This page is not a forum for general discussion about the speech, Enoch Powell or immigration. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the speech, Enoch Powell or immigration at the Reference desk. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 20, 2008, April 20, 2009, April 20, 2010, April 20, 2011, April 20, 2013, April 20, 2016, April 20, 2017, April 20, 2018, and April 20, 2022. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
maybe i'm just a squemish liberal but i don't realy like having a national front link on this page. A text is a text, but the NF are not a good site for any information...
Why is this separate from Enoch Powell? Surely these patagraphs don't make sense except as part of his career? Wetman 00:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid you can't really just go and cut out the balance of view because it doesn't fit with one's ideals - neutral doesn't mean subscribing to this ridiculous notion that any mention of racial tensions is taboo. Since you have the side of the argument that the speech should immediately be condemned (not exactly neutral), you have to then balance it out with the possibility that it contained elements of truth. Powell's speech can be interpreted in many different ways and I think a lot of people can appreciate the message that failing to integrate another culture into your own can cause problems - for example Pakistan's ambassador to the UN's recent comments. [1]
You are invited to write such a topic. Make sure it is well sourced and written factually and I'm sure no reasonable man will object. Impartiality shall reign ( talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The immediately preeding sentence an part of the paragraph is "For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish." Rich Farmbrough 19:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Please merge any relevant content from Druscilla Cotterill per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druscilla Cotterill. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-17 22:13Z
I can't help but notice that all the given references to the speech are supportive ones - "Enoch was right", and so forth. Can't we include some of the negative references, which I think far more people may have used? I've hardly ever heard the "Rivers of Blood" speech referred to in a positive light.
WikiReaderer 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've requested clarification re the opinion poll:
The last statistic goes against all the previous ones. Should it perhaps read "65% opposed anti-discrimination legislation"? Or "65% favoured discrimination legislation"? Or "65% favoured anti-anti-discrimination legislation"? If it means what it says, then the marked contrast needs to be highlighted better; perhaps:
jnestorius( talk) 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently what angered many Shadow Cabinet members, not least Ian Macleod and Quintin Hogg, was that Powell was a relatively silent member of the Shadow Cabinet, and had given them no indication at all that he would be making this speech. Millbanks ( talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence in the Reaction section because of gratuitous political correctness. Powell made the mildly favorable East Indian comments for political cover. There is no indication of any such real conviction. I am currently reading a collection of essays and correspondence of Enoch Powell wherein he refers to East Indians as "monkeys." Powell later said too that the conservative classic Camp of the Saints (which criticizes the East Indian "invasion" of Europe) is one of the best novels ever written.-- Elizabeth66 ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think some note should be made on this page in reference to the speeches made by Éamon de Valera, the Irish leader, during the Irish Civil War which were known as the "Wading through Blood", or "Rivers of Blood" speeches. A quotation from De Valera can be found here. TheLopper ( talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Enoch Powell.GIF is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It was written in the Rivers of Blood speech that Powell proposed anti-discrimination legislation when in fact it was the contrary. His speech was racist, and he advocated against anti-discrimination legislation to "protect" the country from minority immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.86.97 ( talk) 22:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The reasoning behind the protection of this article is discussed at Talk:Enoch_Powell#Edit_warring. Please discuss the issues there. Regards, Woody ( talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Shortly before the speech's 40th anniversary in 2008, the Socialist Worker newspaper condemned the speech as "the nastiest and most calculated piece of racism ever to be heard from the lips of a senior politician in postwar Britain" and blamed it for the rise of the then new founded National Front and the British National Party which was subsequently formed by some of the National Front's former members in 1982.[27
It is my opinion as stated in the removal of this quote that this paper is 1) Has a small readership rendering its views rather irrelevant 2) Largely biased and Socially divisive paper. Considering the status of this speech I don't feel such biased and under subscribed views should be included. Let's keep it to the mainstream papers and historians please. Alexandre8 ( talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The Socialist Worker quote is properly sourced, so I am reverting your deletion. It was not me that originally added this passage (and I do not support the SWP) but theirs is a legitimate perspective and many people will at least agree with them on this issue. The article contains references to support Powell received from unsavoury far right groups (e.g. the white power rock band "Brutal Attack") and it is necessary that all sides of this debate are explained in order that the reader can see reaction to the speech in context. You say that the Socialist Worker is a "biased and socially divisive paper". Well that's exactly how some of us feel about Enoch Powell's speech. Your user page states that you are a "Conservative/Libertarian" who believes in "freedom of democracy". Do your libertarian and democratic values not include the right of anti racists to express their opinion? Multiculturalist ( talk) 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The Times newspaper declared it "an evil speech", stating "This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way in our postwar history."[16] The Times went on to record incidents of racial attacks in the immediate aftermath of Powell's speech. One such incident, reported under the headline "Coloured family attacked", took place on Tuesday 30 April in Wolverhampton itself: it involved a slashing incident with 14 white youths chanting "Powell" and "Why don't you go back to your own country" at patrons of a West Indian christening party. One of the West Indians who was cut, a Mr. Wade Crooks of Lower Villiers Street, was the child's grandfather. He had to have eight stitches over his left eye. He was reported as saying "I have been here since 1955 and nothing like this has happened before. I am shattered."[17] An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC television programme Panorama in December 1968 found that 8% of immigrants believed that they had been treated worse by white people since Powell's speech, 38% would like to return to their country of origin if offered financial help, 47% supported immigration control, with 30% opposed.[18]
Please read above. The overall view of the socialist worker is already highlighted and discussed in the article. Please refer to the previous comments I made about suitability of sources. Criticism is allowed but as you will see in the Wiki guidelines, it must be by a mainstream source or by a specialist historian. The only time minor sources are allowed on their own are generally with small articles on a specific topic, or with stubs. Seeing that this is a major part of the political history of this country, I do not class this article as either of those.
