"In the 1980s I was involved with various far left organsiations and antiracist campaigns including the Newham 7 campaign, the Colin Roach campaign and East London Workers Against Racism. I have written of how the Salman Rushdie affair helped transform my relationship with the left; the Rushdie affair gave early notice of the abandonment by many sections of the left of their traditional attachment to ideas of Enlightenment rationalism and secular universalism and their growing espousal of multiculturalism, identity politics and notions of cultural authenticity. As a result, much of my political campaigning over the past decade has been in defence of free speech, secularism and scientific rationalism"
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Brit white working class: "voiceless"
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
"In the 1980s I was involved with various far left organsiations and antiracist campaigns including the Newham 7 campaign, the Colin Roach campaign and East London Workers Against Racism. I have written of how the Salman Rushdie affair helped transform my relationship with the left; the Rushdie affair gave early notice of the abandonment by many sections of the left of their traditional attachment to ideas of Enlightenment rationalism and secular universalism and their growing espousal of multiculturalism, identity politics and notions of cultural authenticity. As a result, much of my political campaigning over the past decade has been in defence of free speech, secularism and scientific rationalism"
The Black Hand
Unclean
Shame on the BBC
By Joe Street
11 March 2008, 3:00pm
Below we reproduce a letter of complaint from a historian to the BBC about its programme Rivers of Blood - part of the BBC 2 'White season'.
'I write to complain in the strongest terms possible about last night's Rivers of Blood documentary shown on BBC 2. The documentary's position on Enoch Powell was irresponsible, poorly researched and seemed to justify and offer approval for Powell's repugnant views.
The writer of the show seems unaware of the work of Paul Foot, whose biography of Powell was the earliest - and most reliable - source on Powell's political 'philosophy.' Foot offers compelling evidence to demonstrate that Powell was an opportunist, and that his 'Rivers of Blood' speech was not an expression of Powell's patriotism but a calculated ploy to exploit the fears and racial hatred that was welling up in the West Midlands in the wake of Peter Griffiths's short-lived period as MP for Smethwick. The speech was not, as your documentary suggested, a plea from the heart of an English patriot but a cynical attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population.
This latter point was twisted by the editing of your programme to suggest that Powell's speech also incited resentment among the British Asian and Black communities. The programme made explicit links between Powell's speech and the Toxteth and Brixton riots over ten years after. The presentation of these events also suggested that they were part of a racial war that was overwhelming British society in the 1970s and 1980s. As any serious historian of the time will confirm, they were nothing of the sort, but were localised responses to White oppression from government authorities. This telescoping of history had the effect of suggesting that Powell's warnings were correct. In fact, they are not. Powell warned of racial warfare in the UK. We have not seen anything of the sort since then, and it is irresponsible to suggest that we have.
The use of music in the programme furthered the producer's aims to exonerate and offer approval for Powell. It was most noticeable that ominous chords appeared at certain points to heighten fears about Black peoples, but that Powell's appearances - and that of the racist crowds who supported him - were met instead with more emollient classical music. A minor point, maybe, but a significant one within the context of the rest of the programme.
The programme's response to Powell's citation of the American civil rights movement was also erroneous and mischievous. The programme was correct to assert that Powell feared the racial tinderbox of the US that he had witnessed in 1967 but the programme's choice of clips gave an entirely false interpretation of his response to the United States. Powell was in the US at a time when race riots were threatening the internal stability of many US cities (including New York City where he was based during his visit - I have no evidence to confirm whether Powell actually visited Detroit and Chicago during this visit, as your programme suggested). These riots were led by African American youths and were normally directed against White law enforcers and businesses that operated in the Black community. The programme, however, offered a different interpretation. By including footage from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's campaigns in Birmingham and Selma, both in Alabama and in 1963 and 1965 respectively, the programme suggested that the moderate civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, was in some way responsible for the rioting. That the programme went further, to link the assassination of King to Powell's views compounded this twisting of the historical evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that Powell was moved in any way by King's death, yet the editing of footage in your programme suggested that this was the case. The indiscriminate use of archive footage rendered this section incoherent and suggested to viewers that moderate opposition to racial segregation led directly to race riots. Again, no serious historian of the time would even suggest that this was the case.
The selection of 'talking heads' also seemed very peculiar. Why was no professional historian of the 1960s included? Why was the work of Robert Shepherd, whose biography of Powell is a much more reliable source than Heffer's, excluded? Perhaps more pertinently, why was Paul Foot's work on Powell ignored? The inclusion of A. Sivanandan and Stuart Hall was obviously designed to suggest that both men approved of the programme and to suggest that the programme was racially inclusive, yet Sivanandan's comments were restricted to the present racial climate and Hall did not have a significant period on camera. Roy Hattersley's comments on Powell were welcome, but offered little challenge to the views of Nicholas Winterton and the other White faces on parade. Hattersley's conclusion - that he hated Powell then and hates him now - was presented as a forlorn gesture by a defeated politician.
