the people's champ

8/10/2019 The People's Champ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-peoples-champ 1/25

The People’s Champ

George Dylan Boan



1

The year was 1968. Spring was in full swing. The flowers had sprouted, breaking through

the gray of winter with a dazzling array of colors. Color would have more meaning in the spring

of 1968 than any year prior. On both sides of the Atlantic, tensions over race relations were at a

breaking point. Bang! On April 4th

, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated spurring race riots

across the United States.1 The match had been thrown on the fire. On the other side of the

Atlantic, Britain was also dealing with the issue of color. Enoch Powell, who had seen the racial

violence of Chicago and Detroit a year prior, saw the realization of his fears, that people of

visible distinction could never coexist peacefully. Two weeks after the assassination, Powell hit

the pulpit with a fervor that would create a maelstrom in British society and politics. On April

20, Enoch Powell delivered his infamous „Rivers of Blood‟ speech, seen as the catalyst to

forever change the face of British race relations and moreover, what it meant to be British. The

speech was monumental not only because it put the issue of race out in the open but also because

it was a challenge to what political elites and the media saw as acceptable political discourse.

Immigration and race provided Enoch Powell a means to thrust himself into the political

spotlight using a strategy of emotionally evocative speeches to hypercharge the race issue in the

public opinion and reinvigorate British nationalism. Despite an explosion of public support for

Powell following the speech, primary source analysis reveals a dramatic shift in the way he was

portrayed by the mass media as well as the Conservative Party. The Conservative and Labour

parties termed their stance on race relations and immigration “moderation”, while in reality, this

was a grandiose attempt to avoid the issues altogether.2

1 Daniel McNeil, “'The rivers of Zimbabwe will run red with blood': Enoch Powell and the Post -Imperial

Nostalgia of the Monday Club,” Journal of Southern African Studies 37, No. 4 (December 2011): 738.

2 To enter the discussion of the link forged between race and immigration in Great Britain in the post-war

era, circa 1945 onward to contemporary Britain, a great historical overview is provided by John Solomos, Race and

Racism in Britain ( New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1993). Nicholas Owen, “The Conservative Party and Indian

Independence, 1945-1947,” Historical Journal 46, No. 2 (June 2003): 403-436, provides insight into the issues of



2

To understand race relations and immigration in the period following World War II,

termed the post-war era, one must understand the imperial legacy that Britain would have to

grapple with and ultimately, shed. As the German monolith that had lingered over the European

continent disintegrated, so did the rhetoric of British imperialism. With the general elections of

1945, the Labour Party took control of Parliament while there was huge turnover in the

Conservative Party as much younger politicians came in who were not sentimental about

imperial expansion, having come up in a climate of war and economic depression.3 As Britain

came to terms with the burgeoning independence movements of its Commonwealth nations in

the years to come, most notably India, another issue arose. Following the immense destruction of

post-war party politics as Britain began to shed its imperial legacy, first and foremost with the question of India.

Peter Brooke, “India, Post-Imperialism and the Origins of Enoch Powell 's 'Rivers of Blood' Speech,” Historical

Journal 50, No. 3 (Sep. 2007): 669-687, traces Enoch Powell‟s experience of Imperial India to his philosophy on

immigration and his „Rivers of Blood‟ speech. For an in-depth look at British identity struggles in the post-imperial

age, see Jonathan Rutherford, Forever England: Reflections on Masculinity and Empire (London: Lawrence &

Wishart, 1997). Expanding upon this desperate search for English identity in the midst of the New Commonwealth

and non-white immigration is Chris Waters, “"Dark Strangers" in Our Midst: Discourses of Race and Nation in

Britain, 1947-1963,” Journal of British Studies 36, No. 2 (Apr. 1997): 207-238. For a look at the development of

extra parliamentary groups to voice popular opinions on race, see Daniel McNeil, “'The rivers of Zimbabwe will run

red with blood': Enoch Powell and the Post-Imperial Nostalgia of the Monday Club.” Journal of Southern African

Studies 37, No. 4 (December 2011): 731-745. For a look at black immigrants first attempts to combat discrimination

politically, see Evan Smith, “"Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar Race

Relations.” Science & Society 72, No. 4 (Oct. 2008): 455-481. An in-depth look at what race and ethnicity meant

during the period and the role these terms played in social boundary creation is provided by Sandra Wallman, “The

