A reminder of more important issues and outspoken personalities:
On Saturday 20 April, 1968, a right-wing, Conservative MP lit the touch paper on an explosive speech which, in his own words, would create fireworks for some time.
Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of blood” tirade against immigration enraged those working towards improved race relations as well as his own Tory colleagues who knew nothing of his plans. It also ended his political career in Ted Heath’s shadow cabinet.
“How dare I say such a horrible thing?” said Powell. “My answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.”
This answer opened last night’s Radio 4 programme, 1968: Rivers of Blood – The Real Source, by Rob Shepherd.
“As I look ahead I’m filled with fore-boding. Like the Roman I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood,” said Powell, likening 1968’s Race Relations Bill to “a match thrown onto gunpowder.”
Shepherd revisited Powell’s words in a bid to explain the reasoning behind them. Was Powell a racist? Or was he simply reflecting the views of his Wolverhampton constituents? Where did the words come from?
The presenter’s greatest challenge was the shortage of time to recall, understand and explain one of Britain’s most infamous speeches. In 30 minutes he could only ever scratch at the surface of the subject.
The uninitiated listener, agog at the wording of Powell’s speech, was granted precious little chance to explore further one of British politics most written-about individuals before a swift conclusion was arrived at.
Powell spent a number of years in India before its independence from Britain in 1947 and was frightened by what he saw.
He felt immigration would fragment Britain. The creation of ethnic groups would prevent people taking decisions as individual voters and would undermine Britain’s democracy.
Shepherd’s digging through Powell’s old letters revealed he feared this would lead to the bloody violence witnessed in the wake of Indian independence when various minorities fought over power.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad,” said Powell in the speech to Conservative party associates on proposals to allow 50,000 immigrants a year into Britain. “We must be mad, literally mad. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funereal pyre.”
Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet by Ted Heath the day after his speech and Shepherd revealed the babysitters for Powell’s daughters that day renounced their friendship with him that very night, having heard the speech. It was a homely insight which could have been expanded on.
But opinion was polarised. Thousands of dockers went on strike in support of Powell under the banner of free speech and he received a number of letters of support. These were his constituents’ views, right or wrong.
Shepherd reminded the listener how Powell had, 10 years earlier, argued bravely against the brutal treatment of Mau Mau suspects in British-ruled Kenya, suggesting his speech was perhaps more politics than racist resolve.
But then the programme was over, leaving the listener calling for more. 40 years on from the “Rivers of blood” speech the words still outrage. Last year Nigel Hastilow, former editor of the Birmingham Post, was removed as a Conservative party candidate after saying in a newspaper column Enoch Powell was right.
Thanks to Shepherd the reasoning behind the words is perhaps a little clearer, if not excusable.
On Saturday 20 April, 1968, a right-wing, Conservative MP lit the touch paper on an explosive speech which, in his own words, would create fireworks for some time.
Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of blood” tirade against immigration enraged those working towards improved race relations as well as his own Tory colleagues who knew nothing of his plans. It also ended his political career in Ted Heath’s shadow cabinet.
“How dare I say such a horrible thing?” said Powell. “My answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.”
This answer opened last night’s Radio 4 programme, 1968: Rivers of Blood – The Real Source, by Rob Shepherd.
“As I look ahead I’m filled with fore-boding. Like the Roman I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood,” said Powell, likening 1968’s Race Relations Bill to “a match thrown onto gunpowder.”
Shepherd revisited Powell’s words in a bid to explain the reasoning behind them. Was Powell a racist? Or was he simply reflecting the views of his Wolverhampton constituents? Where did the words come from?
The presenter’s greatest challenge was the shortage of time to recall, understand and explain one of Britain’s most infamous speeches. In 30 minutes he could only ever scratch at the surface of the subject.
The uninitiated listener, agog at the wording of Powell’s speech, was granted precious little chance to explore further one of British politics most written-about individuals before a swift conclusion was arrived at.
Powell spent a number of years in India before its independence from Britain in 1947 and was frightened by what he saw.
He felt immigration would fragment Britain. The creation of ethnic groups would prevent people taking decisions as individual voters and would undermine Britain’s democracy.
Shepherd’s digging through Powell’s old letters revealed he feared this would lead to the bloody violence witnessed in the wake of Indian independence when various minorities fought over power.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad,” said Powell in the speech to Conservative party associates on proposals to allow 50,000 immigrants a year into Britain. “We must be mad, literally mad. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funereal pyre.”
Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet by Ted Heath the day after his speech and Shepherd revealed the babysitters for Powell’s daughters that day renounced their friendship with him that very night, having heard the speech. It was a homely insight which could have been expanded on.
But opinion was polarised. Thousands of dockers went on strike in support of Powell under the banner of free speech and he received a number of letters of support. These were his constituents’ views, right or wrong.
Shepherd reminded the listener how Powell had, 10 years earlier, argued bravely against the brutal treatment of Mau Mau suspects in British-ruled Kenya, suggesting his speech was perhaps more politics than racist resolve.
But then the programme was over, leaving the listener calling for more. 40 years on from the “Rivers of blood” speech the words still outrage. Last year Nigel Hastilow, former editor of the Birmingham Post, was removed as a Conservative party candidate after saying in a newspaper column Enoch Powell was right.
Thanks to Shepherd the reasoning behind the words is perhaps a little clearer, if not excusable.
No comments:
Post a Comment