Overall, this programme seemed designed to suggest that Powell was right, and that he was speaking up for the working classes who had been excluded from political debate in the 1960s. While the latter contains a kernel of truth (both then and now) it does not excuse the programme's suggestion that multiculturalism led to rioting in UK cities, and its approval of racist politicking by British politicians. Powell did not hope to provoke debate in the UK about race, but wished only to further his career. His speech was not a lost opportunity to re-examine the UK's willingness to accept immigrants but an attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population. That there were few violent responses to Powell's speech is an indication that the vast majority of British people firmly and categorically rejected his repugnant views, and the programme did nothing to suggest this was the case. Furthermore, that Nick Griffin said that if the BNP had made a documentary on Powell 'it wouldn't have differed too much from this' says it all. (Quoted in the blog on 9.3.08 of the Deputy Leader of the BNP - Simon Darby - http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/).
Shame on the BBC for broadcasting such a disgraceful mistreatment of our history.'
By Joe Street
11 March 2008, 3:00pm
Below we reproduce a letter of complaint from a historian to the BBC about its programme Rivers of Blood - part of the BBC 2 'White season'.
'I write to complain in the strongest terms possible about last night's Rivers of Blood documentary shown on BBC 2. The documentary's position on Enoch Powell was irresponsible, poorly researched and seemed to justify and offer approval for Powell's repugnant views.
The writer of the show seems unaware of the work of Paul Foot, whose biography of Powell was the earliest - and most reliable - source on Powell's political 'philosophy.' Foot offers compelling evidence to demonstrate that Powell was an opportunist, and that his 'Rivers of Blood' speech was not an expression of Powell's patriotism but a calculated ploy to exploit the fears and racial hatred that was welling up in the West Midlands in the wake of Peter Griffiths's short-lived period as MP for Smethwick. The speech was not, as your documentary suggested, a plea from the heart of an English patriot but a cynical attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population.
This latter point was twisted by the editing of your programme to suggest that Powell's speech also incited resentment among the British Asian and Black communities. The programme made explicit links between Powell's speech and the Toxteth and Brixton riots over ten years after. The presentation of these events also suggested that they were part of a racial war that was overwhelming British society in the 1970s and 1980s. As any serious historian of the time will confirm, they were nothing of the sort, but were localised responses to White oppression from government authorities. This telescoping of history had the effect of suggesting that Powell's warnings were correct. In fact, they are not. Powell warned of racial warfare in the UK. We have not seen anything of the sort since then, and it is irresponsible to suggest that we have.
The use of music in the programme furthered the producer's aims to exonerate and offer approval for Powell. It was most noticeable that ominous chords appeared at certain points to heighten fears about Black peoples, but that Powell's appearances - and that of the racist crowds who supported him - were met instead with more emollient classical music. A minor point, maybe, but a significant one within the context of the rest of the programme.
The programme's response to Powell's citation of the American civil rights movement was also erroneous and mischievous. The programme was correct to assert that Powell feared the racial tinderbox of the US that he had witnessed in 1967 but the programme's choice of clips gave an entirely false interpretation of his response to the United States. Powell was in the US at a time when race riots were threatening the internal stability of many US cities (including New York City where he was based during his visit - I have no evidence to confirm whether Powell actually visited Detroit and Chicago during this visit, as your programme suggested). These riots were led by African American youths and were normally directed against White law enforcers and businesses that operated in the Black community. The programme, however, offered a different interpretation. By including footage from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's campaigns in Birmingham and Selma, both in Alabama and in 1963 and 1965 respectively, the programme suggested that the moderate civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King, was in some way responsible for the rioting. That the programme went further, to link the assassination of King to Powell's views compounded this twisting of the historical evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that Powell was moved in any way by King's death, yet the editing of footage in your programme suggested that this was the case. The indiscriminate use of archive footage rendered this section incoherent and suggested to viewers that moderate opposition to racial segregation led directly to race riots. Again, no serious historian of the time would even suggest that this was the case.
The selection of 'talking heads' also seemed very peculiar. Why was no professional historian of the 1960s included? Why was the work of Robert Shepherd, whose biography of Powell is a much more reliable source than Heffer's, excluded? Perhaps more pertinently, why was Paul Foot's work on Powell ignored? The inclusion of A. Sivanandan and Stuart Hall was obviously designed to suggest that both men approved of the programme and to suggest that the programme was racially inclusive, yet Sivanandan's comments were restricted to the present racial climate and Hall did not have a significant period on camera. Roy Hattersley's comments on Powell were welcome, but offered little challenge to the views of Nicholas Winterton and the other White faces on parade. Hattersley's conclusion - that he hated Powell then and hates him now - was presented as a forlorn gesture by a defeated politician.