Boundaries of 'Race': Processes of Ethnicity in England,” Man 13, No. 2 (June 1978): 200-217. For an overview of

how both major parties tried to grapple with racism in the early post-war years, see Fred R. van Hartesveldt, “Race

and Political Parties in Britain, 1954-1965,” Phylon 44, No. 2 (Spring 1983): 126-134.To see the development of a

post-war political consensus between the Conservative and Labour parties, see Anthony M. Messina, Race and

Party Competition in Britain (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). The role of 1960s politicians, as well as

Margaret Thatcher, played in breaking up this „middle ground‟ is examined by Richard Toye, “From 'Consensus' to

'Common Ground': The Rhetoric of the Postwar Settlement and its Collapse,” Journal of Contemporary History 48,

No. 1 (Jan. 2013): 3-23.To see interplay of Smethwick, Malcolm X, and the press in the politicization of

immigration and race, see Joe Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the Af rican American Freedom

Struggle on British Race Relations in the 1960s,” Journal of Black Studies 38, No. 6 (Jul., 2008): 932-950. To reveal

the distance between political elites and the public, see Donley T. Studlar, “British Public Opinion, Colour Issues,and Enoch Powell: A Longitudinal Analysis,” British Journal of Political Science 4, No. 3 (Jul., 1974): 371-381.

The conflict between the inherent closed system of a welfare state against immigration is explicated in Gary P.

Freeman, “Migration and the Political Economy of the Welfare State ,” Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science 485 (May 1986): 51-63. For a look at contemporary issues of black male exclusion and ties to

Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher, see Mark Christian, “The Politics of Black Presence in Britain and Black

Male Exclusion in the British Education System,” Journal of Black Studies 35, No. 3 (Jan. 2005): 327-342.

3 Nicholas Owen, “The Conservative Party and Indian Independence, 1945-1947,” The Historical Journal

46, No. 2 (June 2003): 406.



3

the British Isles in the war, there was a great demand for unskilled workers and the

Commonwealth presented bountiful prospects to fill this void. The problem was that the initial

inflow of immigrants showed no signs of slowing as the 1950s came and went. Growing unrest

among the white working class of mainland Britain generated political stirrings to make changes

to the open-door policy of immigration that had come to be a burden on the king of the

Commonwealth. With the help of the press and political ambitions, this general unrest would

evolve into a chaotic frenzy of racial violence, xenophobic manifestation, and English identity

crises. Enoch Powell, a relic of the imperial age, would have a profound impact on the sculpting

of the debate on race relations and remedies to the problem of colored immigration.

Enoch Powell, a Conservative M.P. (Member of Parliament), had served his country in

World War II and ended up stationed in India at the outset of the war.4 Following the war, the

independence movement built steam rapidly in India. Powell was tasked with conducting

economic policy research to determine the future role India would play as a member of the

Commonwealth; his superior grasp of economics and the interpretation of quantitative data

would become a cornerstone of his political argumentation strategies.5 There could be no

disillusionment; the most prominent feature of this society was racial and religious division.

Powell reported India was not ready for self-government due to these deep divides, a belief

shared by his Tory and Conservative party colleagues as they bitterly battled Clement Attlee and

the Labour party to smooth relations before granting independence.6 Historian Peter Brooke

attributes Enoch Powell‟s experience of „communalism‟ in India, the idea that the Indian people

4 Peter Brooke, “India, Post-Imperialism and the Origins of Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' Speech,” The

Historical Journal 50, No. 3 (Sep. 2007): 671.

5 Ibid., 671.

6 Owen, Conservative Party and Indian Independence, 421.



4

did not self-identify as a collective nation but rather as factions, as a significant factor in the

development of his ideology on Commonwealth immigration to the mainland United Kingdom.7

Factionalism is a threat to any organization, including the political parties, such as the issue of

having Winston Churchill at the helm of the Conservative party, who was unaffected by the

feelings of his party and disregarded his colleagues opinions, making it difficult to unite as a

party.8 A similar characterization would be given to Enoch Powell by his party following his

„Rivers of Blood‟ speech, which he distributed without consultation of Conservative Party

leadership. Churchill would eventually capitulate to Attlee, despite the contrary opinions of his

party, a decision Powell called “a crime against humanity”, which would be followed by the

Bloody Summer of 1947 as violence broke out in India following independence.9 Enoch Powell

had seen the „Rivers of Blood‟ caused by racial tension and cultural difference, and vowed to

keep the British mainland clean from the dangers Commonwealth immigration could pose.

The 1960s were the epicenter of debates on race relations and immigration reform. There

had been the baby boom of the 1950s and mainland Britain was by no means underpopulated.

