Should Enoch Powell get a blue plaque ( in Wolverhamton)?

[Vorpal]

I think that few people feel hatred towards others based solely upon some characteristic (cyclist, immigrant, ethnic minority, gay, etc.). Most discrimination arises from ignorance and the need (as TC says) to feel superior. Unfortunately, some of it is wilful. Does that constitute hatred? I don't know, but I think I would reserve hatred for stronger feelings. Those developed for an abuser, for example.

That said, I agree with profpointy. Even if Enoch Powell did not himself hate anyone, he certainly encouraged hatred with his speeches.

[bovlomov]

I don't think it matters what you call it if it exists.

It certainly exists, and I agree that it includes the attitude of some motorists to cyclists.

There's a common feeling emanating from the perpetrators, that they are being stopped from telling 'the truth'. Each one, from Powell to Farage, imagines himself to be Luther or Galileo, or a prophet. I wonder whether calling it 'hate speech' or a 'hate crime' reinforces that feeling. Farage, Hopkins, and others thrive on the outrage that is triggered by their idiotic ramblings. Wouldn't it be better if they were ignored, or if their words were taken apart, line by line, to demonstrate what nonsense it all is?

Why on earth did Powell's speech gain so much traction? It was dreadful rubbish, and should have been treated as such. Instead it gained an undeserved notoriety that has repelled most of the population while attracting a large minority of victim nationalists.

Powell wasn't saying the unsayable. He was saying what had been said in pubs and at bus stops all over the country (the latter without the classical allusions). And Powell wasn't stopped from saying what he said. He lost his job because his opinions weren't compatible with his job. I think Powell's reputation needs a bit of de-martyrfication.

[Vorpal]

Powell wasn't saying the unsayable. He was saying what had been said in pubs and at bus stops all over the country (the latter without the classical allusions). And Powell wasn't stopped from saying what he said. He lost his job because his opinions weren't compatible with his job. I think Powell's reputation needs a bit of de-martyrfication.

But he was also repeating urban myth, rumour, and even lies as if it they were reasonable and true.

Pub talk is pub talk, and I have no desire to limit what people say to each other over a few beers, but prejudices need to be challenged, not broadcast for truth.

Racial prejudice is not just an opinion. It is an evil; an insidious evil that often hides itself in better things.

[pwa]

Powell wasn't saying the unsayable. He was saying what had been said in pubs and at bus stops all over the country (the latter without the classical allusions). And Powell wasn't stopped from saying what he said. He lost his job because his opinions weren't compatible with his job. I think Powell's reputation needs a bit of de-martyrfication.

But he was also repeating urban myth, rumour, and even lies as if it they were reasonable and true.

Pub talk is pub talk, and I have no desire to limit what people say to each other over a few beers, but prejudices need to be challenged, not broadcast for truth.

Racial prejudice is not just an opinion. It is an evil; an insidious evil that often hides itself in better things.

I'm not sure this was just about prejudice and misunderstanding. It was more about not wanting to share. Britain belonged, in the minds of most people, to the British people, and the British people were mostly white people descended from the Angles, Saxons and Celts. But there is a tradition of fairness in Britain, and once people had been allowed to make their homes here there was bound to be a move towards accepting them and their offspring as full members of Us. That is generally what has happened, slowly perhaps, and it is not what EP envisaged. I wonder if he would have thought differently if he had lived today. I wonder if he would have seen lack of integration as the main challenge.

[bovlomov]

Powell wasn't saying the unsayable. He was saying what had been said in pubs and at bus stops all over the country (the latter without the classical allusions). And Powell wasn't stopped from saying what he said. He lost his job because his opinions weren't compatible with his job. I think Powell's reputation needs a bit of de-martyrfication.

But he was also repeating urban myth, rumour, and even lies as if it they were reasonable and true.

Pub talk is pub talk, and I have no desire to limit what people say to each other over a few beers, but prejudices need to be challenged, not broadcast for truth.

Racial prejudice is not just an opinion. It is an evil; an insidious evil that often hides itself in better things.

I agree with most of that, but in this case I don't think the evil was being hidden in better things. The myth, rumour and lies were pretty open.

Yes, he needed to be challenged. I think that's better done by taking his speech apart rather than just throwing up our hands and saying how hateful it is.

[Vorpal]

I'm not sure this was just about prejudice and misunderstanding. It was more about not wanting to share. Britain belonged, in the minds of most people, to the British people, and the British people were mostly white people descended from the Angles, Saxons and Celts. But there is a tradition of fairness in Britain, and once people had been allowed to make their homes here there was bound to be a move towards accepting them and their offspring as full members of Us. That is generally what has happened, slowly perhaps, and it is not what EP envisaged. I wonder if he would have thought differently if he had lived today. I wonder if he would have seen lack of integration as the main challenge.

This was not about not wanting to share.

Powell said that integration was difficult when some people look different. He implied that an older lady who didn't want to rent to 'negroes' was in the right. He made it clear that lack of integration wasn't the only problem, but said that immigrants wanted to dominate instead of integrate.

His speech has to be put into context, as well. He was speaking specifically against the Race Relations Act. He was speaking out against legislation against discrimination. And he *used* people's fear to feed the flames of prejudice.

[Vorpal]

I agree with most of that, but in this case I don't think the evil was being hidden in better things. The myth, rumour and lies were pretty open.

