraged response to a woman who died tragically during a police raid
I'm not saying black people aren't criminals but I don't think they're the biggest problem now nor were they the biggest problem before.
That is not altogether true. In the 1970s there were marches all across the nation to repatriate Pakistanis and televised speeches calling for their repatriation. Yes the IRA were known for terrorism but Muslims were still major political enemies, it's nothing new. The reason why terrorism is being associated more and more is because there's more and more Islamic terrorism?
Also The Riots in that Farm estate in Tottenham was not due to crime, it was an outraged response to a woman who died tragically during a police raid
I'm not saying black people aren't criminals but I don't think they're the biggest problem now nor were they the biggest problem before.Because 9/11 led to the invasion of Iraq. Terrorists groups arose from that as a backlash. Going into Iraq was a mistake - most Americans admit that.
Can I get 1 rep for no reason
Original post by 0to100
" That is not altogether true. In the 1970s there were marches all across the nation to repatriate Pakistanis and televised speeches calling for their repatriation.
That was Pakistanis rather than Muslims. In the 1970s there was Paki bashing and the term Paki was used in a derogatory way towards anybody from the Indian subcontinent regardless of nation or religion. The same was true around 2000 before 9/11 changed the focus from race to religion.
Yes the IRA were known for terrorism but Muslims were still major political enemies
If Muslims were major political enemies then find me something in the Cabinet Papers stating this. The Cabinet Papers from 1980 to 1990 say surprisingly little about Muslims and Islam in Britain.
Original post by Arran90
That was Pakistanis rather than Muslims. In the 1970s there was Paki bashing and the term Paki was used in a derogatory way towards anybody from the Indian subcontinent regardless of nation or religion. The same was true around 2000 before 9/11 changed the focus from race to religion.
If Muslims were major political enemies then find me something in the Cabinet Papers stating this. The Cabinet Papers from 1980 to 1990 say surprisingly little about Muslims and Islam in Britain.
If Muslims were major political enemies then find me something in the Cabinet Papers stating this. The Cabinet Papers from 1980 to 1990 say surprisingly little about Muslims and Islam in Britain.
Pakistanis rather than Muslims? Most Pakistanis are Muslim, lad.
Yea that is true the term, but nah it's still racial. I think the reason why people give Muslims so much slack is because they are mostly brown and black, and why it's more politically incorrect to go against Jews, because a lot of them are now white and Caucasian. Also because they control the media but I digress. I just told you that they were major political enemies during repatriation, how can you not know about that? Just look up Enoch Powell Rivers of Blood 1968 speech...I know about the nationalist marches cos one of my uncles was always in them.
I never needed the internet to learn this but I was lucky to find this for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MtIF6tw-Io&feature=youtu.be his speech key parts, from 1968
And no thoughts about the blacks?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by 0to100
Pakistanis rather than Muslims? Most Pakistanis are Muslim, lad.
Back in the 1970s the public, and probably the media, either didn't know or didn't care.
Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims. They're all the same they're all foreign.
Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis. They're all the same they're all foreign.
Original post by Arran90
Back in the 1970s the public, and probably the media, either didn't know or didn't care.
Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims. They're all the same they're all foreign.
Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis. They're all the same they're all foreign.
Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims. They're all the same they're all foreign.
Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis. They're all the same they're all foreign.
K...
anyway, to answer your question and as I have proved though you omitted it: there has long been issue with Pakistanis and Muslims in this country, before 9/11, and it was expressed through the media (radio, tv, marches, posters, papers), though not always popular in society.
Original post by 0to100
K...
anyway, to answer your question and as I have proved though you omitted it: there has long been issue with Pakistanis and Muslims in this country, before 9/11, and it was expressed through the media (radio, tv, marches, posters, papers), though not always popular in society.
anyway, to answer your question and as I have proved though you omitted it: there has long been issue with Pakistanis and Muslims in this country, before 9/11, and it was expressed through the media (radio, tv, marches, posters, papers), though not always popular in society.
Before 9/11, Muslims as a group were almost never discussed or talked about by society or the media. There was some discirmination and hostility towards South Asian immigrants, but that was due to ethnicity/race and not religion and it was directed towards all Asians regardless of their religion or former nationality. But even then, Asians were never viewed as a problematic group by spciety, compared to say Afro-Caribbeans. I think this is what the op is getting at.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Aztec123
Befo
Before 9/11, Muslims as a group were almost never discussed or talked about by society or the media. There was some discirmination and hostility towards South Asian immigrants, but that was due to ethnicity/race and not religion and it was directed towards all Asians regardless of their religion or former nationality. But even then, Asians were never viewed as a problematic group by spciety, compared to say Afro-Caribbeans. I think this is what the op is getting at.
Before 9/11, Muslims as a group were almost never discussed or talked about by society or the media. There was some discirmination and hostility towards South Asian immigrants, but that was due to ethnicity/race and not religion and it was directed towards all Asians regardless of their religion or former nationality. But even then, Asians were never viewed as a problematic group by spciety, compared to say Afro-Caribbeans. I think this is what the op is getting at.
I know what he was getting at and I am answering his question...
with more Islamic terrorism comes anti-Islam. It's simple really.
Thank you and good job on the roadman chat. You wear it well.
@Arran90 you asked me for proof about Pakistani racism in the 70s and I showed it, and you've disappeared. I am hoping you will listen to the video or read the archival transcript that can be found online on telegraph.co.uk. 
Original post by 0to100
@Arran90 you asked me for proof about Pakistani racism in the 70s and I showed it, and you've disappeared. I am hoping you will listen to the video or read the archival transcript that can be found online on telegraph.co.uk.
He didn't mention Pakistanis once in his speech. Stop trolling.
Original post by Aztec123
He didn't mention Pakistanis once in his speech. Stop trolling.
Yes he did. His speech is about Asian immigration, now stop trolling me.
Original post by 0to100
Yes he did. His speech is about Asian immigration, now stop trolling me.
He doesn't mention Asians once, but he does talk about 'Negros' a lot.
Original post by Aztec123
He doesn't mention Asians once, but he does talk about 'Negros' a lot.
you didnt read the original transcript. You only listened to an excerpt in the youtube link
Original post by 0to100
you didnt read the original transcript. You only listened to an excerpt in the youtube link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
No mention of Asians, except for one mention of Sikhs campaigning to "
maintain customs inappropriate in Britain"
Original post by Aztec123
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
No mention of Asians, except for one mention of Sikhs campaigning to "
maintain customs inappropriate in Britain"
No mention of Asians, except for one mention of Sikhs campaigning to "
maintain customs inappropriate in Britain"
why are you quoting it, do you not agree with what he said? Failing to assimilate is pretty serious to people.
Also you don't understand the context of the speech, the era it was in, nor the terms he used and why he made the speech and you're a big boy so go do your research. But he did mention "Commonwealth citizens," which were directed to the Asian indentured servants and the growing South Asian population.
Because it didn't work, this led to the skinhead uprising and the 77 March on Lewisham...You don't know what you're on about, stop trolling me.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