Jobs and housing had been an issue throughout the post-war era, while Britain had become a

welfare state. A stagnant economy and various international disputes were heavy of the minds of

inhabitants of Britain. The 1950s had also seen the Nottingham race riots occur, in which bands

of white supremacists had attacked non-white immigrants. By the 1960s, record numbers of

immigrants were flowing in. The entire dynamic of what Britain‟s global role should be and what

being British meant was in flux. The political elite‟s moderate stance on new legislation was in

stark contrast to the white working class majority‟s desire for action. Enoch Powell provided the

7 Brooke, India, 684.

8 Owen, 427.

9 Owen, 433.



5

people with a champion of popular opinion, a politician willing to take a stand and press for

change.

When Enoch Powell gave his „Rivers of Blood‟ speech to the Annual General Meeting of

the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre on April 20, 1968, he broke a profound

political silence. The speech reinvigorated the political atmosphere to match the passions of the

people these politicians were in power to represent. Powell chose each and every word with

intent and purpose. Politicians of both major parties contemporary to the speech had developed a

habit of dancing around issues rather than fleshing out unique opinions and thoroughly engaging

in debate. The beginning of the address is a call to arms for politicians to reassume the duties

with which they were actively shying away from. The power bestowed upon these politicians

derived from a public whose interests they did not serve. By attempting to tiptoe around

incendiary issues such as race and immigration, problems such as these had not been resolved

but had in fact been exacerbated. Such is the reason one of the first statements Powell makes in

the speech happens to be “‟if only‟, they love to think, „if only people wouldn‟t talk about it, it

probably wouldn‟t happen‟”.10

The political philoso phy of “moderation” was in heavy use at the time of Powell‟s

speech. While in politics “moderation” is typically better received than “radicalism” or

“extremism” it inherently moderates its own impact as it involves a drift from strong ideological

platforms to ones of compromise, non-confrontation and electoral appeal. In a sense, it is the

watering down of politics, an appeal to the status quo, to continuity; in essence, moderation is

synonymous with weak politics. Anthony Messina‟s Race and Party Competition in Britain

asserts that in the post-war period, both the Conservative and Labour party developed a political

10 Enoch Powell, “Rivers of Blood” (speech, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968), The Telegraph.

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



6

consensus on highly volatile public policy issues in order to self-regulate intense competition

between the nearly equal electoral strength of the parties.11

Employing a Downsian model, in

which the parties sacrificed their ideological foundations for pure vote garnishment, resulted in

the abolishment of a middle ground between the parties on the issues of race relations and non-

white immigration.12

There was no longer true inter-party debate on the issues but rather echoes

of relatively similar opinions. This was why Enoch Powell‟s strong assertion of opinion on race

relations and immigration reform was so explosive within Britain‟s party politics at the time it

was given; Powell had chosen to forsake “moderation” for the sake of his constituency, whom

these practices had not favored. As Angus Maude put it, “if the reaction to Mr. Powell‟s speech

made someone consult them, and listen carefully to what they had to say, he would have done

the country a service.”13

“Whether one agreed with Mr. Powell it was a healthy thing to bring the

race issue into the open,” claimed Patrick Wall.14

Peter Jenkins, an authoritative journalist for

The Guardian, commented that Powell “does not seem to ordinary people to be playing the tired

party game but to be saying what he thinks,” a concept the public was unfamiliar with from

politicians of the day.15 The speech served to force popular discussion of these hot button issues

which had long been in the public agenda yet had been obscured from the political agenda.

Enoch Powell was well aware of the political parameters in place used to stifle

competition and meaningful progress. In the years prior to his speech, Powell had adamantly

11 Anthony M. Messina, Race and Party Competition in Britain, (New York: Oxford University Press,

1989), 14.

12 Ibid., 14.

13 "Unions, MPs, and Dockers Line Up," The Guardian (1959-2003), 27 Apr. 1968, ProQuest Historical

Newspapers.

14 Nora Beloff, "Powell Speech 'a Recipe for Civil Strife'., The Observer (1901- 2003), 17 Nov. 1968,

ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

15 Peter Jenkins, “Enoch, Enoch, who‟s there?” The Guardian (1959-2003), 8 Oct. 1968, ProQuest

Historical Newspapers.