As for my own POV, if I had a political agenda or something to prove, I would have vandalised the article and removed the quote from the times, which essentially expressing the same view as the Socialist worker. It's a reliable source and a massively popular one. I understand your willingness to help, but I think you need to read a few more of the guidelines first.You don't have to be a socialist to be an anti fascist. And anyway, anti fascism is irrelevant her since Powell was not a fascist, just arguably racist. There is a huge difference. since Thank you for your understanding Alexandre8 ( talk) 21:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again I hae protected this article due to edit warring and once again there has been no discussion apart from in edit summaries. Discuss your issues here before you start edit wars please. Woody ( talk) 07:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Either the reference to David Starkey should be expanded on to make the context of his comments clear, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 ( talk) 20:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but think that this page is not properly titled. As contributors know, the phrase "rivers of blood" does not appear in the text (nor could it have, as the phrase does not appear in the Aeneid.) In the various published collections of Powell's speeches (e.g., Reflections of a Statesman, Enoch at 100), the speech, which Powell gave on April 20, 1968, is simply referred to as an "Address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre."
Perhaps "Rivers of Blood" could remain the page's title but the first paragraph could go something like this:
Enoch Powell's April 20, 1968 address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre (commonly called the "Rivers of Blood" speech") was a speech. . .
Does this seem reasonable? Stealstrash ( talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that Farage's position on the speech (as in, "the basic principle" was right) should be mentioned in the article, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.213.117 ( talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
He argued that journalists who urged the government to pass anti-discrimination laws were "of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it".
It would be helpful, now that decade is so far back in time, if someone could clarify what the exact 'rising peril' was that Powell referred to. It may be easy to presume he was talking about communism, fascism, or German Nazism. Powell may have been putting the then desire for international appeasement on the same plane as the desire for the race relations laws he criticised. Cloptonson ( talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I have been reading an article, 'My father and Enoch Powell' (Shropshire Star, 8 October 2016), looking at Nicholas Jones' account of his father Clem Jones' friendship with Powell, which the former abruptly ended after the speech was made. It mentions Powell's first public airing of concerns for community relations in the Midlands came in a speech at Walsall in March 1968 (previous month), when Powell alleged an anonymous constituent's claim their child was the only white one in their school class, and was being bullied by non-white pupils. When Express & Star journalists could find nothing to confirm the story, Clem Jones challenged Powell, adding that Jones himself had been getting similar anonymous complaints which had all proved false and could be traced to local National Front members. Powell told Jones he did not accept the attribution to the NF and that this speech had drawn him 'bags of supporting mail'. I am looking at working this into the Background section - any thoughts? Cloptonson ( talk) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rivers of Blood speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is "Support for the speech" different from the reaction? Support is a type of reaction.
If it's because the support section has more of a long-term view, why isn't that idea in the title i.e. legacy? Why then are actions/quotes from the 2010s in the reaction section?
How is "Support for the speech" meaningfully different from "Acknowledgement from politicians," such that they have to have two separate sections?
Why is there no section for continued criticism? Link #67 contains criticism from current politicians, so it's not like criticism is hard to find.
Why should retrospective discussion be broken up into support and criticism at a high level?
