Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zebedee)
    Yes, that one speech lead to the racial tension

    Enoch powell merely identified it, which is a damn site better than the response of the rest of the political establishment who stuck their heads in the sand and hope it would go away. It hasn't.

    Enoch Powell is a hero in my opinion, for going against the grain.
    Oh give me a break. Before that speech it wasn't an issue at the forefront because immigrants didn't pose a threat to their jobs or standard of living. It was only after the speech that not-too-bright people from the working class and traditional Labour supporters in a fury of confusion and uncertainness brought about from the speech whipped up racial tension themselves.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    Oh give me a break. Before that speech it wasn't an issue at the forefront because immigrants didn't pose a threat to their jobs or standard of living. It was only after the speech that not-too-bright people from the working class and traditional Labour supporters in a fury of confusion and uncertainness brought about from the speech whipped up racial tension themselves.
    I completely agree, the speech motivated racial tension, it wasn't a repitition of popular conversation across the country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    Lol at Powell's arguement that the race relations act would curtail the individuals freedom to discriminate against whoever he wants!
    Well, I think he's quite right there and it's a perfectly valid argument.

    Even the meaning of the word has becomes somewhat sullied. It used to be a complement to suggest a man was discriminating. Either way, I don't see why individuals should not be able to discriminate on any grounds they see fit.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Interact with whites, wear the same clothes and speak with similar accents.

    That may sound rather basic and superficial, but I really do believe such divides are very superficial. These small changes make a huge difference to the sense of community.
    I agree. But we have to remember that this is a two-way process. Most whites were intolerant, prejudiced and discriminatory toward first generation Asian/Black settlers into this country. It is for this reason that integration becomes a setback for immigrants who want to happily integrate into our society. It is people who constantly attack others by covert & overt racism who distance and isolate others from integrating.


    "No Blacks No Dogs No Irish."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gee_shakedown)
    Anyone interested in buying some Enoch Powell merchandise?


    Isn't ebay just terrific? :p:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Urban Dervish)
    I agree. But we have to remember that this is a two-way process. Most whites were intolerant, prejudiced and discriminatory toward first generation Asian/Black settlers into this country. It is for this reason that integration becomes a setback for immigrants who want to happily integrate into our society. It is people who constantly attack others by covert & overt racism who distance and isolate others from integrating.
    I don't think the majority were particularly prejudiced at that time towards the early immigrants. Certainly, they were more or less bottom of the class heap in most cases, but I don't ever think most people were overtly racist towards them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Well, I think he's quite right there and it's a perfectly valid argument.

    Even the meaning of the word has becomes somewhat sullied. It used to be a complement to suggest a man was discriminating. Either way, I don't see why individuals should not be able to discriminate on any grounds they see fit.
    Legally enabling discrimination? Not a human rights violation at all!

    And Enoch being influenced by Indian independence and Civil Rights conflicts in America to halt immigration is frankly ridiculous. What he was witnessing was the product of the views he was expressing in his speech. Hindus and Muslims lived in harmy with each other before the British collonists forced class divides. There was never a demand for Pakistan before the British suggested it to Muslim campaigners. Before 'The Raj' Muslims and Hindus used to refer to each other as 'brother', that society had developed over centuries with the arrival of the Mugals in India. Equally the Civil Rights conflicts in America were caused by institutionalised discrimination - what the Race relations act was trying to eliminate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    Legally enabling discrimination? Not a human rights violation at all!
    No, in fact I consider the opposite to be a violation of human rights. Forcing someone, against their will, to provide a good or service to someone they do not want to is slavery in my book.

    You have no 'right' to be provided with things from other citizens on demand.

    Hindus and Muslims lived in harmy with each other before the British collonists forced class divides. There was never a demand for Pakistan before the British suggested it to Muslim campaigners. Before 'The Raj' Muslims and Hindus used to refer to each other as 'brother', that society had developed over centuries with the arrival of the Mugals in India.
    Sounds to me like that good old habit of blaming the British...