7

demanded a need to seriously rework Britain‟s immigration policies in accordance with the

changing diplomatic relations among the Commonwealth nations. His speeches garnered the

attention of the press, were well grounded in factual information, and lacked the “extremist” tone

which he would be attributed with following the 1968 Birmingham speech. In 1966, The Times

published an article entitled “Mr. Powell Criticizes Hypocrisy Over Commonwealth”, which

covered a speech Powell had given at Carnborne, Cornwall, addressing the need to reform

relations with the growing number of independent nations within the Commonwealth.16

The

article was heavily structured around the themes of “Antipathy” and “Legal Fiction”, as these

were bold-faced headings and meant to stir up British animosity towards these independent

nations that had come to exploit their relationship to Britain for their own gain. All of these

newly independent nations had restructured their own immigration and citizenship policies while

Britain had continued to maintain its open system, which was of detriment to a general public

that was not disillusioned and had developed resentment to these non-reciprocated advantages.17

The undisclosed journalist for this article clearly supported the points Powell made and helped

convey to the masses popular discontent. Powell‟s speeches at this point were still tame and were

“acceptable” to the moderate stance of his Conservative party. The article ends with “‟Let it

break up then, so much the better‟” in regard to the Commonwealth, as the author adopts the tone

of Enoch Powell‟s urgency and need for resolution of public grievance.18

On the other hand,

comments like these following his „Rivers of Blood‟ speech would not have been presented so

emphatically, as the tone could be spun as anarchist and extremist.

16 "Mr. Powell Criticizes Hypocrisy Over Commonwealth," Times [London, England] 15 Jan. 1966, The

Times Digital Archive.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.



8

Those two themes of antipathy and legal fiction resonate in ways far beyond the

argument for immigration reform. Within Enoch Powell, there was a growing antipathy towards

his own party leadership. Edward Heath, the man at the helm, was weak. He fit in well with the

political consensus that had persisted since the end of World War II. The words uttered by Heath

to the masses were just legal fiction, a pandering hoopla of word vomit without any actual

significance. In the words of Lord Brooke, former Conservative Home secretary, concerning

Heath, Brooke stated “the plain fact is that we cannot drift on as we are doing, but that seems to

be Government policy.”19

His political voice itself was resonant of the hypocrisy throughout the

Commonwealth. It was men such as Heath that led Powell to proclaim Britain a “nation busily

engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”.20

This also referenced the Sikh bus strike that

occurred in Wolverhampton over disputes about the dress code required to be a conductor, which

Sikh turbans violated; one vocal Sikh leader, Sohan Sing Jolly, even proceeded with threats of

self-immolation, ie lighting himself on fire, and eventually resulted in the Transport Committee

capitulating and relaxing its rules for the immigrants.21

To Powell, this was merely a reflection of

the example being set by the major parties. By compromising on race issues, Powell feared the

power of politicians would become legal fiction.

The density of non-white immigrants in Powell‟s constituency of Wolverhampton and the

rest of the Midlands was of particular alarm. In nearby Smethwick, Peter Griffiths had won the

1964 General Election for M.P. on a racist anti-immigration platform due to the high

19 "Migrant Towns at 'Bursting Point'," The Guardian (1959-2003), 11 Dec. 1968, ProQuest Historical

Newspapers.

20 Enoch Powell, “Rivers of Blood” (speech, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968), The Telegraph.


21 Peter Brooke, “India, Post-Imperialism and the Origins of Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' Speech,”

Historical Journal 50, No. 3 (Sep. 2007): 681.



9

concentrations of colored immigrants resident in the town.22

The campaign slogan employed by

Griffiths, “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour”, had stirred a political fervor in the

Conservative party due to its derogatory nature, while Griffiths claimed it was a manifestation of

public sentiment.23

The election even spurred a visit from the famous militant black rights

activist Malcolm X the following year, fermenting the racial atmosphere into which Powell‟s

„Rivers of Blood‟ finds context.24

The characteristic moderation of British race relation politics

had been explicitly challenged and did not go unnoticed by Powell, who wrote in the Sunday

Telegraph that this served to confirm his belief that immigration was one of the most pressing

issues of the times.

25

This fear of dark strangers was very real for working class whites in the

Midlands who felt threatened by the competition non-white immigration presented to finding

housing and jobs. In a speech by Powell at Brighton in 1967, he warned of the mobs of colored

immigrants sure to flow into Britain following Kenya‟s new “Africanization” policy.26

It was the

duality of citizenship claimed by independent nations of the Commonwealth, who had yet to be

denied British citizenship, that Powell felt required bold steps to prevent. The author, George

Clark, also reflected Powell‟s urgency to address the situation, while admitting the projected

mass migration had yet to occur. The fear that new policies in Kenya might result in Asian

Kenyans being underprivileged reflected the fear white Britons had about the future prospects of

race relations should colored immigrants gain significant numbers. The moderate immigration

22 Joe Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the Af rican American Freedom Struggle on

British Race Relations in the 1960s,” Journal of Black Studies 38, No. 6 (Jul., 2008): 932.