All the citations for Simon Heffer's biography, Like the Roman, say 1999 but this must be wrong as the book was published in 1998. I'll try to fix it... Hyuhanon ( talk) 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Addition of a section with solely the speech text, and not divided up by “explanation(s)” of segments of the speech, would be helpful. 2601:408:600:400:B9DF:483C:FF22:912 ( talk) 06:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the speech, Enoch Powell or immigration. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the speech, Enoch Powell or immigration at the Reference desk. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 20, 2008, April 20, 2009, April 20, 2010, April 20, 2011, April 20, 2013, April 20, 2016, April 20, 2017, April 20, 2018, and April 20, 2022. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
maybe i'm just a squemish liberal but i don't realy like having a national front link on this page. A text is a text, but the NF are not a good site for any information...
Why is this separate from Enoch Powell? Surely these patagraphs don't make sense except as part of his career? Wetman 00:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid you can't really just go and cut out the balance of view because it doesn't fit with one's ideals - neutral doesn't mean subscribing to this ridiculous notion that any mention of racial tensions is taboo. Since you have the side of the argument that the speech should immediately be condemned (not exactly neutral), you have to then balance it out with the possibility that it contained elements of truth. Powell's speech can be interpreted in many different ways and I think a lot of people can appreciate the message that failing to integrate another culture into your own can cause problems - for example Pakistan's ambassador to the UN's recent comments. [1]
You are invited to write such a topic. Make sure it is well sourced and written factually and I'm sure no reasonable man will object. Impartiality shall reign ( talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The immediately preeding sentence an part of the paragraph is "For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish." Rich Farmbrough 19:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Please merge any relevant content from Druscilla Cotterill per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druscilla Cotterill. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-17 22:13Z
I can't help but notice that all the given references to the speech are supportive ones - "Enoch was right", and so forth. Can't we include some of the negative references, which I think far more people may have used? I've hardly ever heard the "Rivers of Blood" speech referred to in a positive light.
WikiReaderer 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've requested clarification re the opinion poll:
The last statistic goes against all the previous ones. Should it perhaps read "65% opposed anti-discrimination legislation"? Or "65% favoured discrimination legislation"? Or "65% favoured anti-anti-discrimination legislation"? If it means what it says, then the marked contrast needs to be highlighted better; perhaps:
jnestorius( talk) 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently what angered many Shadow Cabinet members, not least Ian Macleod and Quintin Hogg, was that Powell was a relatively silent member of the Shadow Cabinet, and had given them no indication at all that he would be making this speech. Millbanks ( talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence in the Reaction section because of gratuitous political correctness. Powell made the mildly favorable East Indian comments for political cover. There is no indication of any such real conviction. I am currently reading a collection of essays and correspondence of Enoch Powell wherein he refers to East Indians as "monkeys." Powell later said too that the conservative classic Camp of the Saints (which criticizes the East Indian "invasion" of Europe) is one of the best novels ever written.-- Elizabeth66 ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think some note should be made on this page in reference to the speeches made by Éamon de Valera, the Irish leader, during the Irish Civil War which were known as the "Wading through Blood", or "Rivers of Blood" speeches. A quotation from De Valera can be found here. TheLopper ( talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Enoch Powell.GIF is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It was written in the Rivers of Blood speech that Powell proposed anti-discrimination legislation when in fact it was the contrary. His speech was racist, and he advocated against anti-discrimination legislation to "protect" the country from minority immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.86.97 ( talk) 22:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The reasoning behind the protection of this article is discussed at Talk:Enoch_Powell#Edit_warring. Please discuss the issues there. Regards, Woody ( talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Shortly before the speech's 40th anniversary in 2008, the Socialist Worker newspaper condemned the speech as "the nastiest and most calculated piece of racism ever to be heard from the lips of a senior politician in postwar Britain" and blamed it for the rise of the then new founded National Front and the British National Party which was subsequently formed by some of the National Front's former members in 1982.[27
It is my opinion as stated in the removal of this quote that this paper is 1) Has a small readership rendering its views rather irrelevant 2) Largely biased and Socially divisive paper. Considering the status of this speech I don't feel such biased and under subscribed views should be included. Let's keep it to the mainstream papers and historians please. Alexandre8 ( talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The Socialist Worker quote is properly sourced, so I am reverting your deletion. It was not me that originally added this passage (and I do not support the SWP) but theirs is a legitimate perspective and many people will at least agree with them on this issue. The article contains references to support Powell received from unsavoury far right groups (e.g. the white power rock band "Brutal Attack") and it is necessary that all sides of this debate are explained in order that the reader can see reaction to the speech in context. You say that the Socialist Worker is a "biased and socially divisive paper". Well that's exactly how some of us feel about Enoch Powell's speech. Your user page states that you are a "Conservative/Libertarian" who believes in "freedom of democracy". Do your libertarian and democratic values not include the right of anti racists to express their opinion? Multiculturalist ( talk) 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The Times newspaper declared it "an evil speech", stating "This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way in our postwar history."[16] The Times went on to record incidents of racial attacks in the immediate aftermath of Powell's speech. One such incident, reported under the headline "Coloured family attacked", took place on Tuesday 30 April in Wolverhampton itself: it involved a slashing incident with 14 white youths chanting "Powell" and "Why don't you go back to your own country" at patrons of a West Indian christening party. One of the West Indians who was cut, a Mr. Wade Crooks of Lower Villiers Street, was the child's grandfather. He had to have eight stitches over his left eye. He was reported as saying "I have been here since 1955 and nothing like this has happened before. I am shattered."[17] An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC television programme Panorama in December 1968 found that 8% of immigrants believed that they had been treated worse by white people since Powell's speech, 38% would like to return to their country of origin if offered financial help, 47% supported immigration control, with 30% opposed.[18]
Please read above. The overall view of the socialist worker is already highlighted and discussed in the article. Please refer to the previous comments I made about suitability of sources. Criticism is allowed but as you will see in the Wiki guidelines, it must be by a mainstream source or by a specialist historian. The only time minor sources are allowed on their own are generally with small articles on a specific topic, or with stubs. Seeing that this is a major part of the political history of this country, I do not class this article as either of those.
