• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Rivers of blood

Recommended Posts

I didn’t know whether to put this in the So-Called BBC thread but felt it deserved a thread of its own, if just to serve to remind us to tune in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43745447

the So-Called BBC has defended a decision to air Enoch Powell's 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech on Radio 4.

The Archive on 4 programme, presented by BBC media editor Amol Rajan, will on Saturday broadcast the right-wing MP's anti-immigration speech - voiced by an actor - in full for the first time. 

The decision to do so was criticised as an "incitement to racial hatred".

But a BBC spokesman said it was being aired "in order to assess it fully" and for it to be analysed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, One percent said:

I didn’t know whether to put this in the So-Called BBC thread but felt it deserved a thread of its own, if just to serve to remind us to tune in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43745447

the So-Called BBC has defended a decision to air Enoch Powell's 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech on Radio 4.

The Archive on 4 programme, presented by BBC media editor Amol Rajan, will on Saturday broadcast the right-wing MP's anti-immigration speech - voiced by an actor - in full for the first time. 

The decision to do so was criticised as an "incitement to racial hatred".

But a BBC spokesman said it was being aired "in order to assess it fully" and for it to be analysed.

This morning they said there was a case that it was a trigger for the rise of white supremacy

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

This morning they said there was a case that it was a trigger for the rise of white supremacy

You mean the Ku Klux Klan (founded C19th) had access to a time portal through which they were inspired by this speech?

Wow.

Double wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swissy_fit said:

Brilliant, one of your absolute  jewels amongst the amusing drivel!

I have you know I'm a Fellow in the Institution of Irrelevance. I will not speak the words of Mordor here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Economic Exile said:

For anyone who doesn’t like watching videos here’s an article with a transcript of Powell’s speech. 

IMO a lot of what he said could be said today........if any politician has the guts to stand up and say it!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

There are two problems with his speech that stop any attempts to interpret it:

  • It is a product of its time.  There is a language and sentiment that seems horrific to modern ears.   I'm in no doubt that we're better off without such language, but you have try to forgive much of it -- to discount every racist tone and author from history would leave you with nothing.
  • He mucks up points that have some merit by reverting to stereotype, even for those times.

I suppose you can only measure his speech by what actually occurred.  Much of what he's said hasn't come about (bar a few nasty riots in the 80s).  Sure, we've got communities from those waves of immigration that seem to be a large part of the population, but by-and-large they're just normal people trying to live their lives, just like everyone else.  Sure, those communities are black, Asian or whatever, not white, but that doesn't seem to matter that much any more.  And, frankly, there have always been differences -- Back in the 1980's I was a regular guy from Wales for whom Newcastle would have been as weird as Wales would have been for a Geordie.

But, and it is an important but, just because things have more-or-less worked out in the past doesn't mean that things will always work out in the same way.  Those waves of immigrants in the 1950's and '60's were coming to start a new life.  it would have been so difficult for them; it was a one way ticket without any hope of seeing family and friends ever again, in a new country with a definite overall hatred of the newcomers.  But I think this enforced isolation was an important part of the integration process; even if there were some limited attempts to keep a flavour of their culture in their new home there was a definite need to fit in.  More recent waves seem to be completely different -- there is much less in the way of integration, and, given the ease of visiting the home country along with an amazing tolerance for diversity in the UK population, much less reason to integrate.  So we've ended up with our modern situation; the more recent immigration seems to have at its heart a determination to ignore the sensibilities of the UK population (including those 1960's immigrants) and to create a closed community.  Worse, many of these immigrants seem to despise the UK population (despite an eagerness to exploit any generosity offered).  This is, to me, much more dangerous.

Sure, maybe it'll all work out; perhaps it always works out this way -- immigrants keep a flavour of their culture, but eventually integrate and come to love their new country as their own.  But maybe it doesn't always work out; just because things have more-or-less worked out in the past doesn't mean that things will always work out in the same way.  I, like Powell back then, fear of Rivers of Blood in the future.  I hope I'm as wrong as he was. 