23 Ibid., 937.

24 Ibid., 932.

25 Ibid.

26 George Clark, "Immigration net loosened," Times [London, England] 19 Oct. 1967. The Times Digital

Archive.



10

reform policies employed by the major parties were emphasized as clearly insufficient to the

drastic changes occurring within the Commonwealth. While the author respects and reflects the

opinion of Powell, he also noted that Powell‟s speech likely intensified fears that the Kenyans

looking to immigrate had better before it‟s too late.27

Prior to Powell‟s „Rivers of Blood‟ speech, his party and the press respected the views he

presented and typically reinforced his opinions for the masses. The shift of perception following

his speech is glaring and reveals much about the strict parameters in place for politicians of the

time. It was on April 20th

that Enoch Powell chose to take a stand for the people of his

constituency and for his own ideological foundations while simultaneously incinerating his

position within the Conservative party and press favorability. Enoch Powell understood that it

was his duty to stand by what he felt to be true, as “the discussion of future grave…but avoidable

evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the

politician.”28

The evil he foresaw was that of the colored immigrant and the profound shift he

saw their increasing numbers creating, a “total transformation to which there is no parallel in a

thousand years of English history.”29 While the speech can definitely be interpreted as racialist,

moral judgments aside, Enoch Powell‟s speech was an attempt to force both major parties to

acknowledge that race was a real issue within British society for the constituencies they

represented and the moderate stance they employed was useless in resolving the issue. Nora

Beloff, a writer for The Observer , noted changing tides, as “in the present climate of Tory

27 Ibid.

28 Enoch Powell, “R ivers of Blood” (speech, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968), The Telegraph.


29 Ibid.



11

opinion, Mr. Heath may have to choose between conciliating the Rightists or being ousted by

them.”30

It was time to pick sides and make significant changes.

The speech put him directly at odds with Edward Heath, his superior, and he was quickly

put in his place the following day as he was dismissed from the Shadow Cabinet.31

April 22nd

produced a number of press reports about the speech and subsequent dismissal that reveal the

shifting tide of how both the Conservative party and the press would portray Powell going

forward. The initial press report entitled “Mr. Powell Filled With Foreboding on Immigrants”

was one of the last neutral presentations Powell would receive from The Times, as the article

presented mostly Powell‟s words in the speech and left interpretation to readers.

32

This article

served to embroil the Conservative party with the ideologies presented by Powell. As such, it

prompted a response by the Conservative party on the words put forth by Powell, exactly as he

had intended. The public would now see the race question enter the political arena, which Powell

had successfully polarized.

Two other postings in The Times that day help to reveal the poles Powell had illuminated.

Not all of the Conservative party was so quick to forsake Powell. John Jennings, a member of

Parliament from Burton, spoke of the “tragedy” of Powell‟s dismissal from the Shadow Cabinet,

he being “one of the few men who really abide by fundamental Tory principles” yet the “so-

called progressives…are still allowed full rein,” a clear reference to Heath‟s leadership.33

John

Jennings reveals the unrest within the Conservative party about the direction of party politics

30 Nora Beloff, "Will Enoch Powell Save Harold Wilson?" The Observer (1901- 2003), 16 June 1968,

ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

31 Brooke, 669.

32 "Mr. Powell filled with foreboding on immigrants," Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968, The Times

Digital Archive.

33 “Tory MP speaks of „tragedy‟.” Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968. The Times Digital Archive.



12

under leaders such as Heath, with the use of “so-called progressives” to show the abandonment

of principle has led to a false persona for the party, one that stands for nothing. As insult to

injury for Heath, the article includes the comments of Jeremy Thorpe, Liberal Party lead, saying

he “must applaud Mr. Heath‟s firm dissociation from the views of Mr. Powell”, views that other

Conservatives applauded while also showing the confluence of both major parties‟ leadership to

actively avoid the race question.34

In a post that same day by David Wood, a respected political

editor of The Times, took up arms for Heath as the two attacked the “racialist speech” in an

attempt to clarify where the Conservative party and Tories within it stood on race, this being on

the eve prior to inter-party debate on the coming Race Relations Bill of 1968.