As for my own POV, if I had a political agenda or something to prove, I would have vandalised the article and removed the quote from the times, which essentially expressing the same view as the Socialist worker. It's a reliable source and a massively popular one. I understand your willingness to help, but I think you need to read a few more of the guidelines first.You don't have to be a socialist to be an anti fascist. And anyway, anti fascism is irrelevant her since Powell was not a fascist, just arguably racist. There is a huge difference. since Thank you for your understanding Alexandre8 ( talk) 21:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again I hae protected this article due to edit warring and once again there has been no discussion apart from in edit summaries. Discuss your issues here before you start edit wars please. Woody ( talk) 07:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Either the reference to David Starkey should be expanded on to make the context of his comments clear, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 ( talk) 20:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but think that this page is not properly titled. As contributors know, the phrase "rivers of blood" does not appear in the text (nor could it have, as the phrase does not appear in the Aeneid.) In the various published collections of Powell's speeches (e.g., Reflections of a Statesman, Enoch at 100), the speech, which Powell gave on April 20, 1968, is simply referred to as an "Address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre."
Perhaps "Rivers of Blood" could remain the page's title but the first paragraph could go something like this:
Enoch Powell's April 20, 1968 address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre (commonly called the "Rivers of Blood" speech") was a speech. . .
Does this seem reasonable? Stealstrash ( talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that Farage's position on the speech (as in, "the basic principle" was right) should be mentioned in the article, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.213.117 ( talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
He argued that journalists who urged the government to pass anti-discrimination laws were "of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it".
It would be helpful, now that decade is so far back in time, if someone could clarify what the exact 'rising peril' was that Powell referred to. It may be easy to presume he was talking about communism, fascism, or German Nazism. Powell may have been putting the then desire for international appeasement on the same plane as the desire for the race relations laws he criticised. Cloptonson ( talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I have been reading an article, 'My father and Enoch Powell' (Shropshire Star, 8 October 2016), looking at Nicholas Jones' account of his father Clem Jones' friendship with Powell, which the former abruptly ended after the speech was made. It mentions Powell's first public airing of concerns for community relations in the Midlands came in a speech at Walsall in March 1968 (previous month), when Powell alleged an anonymous constituent's claim their child was the only white one in their school class, and was being bullied by non-white pupils. When Express & Star journalists could find nothing to confirm the story, Clem Jones challenged Powell, adding that Jones himself had been getting similar anonymous complaints which had all proved false and could be traced to local National Front members. Powell told Jones he did not accept the attribution to the NF and that this speech had drawn him 'bags of supporting mail'. I am looking at working this into the Background section - any thoughts? Cloptonson ( talk) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rivers of Blood speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is "Support for the speech" different from the reaction? Support is a type of reaction.
If it's because the support section has more of a long-term view, why isn't that idea in the title i.e. legacy? Why then are actions/quotes from the 2010s in the reaction section?
How is "Support for the speech" meaningfully different from "Acknowledgement from politicians," such that they have to have two separate sections?
Why is there no section for continued criticism? Link #67 contains criticism from current politicians, so it's not like criticism is hard to find.
Why should retrospective discussion be broken up into support and criticism at a high level?
All the citations for Simon Heffer's biography, Like the Roman, say 1999 but this must be wrong as the book was published in 1998. I'll try to fix it... Hyuhanon ( talk) 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Addition of a section with solely the speech text, and not divided up by “explanation(s)” of segments of the speech, would be helpful. 2601:408:600:400:B9DF:483C:FF22:912 ( talk) 06:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)