    As I understand it, when the Muslims first took India, they slaughtered millions upon millions of people. While hardly the bastion of truth and good research (it's 1.30 am, I'm a bit pissed and don't care that much about this) Wikipedia would seem to disagree with you enormously - here, with several well cited examples.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, in fact I consider the opposite to be a violation of human rights. Forcing someone, against their will, to provide a good or service to someone they do not want to is slavery in my book.

    You have no 'right' to be provided with things from other citizens on demand.
    The arguement isn't about provision its about protection


    (Original post by L i b)
    Sounds to me like that good old habit of blaming the British....
    Oh please, what I was trying to say that the race related conflict in India when 'half a million people died during the formation of Islamic Pakistan' as said in the documentary coincided with British Imperialism in India. Nothing on that scale was heard of in India before that period.
    If you're going to play the 'blame the British' card I guess I should establish that the British did good things for india too: They unified the country, modernised it and introduced democracy to todays largest democracy.

    (Original post by L i b)
    As I understand it, when the Muslims first took India, they slaughtered millions upon millions of people. While hardly the bastion of truth and good research (it's 1.30 am, I'm a bit pissed and don't care that much about this) Wikipedia would seem to disagree with you enormously - here, with several well cited examples.
    Look at the dates of the wikipedia article. You citing examples of the Mughal invasion. After that things stabilised and in fact progressive Mughals became more tolerant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    Lol at Powell's arguement that the race relations act would curtail the individuals freedom to discriminate against whoever he wants!
    indeed. a real psycho wasnt he?
    it's clear that he was talking from this gut! it was a personal thing for him.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    The arguement isn't about provision its about protection
    Eh? No it's not. The issue at hand was the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to discriminate when offering jobs, giving services, etc.

    Oh please, what I was trying to say that the race related conflict in India when 'half a million people died during the formation of Islamic Pakistan' as said in the documentary coincided with British Imperialism in India. Nothing on that scale was heard of in India before that period.
    So nobody was killed in the Islamic takeover of India? Admittedly it was a while back, but it's seems outright wrong to deny that anything on that scale had happened in India.

    Religious communities also tend to have long memories. I find it hard to imagine that all that was forgotten before the British turned up.

    Look at the dates of the wikipedia article. You citing examples of the Mughal invasion. After that things stabilised and in fact progressive Mughals became more tolerant.
    Yeah, but you can hardly deny that mass division had never happened before.

    While yes, it was often quite stable under the Mughals, it still seems there was underlying division and periods of very bloody conflict.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Eh? No it's not. The issue at hand was the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to discriminate when offering jobs, giving services, etc.

    So everyone from an ethnic minority got a job after the race relations act? No they didn't. What it did was protect ethnic minorities from being discriminated against legally. It didn't make people give them jobs, it prevented employers not employing blacks and asians on the grounds of race. But informal discrimination still went on just as in America. When an asian man asked for a job you said you're not employing. When a black man made you an offer on your house you said you'd got a higher offer. It didn't immediately provide everything every immigrant wanted.

    (Original post by L i b)
    So nobody was killed in the Islamic takeover of India? Admittedly it was a while back, but it's seems outright wrong to deny that anything on that scale had happened in India.

    Religious communities also tend to have long memories. I find it hard to imagine that all that was forgotten before the British turned up.

    Yeah, but you can hardly deny that mass division had never happened before.

    While yes, it was often quite stable under the Mughals, it still seems there was underlying division and periods of very bloody conflict.
    Agreed that taking over a country involves a certain amount of slaughter but seriously nothing on that scale. And the documentary cites the post-colonial conflict as being an example to Powell. Not historic conquests - he had millions of other examples of that. What I was saying was that Powell had used an example of the violence arising out of a forced racial divide as an arguement for forcing racial divide.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    So everyone from an ethnic minority got a job after the race relations act? No they didn't.
    No, but I imagine at least one person was forced into giving a job or offering a service to some who they did not want to - which, again, I think is state-sponsored slavery.