Hope, however, is a poor strategy.

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgul said:

So we've ended up with our modern situation; the more recent immigration seems to have at its heart a determination to ignore the sensibilities of the UK population (including those 1960's immigrants) and to create a closed community.  Worse, many of these immigrants seem to despise the UK population (despite an eagerness to exploit any generosity offered).  This is, to me, much more dangerous.

This will inevitably lead to civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

But there have been rivers of blood with the terrorist attacks. A good number of them....

It isn't what he meant.  The 80's riots are as close as we got to his sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davidg said:

I wonder if the So-Called BBC have heard of something called The Youtube ?

no I didn't think so

Powells attitude to Russia and the USA are particularly relevant at the moment

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ideas/2013/08/enoch-powell-and-the-cold-war/

I suspect he would be tearing Treason May to bits at the moment of he was alive today.

Powell was one of the few politicians whose views on any subject I could not predict before he opened  his mouth. 

In many ways one of the last great political thinkers that has been elected to Parliament and a complete contrast to the careerist intellectual pygmies of all parties who fill the place today.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, One percent said:

Probably not but the future is impossible to predict. He did realise that there were problems coming down the line....

I'll put it in a different way -- the terrorist attacks are perpetrated by a tiny number of people (albeit numbered in the thousands in the UK), with general support from a larger number.  

What Powell was talking about was violence perpetrated by a significant proportion of the population.  So, for example, Broadwater in 1985 would have involved a decent %age of the younger residents at the time.

It is that level of involvement that is so particularly troubling (if expanded, as he though, to the greater UK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

I'll put it in a different way -- the terrorist attacks are perpetrated by a tiny number of people (albeit numbered in the thousands in the UK), with general support from a larger number.  

What Powell was talking about was violence perpetrated by a significant proportion of the population.  So, for example, Broadwater in 1985 would have involved a decent %age of the younger residents at the time.

It is that level of involvement that is so particularly troubling (if expanded, as he though, to the greater UK).

He may well be right. The last riot in London 2012? It was way more widespread than reported, even happened in the middle class areas near me. Not confined to the inner city or deprived areas at all 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sleepwello'nights said:

That to me is the reason why I am currently anti Islamic integration. If they came here to embrace our way of life as a way to share in the prosperity we have engineered then fine. But when they come here determined to change our way of life so we can emulate the way they live in their countries, then I cannot welcome them or accept them.

Our way of life, despite its faults, is demonstrably better than life in their countries, if not why are they flooding into Europe?

 

And if they don’t like the way we live, why do they want to come?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dgul said:

There are two problems with his speech that stop any attempts to interpret it:

  • It is a product of its time.  There is a language and sentiment that seems horrific to modern ears.   I'm in no doubt that we're better off without such language, but you have try to forgive much of it -- to discount every racist tone and author from history would leave you with nothing.
  • He mucks up points that have some merit by reverting to stereotype, even for those times.

I suppose you can only measure his speech by what actually occurred.  Much of what he's said hasn't come about (bar a few nasty riots in the 80s).  Sure, we've got communities from those waves of immigration that seem to be a large part of the population, but by-and-large they're just normal people trying to live their lives, just like everyone else.  Sure, those communities are black, Asian or whatever, not white, but that doesn't seem to matter that much any more.  And, frankly, there have always been differences -- Back in the 1980's I was a regular guy from Wales for whom Newcastle would have been as weird as Wales would have been for a Geordie.

But, and it is an important but, just because things have more-or-less worked out in the past doesn't mean that things will always work out in the same way.  Those waves of immigrants in the 1950's and '60's were coming to start a new life.  it would have been so difficult for them; it was a one way ticket without any hope of seeing family and friends ever again, in a new country with a definite overall hatred of the newcomers.  But I think this enforced isolation was an important part of the integration process; even if there were some limited attempts to keep a flavour of their culture in their new home there was a definite need to fit in.  More recent waves seem to be completely different -- there is much less in the way of integration, and, given the ease of visiting the home country along with an amazing tolerance for diversity in the UK population, much less reason to integrate.  So we've ended up with our modern situation; the more recent immigration seems to have at its heart a determination to ignore the sensibilities of the UK population (including those 1960's immigrants) and to create a closed community.  Worse, many of these immigrants seem to despise the UK population (despite an eagerness to exploit any generosity offered).  This is, to me, much more dangerous.

