Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An excerpt from Enoch Powell's 1968 'Rivers of blood' speech -

    They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He was a political opportunist and he fell flat on his face. Before his speech, he said nothing about immigration for the 18 years he was an MP and only done it to become Tory party leader.

    Noam Chomsky is a prophet
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Yes
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Yes
    As much as I'm going to regret asking this, why?

    Edit: After having re-read the Rivers of Blood speech, I'm cringing.
    The man had points, certainly, but they all miss the point spectacularly- the problems lie with the people- not their race.

    An ******* remains an *******, whatever the colour of their skin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He certainly made some valid points, and indeed much of what he said has transpired. In a later speech he gave at The Rotary Club he predicted that by 2002 the non-white population of Britian would rise to 4.5 million, which people found laughable at the time, but in the 2001 census the population of "ethnic minority" people living in Britian was found to be 4,635,296. Also, during the 1970 general election he told Wolverhampton voters that between a fifth and a quater of their city, Birmingham, and Inner London would consit of Commonwealth immigrants and their decendants (according to the 2001 census, Wolverhampton is 22%, Birmingham 29.6% and Inner City London 34.4% nonwhite). Pretty damn prophetic it seems to me. He is a very misunderstood figure, not actually a racist no matter what people who haven't read him choose to believe. The two incidences of racist terms used in his "River's of Blood" speech were quotes from a resident of his Wolverhampton constituency, and this was in the days before political correctness so he didn't have to pretend that she hadn't said it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AirRaven)
    As much as I'm going to regret asking this, why?

    Edit: After having re-read the Rivers of Blood speech, I'm cringing.
    The man had points, certainly, but they all miss the point spectacularly- the problems lie with the people- not their race.
    It wasn't so much racism Enoch Powell made allowances for, but simply nationalism. He disagreed with coloured immigration not because of the colour of their skin, but because of their divergent culture and identity.

    As he said when asked whether he was a 'racialist':

    'It depends on how you define the word “racialist.” If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically “No.”'

    It was more an attack on multiculturalism within a nation, and for a great many people even today he did have a point. Yes, of course the mass-scale violence he predicted never really occurred, but in many communities there is racial tension and the sense of having separate 'communities' within a town where people can be branded and divided fairly accurately by skin colour does seem to be a problem for some.

    Whilst I can see his point, and at least commend him for being consistent and open in putting it across, I hold the polar opposite view from Powell. Whilst multiculturalism may not always be easy, it is a commendable stance for a nation to adopt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He was called Enoch.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Enoch Powell wasen't even that against immigration. Who do you think came up with the idea to use Indians when there was a shortage of doctors who wouldn't work for low wages? Enoch Powell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent and PRINCIPLED politician - and I happen to agree with every word he said on immgration, so he gets a thumbs up from me.

    Enoch Powell was right.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Let's not forget Enoch Powell was incredibly popular after he made that speech as something like 75% of people agreed with it. After he was removed from the Conservative Shadow Cabinet he even had workers striking trying to get him put back.

    Was he a prophet though? Probably not, there aren't rivers of blood on our streets. (not yet anyway)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in "Prophet", but a highly intelligent person who thought about and calculated the way things could be in the future? No.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't that back when conseratives was running the "you don't want to live next to a ******" campaign?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    Isn't that back when conseratives was running the "you don't want to live next to a ******" campaign?
    It was actually a private supportive slogan* for one parliamentary candidate in the West Midlands, who had nothing to do with its publication, the only scandal being that he refused to condemn it, instead stating that it "is a manifestation of the popular feeling... I fully understand the feelings of people who say it. I would say it is exasperation, not fascism". For this, the candidate - who became the constituency's MP in a significant swing - was ostracised and became, to quote Harold Wilson, a "political leper" in his own party.

    Nothing to do with the Conservative Party, nothing to do even with the candidate in question. Hardly the defamatory bull-**** you'd like it to be.

    It's worth noting too that the Labour incumbent responded by pointing out that this immigration largely happened under a Conservative government whilst emphasising that "Labour favours continued control of immigration" and would create measure to prevent "overcrowding".


    * I can find reliable sources that either put it down simply as being a slogan said by some supporters, on a private leaflet or on private posters. The slogan is often stated quite differently. I find it perfectly plausible that it was, in fact, never committed to print and simply used by some people who favoured the candidate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crusading)
    An excerpt from Enoch Powell's 1968 'Rivers of blood' speech -

    They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
    Not really, it appears to me foreign workers offer a higher standard of discipline, they work harder and get a higher level of education. So he is wrong in that sense.