35

The article gives

extensive coverage of Heath‟s response to the speech he felt was “racialist in tone, and liable to

exacerbate racial tensions”, as Heath claimed “the extreme tone and personalization of the issues

adopted by Mr. Powell threatened to make it almost impossible for Mr. Maudling and Mr. Hogg

to keep the party on a rational and even course” unless he “demonstrated where the Tory

leadership stood in the race controversy.”36

While these justifications are perfectly logical, they

merely serve to reinforce the goals Powell had when crafting the „Rivers of Blood‟ speech. The

“rational and even course” of the current Shadow Cabinet based on the principle of moderation

was exactly what Powell sought to disrupt with a strong assertion of values and disregard for

Cabinet approval of his materials.37

John Jennings figures handily in contradicting where Heath‟s

34 Ibid.

35 David Wood, "Powell out of Shadow Cabinet," Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968, The Times

Digital Archive.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.



13

“Tory leadership stood” versus the beliefs of Tories within the party.38

With the “personalization

of the issues”, Powell looked to speak as the voice of his constituents, as the “tragedy” article

included the words of Sidney Miller, a plasterer in Powell‟s Wolverhampton constituency, who

stated “Mr. Powell said in his speech exactly what I felt. I feel he was talking for most of the

people in Wolverhampton.”39

Clearly, Enoch Powell had not pulled these ideas out of left field

but rather had vocalized voices party leadership chose not to hear.

As the dust had time to settle, Conservative party leadership and the press alike began to

formulate strategies to squash public support for Enoch Powell. Ian Trethowan, a close friend of

Heath‟s, published an article for The Times six days after the speech that constructed a new

profile for Enoch Powell, one that would characterize press interpretations for many months to

come and bolster support for Heath as the party helmsman.40

Trethowan attacked the character of

Enoch Powell and paints his Birmingham speech as manipulative and incendiary. The tone and

language used is downright mean, as Trethowan wrote at one point in regard to party leadership,

“I know of at least one M.P. who voted for him…for fear he might suffer the humiliation of a

single figure return”.41 While meant to undermine Powell‟s political weight, anyone with a bit of

empathy would see the bully tactics being employed to punish Powell for stepping out of line.

Trethowan, clearly in line with Heath‟s leadership and authoritarian role atop the Conservative

party, continues with “a straightforward man would not have made the Birmingham speech

38 Ibid.

39 “Tory MP speaks of „tragedy‟.” Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968. The Times Digital Archive.

40Brian Wenham, “Trethowan, Sir (James) Ian Raley (1922– 1990),” H. C. G. Matthew in Oxford

Dictionary of National Biography, eds. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Online ed., ed. Lawrence Goldman

(Oxford: OUP, 2004).

41Ian Trethowan, "Mr Enoch Powell: a Cromwell or a Goldwater?," Times [London, England] 26 Apr.

1968, The Times Digital Archive.



14

without consulting his Shadow Cabinet colleagues”, colleagues that would not have allowed

Powell to have such a voice.42

Trethowan even bashes Powell‟s physical appearance as an

indicator of his bad nature, speaking of “his bony face, the out of date moustache, above all the

pale, gleaming eyes”, a description worthy of a horror movie specter.43

To encapsulate the ideal

image the article looked to create, Trethowan lays it out explicitly that Powell is “at best a

fanatic, at worst a demagogue”. In the span of six days, Enoch Powell had gone from Shadow

Cabinet member to public enemy number one, at least in the opinion of the press and political

elites.

The coming months would result in a barrage of attacks by the press and Conservative

party leadership to diminish the impact Powell had on the state of race relations and immigration

reform in the face of the Race Relations Act that would come in late October 1968. Quintin

Hogg and Edward Heath mounted an aggressive campaign to maintain “moderation as the

hallmark of our country and the burden of our Conservative faith”, while using the press to

consistently denigrate Enoch Powell‟s views.44

In an article printed October 11, 1968, Hoggs is

quoted to be “pleading” with Enoch Powell to avoid “racial extremism”, portraying Powell as if

he were a terrorist that needed to be talked down.45

In a sense, Powell was a terrorist to the

moderate practices employed by Conservative party leadership, yet a vigilante of the public

cause. It is ironic that a post in The Times on November 18, 1968 had the headline “Mr. Heath

Condemns racial „character assassination‟”, as he worked jointly with the press to do just that to

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 "Hogg plea to Powell to avoid racial extremism," Times [London, England] 11 Oct. 1968, The Times

Digital Archive.