Yes, he needed to be challenged. I think that's better done by taking his speech apart rather than just throwing up our hands and saying how hateful it is.

It was partly hidden in better things; his concern for his constituents or the the rights of private individuals

As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

sounds rather reasonable, until you consider the stories that follow, and learn that he is, in fact arguing to allow someone to rent only to white people. Of course, he never actually says that. He only kind of implies it through a story about a poor, downtrodden, elderly lady who struggles financially.

[thirdcrank]

Let's agree he's sufficiently (in)famous to warrant a plaque. How should he be summed up in a couple of words? How about

Ideologue and orator.

I can't think of a couple of words to encapsulate "A sad individual who played on people's fears and by "talking proper" when expressing them, legitimated racism."

[bovlomov]

It was partly hidden in better things; his concern for his constituents or the the rights of private individuals

As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

sounds rather reasonable, until you consider the stories that follow, and learn that he is, in fact arguing to allow someone to rent only to white people. Of course, he never actually says that. He only kind of implies it through a story about a poor, downtrodden, elderly lady who struggles financially.

"Immigrants elevated to a privileged class"? That's laughable nonsense, as is this story:

When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant.

Children of West Indians cannot speak English, but they know the word 'racialist'?

There was a serious discussion to be had about immigration and integration, and about the social problems that sometimes arise from immigration. Powell's speech contributed nothing to that discussion.

Simply, I'm amazed that Powell retains the reputation of being an intellectual.

[bovlomov]

Let's agree he's sufficiently (in)famous to warrant a plaque. How should he be summed up in a couple of words? How about

Ideologue and orator.

I can't think of a couple of words to encapsulate "A sad individual who played on people's fears and by "talking proper" when expressing them, legitimated racism."

If that fits on the plaque, it'll be perfect.

[pwa]

I'm not sure this was just about prejudice and misunderstanding. It was more about not wanting to share. Britain belonged, in the minds of most people, to the British people, and the British people were mostly white people descended from the Angles, Saxons and Celts. But there is a tradition of fairness in Britain, and once people had been allowed to make their homes here there was bound to be a move towards accepting them and their offspring as full members of Us. That is generally what has happened, slowly perhaps, and it is not what EP envisaged. I wonder if he would have thought differently if he had lived today. I wonder if he would have seen lack of integration as the main challenge.

This was not about not wanting to share.

Powell said that integration was difficult when some people look different. He implied that an older lady who didn't want to rent to 'negroes' was in the right. He made it clear that lack of integration wasn't the only problem, but said that immigrants wanted to dominate instead of integrate.

His speech has to be put into context, as well. He was speaking specifically against the Race Relations Act. He was speaking out against legislation against discrimination. And he *used* people's fear to feed the flames of prejudice.

When I spoke of "not wanting to share" I was thinking of the sentiment in the public generally at the time, not EP. His views were pure racism. I grew up at that time in a household where racism was already fading, and my parents may have had some reservations about people who had foreign ways, but they felt very uncomfortable, even then, with the animosity expressed by Powell. Time has only made Powell's views more alien to us.

[Ben@Forest]

There was a serious discussion to be had about immigration and integration, and about the social problems that sometimes arise from immigration. Powell's speech contributed nothing to that discussion.

Simply, I'm amazed that Powell retains the reputation of being an intellectual.

All this happened 50 years ago, it's odd that the BBC wanted to revive it as a discussion point (ratings over relevance?) especially as there seem to be more pertinent points of discussion over race/religion with the Windrush revelations and the problems with anti-semitism in the Labour Party. I do wonder if in 1968 people would have being doing such much navel-gazing about a fairly pedestrian speech in 1918.

Also as with all newspaper reporting (no such thing as society - crisis what crisis et al) Powell never said 'rivers of blood' the quote was ...like the Roman I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood. His attitudes (and fears) were wrong but it was a classical allusion.

[pwa]

There was a serious discussion to be had about immigration and integration, and about the social problems that sometimes arise from immigration. Powell's speech contributed nothing to that discussion.

Simply, I'm amazed that Powell retains the reputation of being an intellectual.

All this happened 50 years ago, it's odd that the BBC wanted to revive it as a discussion point (ratings over relevance?) especially as there seem to be more pertinent points of discussion over race/religion with the Windrush revelations and the problems with anti-semitism in the Labour Party. I do wonder if in 1968 people would have being doing such much navel-gazing about a fairly pedestrian speech in 1918.

Also as with all newspaper reporting (no such thing as society - crisis what crisis et al) Powell never said 'rivers of blood' the quote was ...like the Roman I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood. His attitudes (and fears) were wrong but it was a classical allusion.

I find looking back to Powell's speech quite helpful because it tells us how far we have moved on. And we have moved on.

[Vorpal]

Oh, it gets revived every now and then, anyway. The Telegraph has in the past printed the speech in its entirety.

I'm sure that it's so we can all look at how horrid and shocking it was what he said, and reassure ourselves, that we have become more enlightened

[reohn2]

Let's agree he's sufficiently (in)famous to warrant a plaque. How should he be summed up in a couple of words? How about

Ideologue and orator.

I can't think of a couple of words to encapsulate "A sad individual who played on people's fears and by "talking proper" when expressing them, legitimated racism."

Clever & barsteward,are a couple of reasonable words to describe old Enoch IMO.