Sure, maybe it'll all work out; perhaps it always works out this way -- immigrants keep a flavour of their culture, but eventually integrate and come to love their new country as their own.  But maybe it doesn't always work out; just because things have more-or-less worked out in the past doesn't mean that things will always work out in the same way.  I, like Powell back then, fear of Rivers of Blood in the future.  I hope I'm as wrong as he was. 

Hope, however, is a poor strategy.

Very good, thoughtful and interesting post but IMO globalisation and multiculturalism will eventually destroy my thoughts that trying hard will result for the majority to make a decent life in the the uk.....or anywhere else! Social mobility aspirations seem to be low IMO.

I have two mid twenties offspring of my own. That’s my reference frame. I find their life options very scary in comparison to mine at their age. 

Of course they weren’t born in a third world shilthole so they have chances!

Overall I don’t think that humanity is, or ever will be civilised. All things in history flag to me that human leaders gaining power have self interest in mind and currently serving the rich profoundly. Some do speak up though......but they’re always well off in life from my observation!

Average bod will only work hard and put themselves out even a liitle if there is a reward or perceived one in sight 

Tossers in power can’t understand that life view!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, One percent said:

He may well be right. The last riot in London 2012? It was way more widespread than reported, even happened in the middle class areas near me. Not confined to the inner city or deprived areas at all 

How awful! Were your gnomes stolen, or the topiary disturbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Frank Hovis
      A good news story for a change.  Whilst of course cancelling doesn't necessarily equate to a permanent opt out, as is the case for the moe discerning DOSBODders like @JoeDavola, @Harley and, well modesty prevents, some of these will be that and that looks like the obvious reason for the upward trend - in a world of on-demand streaming who needs a licence?
      So how many don't pay the television tax?
      Well the figure quoted below is 25.8m licences.
      Per the ONS there were 27.2m housholds in the UK in 2017 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017
      The best estimate I can find for over 75 licence housholds, so currently free, is a fifth of licences.  But I'm not linking to it as it was in the guardian. Say 5.2m.
      So that adds up to:
      27.2m households 1.4m without a licence - 5% 5.2m with a free licence - 19% 20.6m with a paid for licence - 76% And they're losing them from that 76%; nobody with a free licence is likely to just give it up.
      It used to be that the ONS didn't even collect data on TV licence holding as so few didn't have them.
      The charming threatening letters I get from the TV licensing people used to quote the number of households with licences but have ceased to do that as the number is falling.
      5% withouta licence is significant and that figure is only going to go one way as the current crop of schoolkids rarerly watch TV.
      Hurrah!
       
       
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6660177/Netflix-effect-sees-nearly-MILLION-Britons-cancel-TV-licence-year.html
    • By Fischer
      Surprised no thread on this (can't see one).
      WARNING. Webpage below contains picture of Diane Abott.
      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44995171
      Who's going to decide what a troll is.
      Very dangerous.
      People who have not been convicted of any offence could be barred from office (eg Watson, Arkaad)
    • By Melchett
      Another thread crosser. I honestly couldn’t decide which of the obvious threads to stick it in - maybe people with more time on their hands can cross post? 
      Anyway, if you care about your health and make sure you aren’t a bloated sack of lard you are apparently benefiting from thin privilege.
      The self delusion levels here are enormous. Let’s flip it. So, do people going into most places to eat (where you are never really sure if you are getting healthy food even if it looks like it might be) benefitting from fat privilege? 
      The gulf between reality and what these morons want to be reality is getting so great you’d need a vessel capable of faster than light travel to cross it.
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/d5f083b6-d043-471a-94d0-9c3c5af97689
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.