    What it did was protect ethnic minorities from being discriminated against legally. It didn't make people give them jobs, it prevented employers not employing blacks and asians on the grounds of race.
    I'm not remotely trying to argue that it stopped discrimination, or that it somehow created a lovely world where everyone had a job - I really don't care much about the remoter consequences of the Act, just that its provisions can force people into such things against their will. It is an act that forces what I consider to be slavery upon individuals.

    Agreed that taking over a country involves a certain amount of slaughter but seriously nothing on that scale. And the documentary cites the post-colonial conflict as being an example to Powell. Not historic conquests - he had millions of other examples of that. What I was saying was that Powell had used an example of the violence arising out of a forced racial divide as an arguement for forcing racial divide.
    I don't think Powell wanted racial divide in Britain at all, as I understand it he was happy with small numbers of immigrants who could integrate, and was interested in preventing that population from increasing and, in later years, reversing the trend by voluntary repatriation.

    As for nothing on that scale, there are credible estimates of 60-80 million deaths relating to the Islamic rule of India, and 2 million in the actual act of conquest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, but I imagine at least one person was forced into giving a job or offering a service to some who they did not want to - which, again, I think is state-sponsored slavery.
    'Slavery'? I'd hardly describe it as that. And doesn't a question of morality come into all of this at some point? Would you say that not wanting to give someone a job on the grounds of race is justified? No.

    (Original post by L i b)
    its provisions can force people into such things against their will. It is an act that forces what I consider to be slavery upon individuals.
    Lets look at it with some perspective. It is hardly slavery in the truest sense of the word. Also, I agree that forcing people to do something they're reluctant to do is not always acceptable but when its racist or backward I would argue in some cases it's necesarry. And if anyone was forced they didn't exactly sufer from it did they? An employer didn't suffer by employing a black man whereas the black man had everything to gain. If you argue that a white man looking for a job lost out by it then what about the ethnic groups before the passing of the act?



    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't think Powell wanted racial divide in Britain at all, as I understand it he was happy with small numbers of immigrants who could integrate, and was interested in preventing that population from increasing and, in later years, reversing the trend by voluntary repatriation.
    If it wasn't an explicit aim of his speech it was what it was acheiving. The documentary demonstrates that: the ethnic groups felt threatened and the Baroness describes how racism was 'legitimised' after the Powell speech. Thats hardly integration. Also he was 'prophecising' conflict in the future and who does that make responsible? Not the domestic British but the arriving ethnic groups.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    L i b, I'll be happy to carry this on tomorrow. I'm hitting the sack.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rudrax)
    'Slavery'? I'd hardly describe it as that. And doesn't a question of morality come into all of this at some point?
    I'd call it that - forcing labour on unwilling people; seems a fairly basic definition to me.

    Yes, morality is very much involved in this - I don't think that the state should use people simply to attain its own ends. Which is why I don't like the idea using force to threaten people into directing their labour or property in a certain direction.

    Would you say that not wanting to give someone a job on the grounds of race is justified? No.
    No, but equally I'd say not giving to charity isn't justified; that does not mean I endorse the right of a Big Issue vendor to beat someone up and take his wallet simply because he is uncharitable.

    What I think is justifiable and what I think people have a right to do are two very different things. I think it's unjustifiable for someone to sit around in front of the television all day, but I completely defend his right to do that.

    I completely defend of every human being to bodily autonomy, at the VERY least. This denies it to them.

    Lets look at it with some perspective. It is hardly slavery in the truest sense of the word.
    It's not slavery in the typical sense of the word, just like escorting is not prostitution in the typical sense - but the necessary elements are still there, and it's still wrong.

    Also, I agree that forcing people to do something they're reluctant to do is not always acceptable but when its racist or backward I would argue in some cases it's necesarry.
    It's not at all necessary. The world won't collapse in upon itself without such measures.

    And if anyone was forced they didn't exactly sufer from it did they? An employer didn't suffer by employing a black man whereas the black man had everything to gain. If you argue that a white man looking for a job lost out by it then what about the ethnic groups before the passing of the act?
    I certainly don't care about white men losing out on jobs, only the rights of the man offering a job.