45 Ibid.



15

Powell, assassinate his character.46

The article set out to belittle the views set forth by Powell

while clarifying where the Conservative party stood, as the “Party of the Family”, as well as

voice Labour party opinions that Powell should be reprimanded for inciting racial tensions.47

Family meant very little to Edward Heath, as he cast Powell aside as would a Spartan an

unwanted child. It is also very peculiar that Powell is blamed for inciting racial tensions, as if

they had never existed prior to his speeches, an issue both parties chose not to bring onto the

political agenda.

This “synthetic heat”, as Patrick Wall would term it in an editorial for The Times in late

1968, was the idea that Powell‟s speeches had somehow created a problem that never existed lay

at the root of what the press and both major parties‟ leadership looked to present to the public.48

In his editorial, Patrick Wall reaffirmed that Enoch Powell had been deriving his views from the

basic principles of the Conservative party, those being to cut the rate of inflow, give those

already in Britain full rights, and assist the repatriation of those who wished to leave Britain.49

While the degree to which action was required may have differed throughout the party, Wall

claimed that wasn‟t what the fuss was about.50 “The problem is whether we like the difference in

degrees. Those to blame are not Enoch Powell but those in government in the postwar period

who did nothing until it was too late.”51

With this statement, Wall effectively blames the political

46 "Mr. Heath condemns racial 'character assassination'," Times [London, England] 18 Nov. 1968, The


47 Ibid.

48 Patrick Wall, "The Powell Speech: Too Much Synthetic Heat," Times [London, England] 20 Nov. 1968,

The Times Digital Archive.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.



16

system for why the problems of race relations and colored immigration exist and the media for

cultivating the “synthetic heat” necessary to divert this blame to Enoch Powell.52

This diversion

of blame still permeates British society today, with many academics still incorrectly blaming

Enoch Powell for the lasting race issues facing Britain. Historian Mark Christian makes the

claim that Enoch Powell created the anti-immigrant xenophobia that still exists today, yet careful

analysis reveals Powell was a vessel to bring discussion to the table, a voice to a public agenda

that was not being heard.53

The drastic change in tone employed by Enoch Powell had explosive ramifications for

British politics and society on the issues of color and immigration. No longer would the

leadership of both the Labour and Conservative parties be allowed to ignore these issues.

Moderation had led to a stifling of political action as well as the development of stiffly

hierarchical party structures that punished variance of opinion. Enoch Powell was a strong willed

man who became disgusted at the charade political elites and the press played with the public to

shape political discourse. He was a man still in touch with his constituency and had as much love

for his nation as any Briton. His experiences of the post-imperial age gave him valuable

perspective on the prospects of immigration and his acute ability to make sense of numbers made

him a viable asset to rationalizing the need for reform. In the end, Enoch Powell would never be

Prime Minister and is to this day attributed with false assumptions of creating racial tension,

where in reality, he was the only man brave enough to confront the issue head on. Powell‟s

character, credibility, and moral judgment would go through a battery of attacks by both major

parties and the press, making him a populist martyr and helping to reveal the deep divide that had

52 Ibid.

53 Mark Christian, “The Politics of Black Presence in Britain and Black Male Exclusion in the British

Education System,” Journal of Black Studies 35, No. 3 (Jan. 2005): 332.



17

developed, not just between the races, but between those chosen to represent the people and the

people themselves.



18

I. Primary

Beloff, Nora. "Will Enoch Powell Save Harold Wilson?" The Observer (1901- 2003), 16 June1968. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Beloff addresses the anonymous writings of „C‟ in the Times and the call for a fundamental political realignment. She notes the shifts induced by Enoch Powell as Labour shifted left towardsocialism while Conservatives shifted right, providing Harold Wilson the center.

Beloff, Nora. "Powell Speech 'a Recipe for Civil Strife'." The Observer (1901- 2003), 17 Nov.1968. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Beloff relays MP responses to a speech delivered by Enoch Powell at Eastbourne a day prior.

Many believed the speech to be Powell jostling for leadership while others clarified it was asuccessful attempt to force open discussion on the race issue.

Clark, George. "Immigration net loosened." Times [London, England] 19 Oct. 1967. The Times Digital Archive.

Enoch Powell addresses loopholes in the current Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962. With

its broad, open ended policy, political leaders such as Powell were necessary to ensure that policy could keep up with the changing international relations of the times.