Overall, this programme seemed designed to suggest that Powell was right, and that he was speaking up for the working classes who had been excluded from political debate in the 1960s. While the latter contains a kernel of truth (both then and now) it does not excuse the programme's suggestion that multiculturalism led to rioting in UK cities, and its approval of racist politicking by British politicians. Powell did not hope to provoke debate in the UK about race, but wished only to further his career. His speech was not a lost opportunity to re-examine the UK's willingness to accept immigrants but an attempt to whip up racial hysteria among the White population. That there were few violent responses to Powell's speech is an indication that the vast majority of British people firmly and categorically rejected his repugnant views, and the programme did nothing to suggest this was the case. Furthermore, that Nick Griffin said that if the BNP had made a documentary on Powell 'it wouldn't have differed too much from this' says it all. (Quoted in the blog on 9.3.08 of the Deputy Leader of the BNP - Simon Darby - http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/).
Shame on the BBC for broadcasting such a disgraceful mistreatment of our history.'
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
"In the 1980s I was involved with various far left organsiations and antiracist campaigns including the Newham 7 campaign, the Colin Roach campaign and East London Workers Against Racism. I have written of how the Salman Rushdie affair helped transform my relationship with the left; the Rushdie affair gave early notice of the abandonment by many sections of the left of their traditional attachment to ideas of Enlightenment rationalism and secular universalism and their growing espousal of multiculturalism, identity politics and notions of cultural authenticity. As a result, much of my political campaigning over the past decade has been in defence of free speech, secularism and scientific rationalism"
That isn't the worst that Newham did. They systematically hounded the white working class who lived in the south of the borough while channeling funding to minority groups some of which were administered by corrupt conservatively minded community leaders in exchange for 'getting the vote out'.
They also imposed equal opps conditions on southern area organisations like local community centres that were overly harsh in white areas even so far as penalising them if they didn't have any muslim customers even though there were few muslims in the area at the time and a community centre with a bar wasn't what muslims wanted anyway.
While this went on the council turned a blind eye to things like forced marriages in the asian community. I taught for a while in a school in Newham and I lost one of my best female students who was muslim in the last term before the exams as her family had packed her off to Bangladesh to be forcibily married. When I reported it to my senior management team they just shrugged their shoulders and said there is nothing they could do and to not rock the boat as the issue was 'sensitive'.
They also buggered up a millenium fireworks spectuacular (in the North of the borough again) and recouped and hid the losses (£1 million no less) by slashing funding to groups that served the south of the borough and general adult education.
This exacerbated tensions between the south and the north of the borough where historically the south of the borough earned the money in the docks and the gasworks and the factories but the north of the borough where the guv'nors lived spent it.
The southern area and its communities were also ripped apart by the LDDC without any resistance seeming to come from the local authority.
This caused more racism from whites to asians as they saw themselves yet again at the back of the queue for resources.
I think that the Newham experience was partially why the bnp did so well in its neighbouring borough as those white working class people who fled Newham and those who had observed the disgusting corrupt machine politics of Newham and didn't want more of the same there voted bnp.
The sad fact is at the end of the day dividing people up and funding groups based on religion or minority ethnicity rather than funding resources for all doesn't bring people together it just makes people more suspicious of each other.
There is a lot in multiculturalism that I admire greatly including educating people about what is different and also what is the same and also being aware of religious sensitivities (for example I know of people who will not call the police if they have a break in on the Jewish sabbath) is a way of breaking down barriers of misunderstanding.
Where multiculturalism has failed and become something dangerous for the future is where multiculturalism has been used by councillors and others to build little power centres which enrich them and their mates but ultimately impoverish us all.
There has always been immigration into East London but what is different now is the way the state and state agents and sadly some on the Left have not supported secularism but have aligned themselves with conservative religous elements.
We should be looking at helping people to integrate not separate too much.
For God's sake, what does that mean?
The presentation of these events also suggested that they were part of a racial war that was overwhelming British society in the 1970s and 1980s. As any serious historian of the time will confirm, they were nothing of the sort, but were localised responses to White oppression from government authorities.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
Btw, KJ, I witnessed similar situations in the North as a community arts worker
Did this sort of thing bring people together or split people in to little mutually antagonistic groups?
Another thing that Newham did was send a group of council workers to paint red crosses on peoples gateposts in Custom House to signify what properties were going to be compulsorally purchased prior to redevelopment (not that the redevelopment would benefit the locals - benefits the yuppies and the councillors but not the locals) - no consultation at all with the locals but when changes were made in the North you drowned in consultations.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 58
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 973