    Personally I think the greatest suffering a decent human being can endure is a loss of freedom. For suffering in terms of pain, it is worth noting that many slaves have been treated well throughout history: still, that does not make their status any less acceptable to the civilised.

    If it wasn't an explicit aim of his speech it was what it was acheiving. The documentary demonstrates that: the ethnic groups felt threatened and the Baroness describes how racism was 'legitimised' after the Powell speech. Thats hardly integration. Also he was 'prophecising' conflict in the future and who does that make responsible? Not the domestic British but the arriving ethnic groups.
    I agree. Without employing the methods which Powell advocated: voluntary repatriation and limits on foreign immigration (which were, as he probably knew, unrealistic), the consequences of the speech were little more than inflammatory in a delicate social situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Enoch Powell was one of the first politicians to advocate free market economics, and it should not be forgotten that he stayed true to this principle even when the rest of the establishment (including the Tories) at the time were against it.

    Most people would agree that the British government should serve the British people. Its immigration policy should be that which best serves the interests of the British people.

    Immigration aftre WWII was used as a way of increasing the supply of manual labour (which as anybody who has studied economics will tell you keeps down wages) and therefore wasn't in the interests of at least some British people.

    However the establishment had already decided to put business first, just as they did when they decided we should join the EU (which Powell also opposed).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theinternetneverlies)
    Most people would agree that the British government should serve the British people. Its immigration policy should be that which best serves the interests of the British people.
    I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. After all, we generally call ourselves civilised because we are relatively humanitarian - hence such things as taking asylum seekers, which has no clear and immediate benefit to Britain itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To briefly reply to your post I think we're just going to get bogged down in semantics. You could describe the situation before the Race Relations Act as 'apartheid' or 'segration' but it's not like with like is it? It doesn't compare with the scale and extent of South Africa and the USA but the principles are still the same. Just as those two descriptions are almost hyperbolic I think 'slavery' exaggerates what your trying to describe.

    Yes the landlord might have to make a reluctant decision but nothing concrete was imposed on him in any way, shape or form. He could have exploited loop holes just as White Americans did with the Housing Acts etc. Here I would bring up morality again and that the need to cushion the 'plight' of the ethnic man was more justified than accomodating the racism of white employers. Ultimately the Act was not exactly world shattering was it? You agree that every ethnic man did not get a job or house after the Act and nor did every white employer have to employ and ethnic person. It was a progression to achieving equality but it not force it.

    It be interested in your views towards equality with women because thats the same issue just along gender lines.

    Lastly I meant neccesary on the part of the State. I'm sure you agree that the State much exercise some degree of social responsibility and in this case it was being responsible to the ethnic groups in the country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, in fact I consider the opposite to be a violation of human rights. Forcing someone, against their will, to provide a good or service to someone they do not want to is slavery in my book.

    You have no 'right' to be provided with things from other citizens on demand.



    Sounds to me like that good old habit of blaming the British...

    As I understand it, when the Muslims first took India, they slaughtered millions upon millions of people. While hardly the bastion of truth and good research (it's 1.30 am, I'm a bit pissed and don't care that much about this) Wikipedia would seem to disagree with you enormously - here, with several well cited examples.
    sorry, but i feel that you are taking a narrow perspective of things here. it's not a case of forcing employers/people against their will, it's a case of ethics and justice. there is no justification whatsoever for discriminating on the basis of colour. i dont care if it means denying employers their so called 'right'. that is trivial. the pivotal matter here is the injustice against people of colour at the time. personally i dont know where your morals are at this moment, but i think you need to rethink your philosophy before you go down the extremist route.

    Listen to what 'Lord Helstine' said. he admitted the injustice that was prevalent at the time. you appear to be turning a blind eye on this and simply hiding behind the defence of 'rights' of employers. The race relations act was right in trying to address the injustices.
    geese, i hate for you to be prime minister someday. it would be chaos!
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.