    Their wives may not be getting hospital beds but if they do is will be a Dr Patel or Hussein looking after them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LurkerintheDark)
    Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent and PRINCIPLED politician - and I happen to agree with every word he said on immgration, so he gets a thumbs up from me.

    Enoch Powell was right.
    I agree that he was highly intelligent, but I disagree with his take on immigration.

    The problem with many (not all) Powell admirers is that they know perilously little about him ouotside of that speech.

    Have a look at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    In 1937 he was appointed Professor of Greek at Sydney University aged 25

    How many university professors do you know that are under 25? Becoming a university professor in itself is a lifetime achievement

    Twelve months later, during August 1943 he was posted to Delhi. Though he served in Africa with the Desert Rats, Powell himself never actually experienced combat, serving for most of his military career as a staff officer...In 1943 Powell was awarded the military MBE...Powell began the war as the youngest professor in the Commonwealth; he ended it as the youngest Brigadier in the British army, one of the very few men of the entire war to rise from Private to Brigadier (another being Fitzroy Maclean)

    He reached the rank of brigadier (general) and received an MBE - and never saw combat in WWII. Those themselves are lifetime achievements.

    For many MPs, being elected an MP is the highest public achievement they'll ever achieve. Yet he managed to become a cabinet minister - so two more achievements that others may regard as lifetime achievements (at a time when they really were regarded positions).

    And yet...all people seem to remember him for was that speech. This is a reflection of one of his biggest flaws - his inability to compromise, as well as showing poor political judgement. He was a deeply controversial politician and the impact of that speech is still being felt today.

    To try to judge Enoch Powell's life on the basis of one speech alone though misses out on a whole host of other interesting aspects about him. Judge him politically by that speech and his record/speeches on the issue of race/racism by all means, but be aware that there was far more to his life than just that.

    The biggest tragedy perhaps is that for all his achievements, he let himself down immensely through a single inflammatory speech that people to this day are still talking about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
    I agree that he was highly intelligent, but I disagree with his take on immigration.

    The problem with many (not all) Powell admirers is that they know perilously little about him ouotside of that speech.

    Have a look at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    In 1937 he was appointed Professor of Greek at Sydney University aged 25

    How many university professors do you know that are under 25? Becoming a university professor in itself is a lifetime achievement

    Twelve months later, during August 1943 he was posted to Delhi. Though he served in Africa with the Desert Rats, Powell himself never actually experienced combat, serving for most of his military career as a staff officer...In 1943 Powell was awarded the military MBE...Powell began the war as the youngest professor in the Commonwealth; he ended it as the youngest Brigadier in the British army, one of the very few men of the entire war to rise from Private to Brigadier (another being Fitzroy Maclean)

    He reached the rank of brigadier (general) and received an MBE - and never saw combat in WWII. Those themselves are lifetime achievements.

    For many MPs, being elected an MP is the highest public achievement they'll ever achieve. Yet he managed to become a cabinet minister - so two more achievements that others may regard as lifetime achievements (at a time when they really were regarded positions).

    And yet...all people seem to remember him for was that speech. This is a reflection of one of his biggest flaws - his inability to compromise, as well as showing poor political judgement. He was a deeply controversial politician and the impact of that speech is still being felt today.

    To try to judge Enoch Powell's life on the basis of one speech alone though misses out on a whole host of other interesting aspects about him. Judge him politically by that speech and his record/speeches on the issue of race/racism by all means, but be aware that there was far more to his life than just that.

    The biggest tragedy perhaps is that for all his achievements, he let himself down immensely through a single inflammatory speech that people to this day are still talking about.
    One of the best posts on Powell this forum's ever seen; most of the woefully clueless users on this board who oppose his stance on immigration see Powell's name as synonymous with 'evil far-right racist scumbag', without recognising the other aspects of the great man's life. We both admire his expansive intellect and integrity, but I must restate my fondness of Enoch's perspective on immigration, multiculturalism and the preservation of this country's culture and way of life. It's a shame that Powell's name has ended up a dirty word; there was far more to this man than his infamous (and in my view, politically and philosophically sound) speech.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It wasn't so much racism Enoch Powell made allowances for, but simply nationalism. He disagreed with coloured immigration not because of the colour of their skin, but because of their divergent culture and identity.
    Eh? There are divergent cultures and identities within races, class as an example. The reasoning you have suggested is a political fallacy - in terms of Powell, skin colour was definately 'it.'

    (Original post by L i b)
    Whilst multiculturalism may not always be easy, it is a commendable stance for a nation to adopt.
    Really? Don't you think multiculturalism has kind of failed as a forced policy in not only the UK but France too for example?

    Consecutive Labour govenments have seemed to assume social cohesion means seeing more of a social mix in the forefont of society to the extent where you can scarecly catch a bus these days without hearing alien accents and unsociable foreigners who arguably make little effort to integrate into society. Learning English and adopting a few sensibilities of the target country is not a hard mission to carry out and achieve.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undiscovery)
    Eh? There are divergent cultures and identities within races, class as an example. The reasoning you have suggested is a political fallacy - in terms of Powell, skin colour was definitely 'it.'
    Nationalists believe the primary divisions into which humanity can be grouped are not ones of social class, gender, sexual identity, or anything else - but quite simply the nation.

    Immigration to Britain at the time was largely coloured immigration. If we had the same thing from Eastern Europe, say, then he would no doubt have objected to that had the same level of borderline self-segregation occurred.

    Really? Don't you think multiculturalism has kind of failed as a forced policy in not only the UK but France too for example?
    I don't see how it can 'fail' as such. Perhaps it causes crime and problems with racism and nationalism - but I certainly don't see that as failure. Indeed, I've long accepted that there are plenty of bad people out there with horrible backward views and opinions - to me success is not measured in how well we placate these people, but by how little we pander to them politically.

    Learning English and adopting a few sensibilities of the target country is not a hard mission to carry out and achieve.
    If people want to, they will. I have no inclination to "make" them do anything any more than I have the inclination to wander up to the Outer Hebrides and shout at the locals for speaking Gaelic. ndeed, if I was to accept the integrationist stance, the Gaels' crime would probably be rather worse since they know English, but still choose not to speak it. Those scoundrels.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    If people want to, they will. I have no inclination to "make" them do anything any more than I have the inclination to wander up to the Outer Hebrides and shout at the locals for speaking Gaelic. ndeed, if I was to accept the integrationist stance, the Gaels' crime would probably be rather worse since they know English, but still choose not to speak it. Those scoundrels.
    It shouldn't be a case of ''if they want to'' - it should be a prerequisite. Although I like your example of the Gaels and it is convincing, it's slightly flawed given they live and always have lived in the United Kingdom - a Nigerian or Polish immigrant has not. There is a massive difference here. I respect the audacity of the Gaels or Welsh for being proud of their linguistic sovereignty - it's variation withinthe UK just as an accent is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
    I agree that he was highly intelligent, but I disagree with his take on immigration.

    The problem with many (not all) Powell admirers is that they know perilously little about him ouotside of that speech.

    Have a look at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    In 1937 he was appointed Professor of Greek at Sydney University aged 25

    How many university professors do you know that are under 25? Becoming a university professor in itself is a lifetime achievement

    Twelve months later, during August 1943 he was posted to Delhi. Though he served in Africa with the Desert Rats, Powell himself never actually experienced combat, serving for most of his military career as a staff officer...In 1943 Powell was awarded the military MBE...Powell began the war as the youngest professor in the Commonwealth; he ended it as the youngest Brigadier in the British army, one of the very few men of the entire war to rise from Private to Brigadier (another being Fitzroy Maclean)

    He reached the rank of brigadier (general) and received an MBE - and never saw combat in WWII. Those themselves are lifetime achievements.

    For many MPs, being elected an MP is the highest public achievement they'll ever achieve. Yet he managed to become a cabinet minister - so two more achievements that others may regard as lifetime achievements (at a time when they really were regarded positions).

    And yet...all people seem to remember him for was that speech. This is a reflection of one of his biggest flaws - his inability to compromise, as well as showing poor political judgement. He was a deeply controversial politician and the impact of that speech is still being felt today.

    To try to judge Enoch Powell's life on the basis of one speech alone though misses out on a whole host of other interesting aspects about him. Judge him politically by that speech and his record/speeches on the issue of race/racism by all means, but be aware that there was far more to his life than just that.

    The biggest tragedy perhaps is that for all his achievements, he let himself down immensely through a single inflammatory speech that people to this day are still talking about.
    He didn't make any mistake making the speech, it was hugely popular, he was the only conservative with any stake amoungst the working class of that time. The only mistake made was that the Conservative party didn't run him for PM.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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