"Hogg plea to Powell to avoid racial extremism." Times [London, England] 11 Oct. 1968. TheTimes Digital Archive.

In a Conservative Party conference, the keynote speakers were dealing with the issue of

immigration and how to address policymaking towards it. The conference illustrated the delicateline that the Conservative Party had to toe in order to deal with immigrants and turmoil ridden

race relations.

Jenkins, Peter. “Enoch, Enoch, who‟s there?” The Guardian (1959-2003), 8 Oct. 1968. ProQuest


Jenkins discusses the explosion of interest in Enoch Powell and the Powellite grass roots

movement‟s effect on Conservative party policy on immigration and race relations. He also

reveals the rift between grass roots and Parliament.

"Migrant Towns at 'Bursting Point'." The Guardian (1959-2003), 11 Dec. 1968. ProQuest


This article provides credibility to Enoch Powell‟s urgent stance for immigration reform as otherMPs deal with high immigrant density. Parliament is stated to be out of touch with the feelings of

people in towns most affected and being interested in continuity versus positive change.



19

"Mr. Heath condemns racial 'character assassination'." Times [London, England] 18 Nov. 1968.

The Times Digital Archive.

This article shows Heath trying to quell Labour accusations that Conservatives were using race

as the basis for character assassination. Heath speaks of easing racial tensions and promoting

harmony. This is very useful in showing that party affiliation, particularly the Conservative party, had differing ideologies and that Powell‟s sharp commentary resulted in troubles for other party leaders and would lead to a splintering of ties.

"Mr. Powell Criticizes Hypocrisy Over Commonwealth." Times [London, England] 15 Jan.1966. The Times Digital Archive.

Powell states that the interests of Britain are only supported by nations of the Commonwealth

when those interests align with their own. He contrasts this conditional allegiance with theunconditional terms under which Commonwealth citizens are treated as citizens of Britain. This

rationalizes the need to reevaluate Britain‟s policies on international relations.

"Mr. Powell filled with foreboding on immigrants." Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968. The


This article comes on the heels of Enoch Powell‟s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech. It helps toclarify Powell‟s adherence to three of the tenants of Conservative policy in regard to immigration

while expressing he had full intention of staying in the Conservative policy. Party leads, such as

Edward Heath, would respond aggressively.

Powell, Enoch. “Rivers of Blood.” Speech, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968. The

Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-

Blood-speech.html.

Considered the turning point in race relations debates as well as immigration reform, the speech

electrified the political arena and forced responses by both parties. The speech was deliberatelyintended to create strong feelings, whether in agreement or not, to break the stifling atmosphere

of the political consensus and the fallacy of moderation.

“Tory MP speaks of „tragedy‟.” Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968. The Times Digital

Archive.

This article provides a counterargument to the dogged attacks on Enoch Powell‟s „Rivers ofBlood‟ speech as being simply a means to gain notoriety. The words of Powell‟s

constituency are included as well as Tory support for the speech. Powell also clarifies the

deliberate intention of every word and bucks subversion to Heath‟s weak policies.



20

Trethowan, Ian. "Mr Enoch Powell: a Cromwell or a Goldwater?" Times [London, England] 26

Apr. 1968. The Times Digital Archive.

Trethowan, a close friend of Heath, took up the role of creating a negative persona for Powell,

positing character flaws and questioning the sincerity of Powell‟s beliefs. Trethowan paints a

picture of Powell as a political outcast with no Tory support in an attempt to promote Heath andturn the public against Powell. This was one of the first explicit attacks by the Times on Powellfollowing the „Rivers of Blood‟ speech.

"Unions, MPs, and Dockers Line Up." The Guardian (1959-2003), 27 Apr. 1968. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

This article communicates the activism and responses of politicians and the general public due to

the „Rivers of Blood‟ speech. Multiple trade unions had marched and petitioned in support ofPowell while simultaneously, students had marched on his house chanting for his death. The

hubbub and discussion Powell looked to arouse had been successful.

Wall, Patrick. "The Powell Speech: Too Much Synthetic Heat." Times [London, England] 20

Nov. 1968. The Times Digital Archive.

In this editorial, Wall feels the need to defend Powell from the derogatory presentations created by the press. The „Rivers of Blood‟ speech provided the press and parties a scapegoat for race

and immigration issues, blaming him rather than their own sensationalism and political inaction

on the issues.

Wood, David. "Powell out of Shadow Cabinet." Times [London, England] 22 Apr. 1968. The


Wood writes up a formal justification for Heath‟s dismissal of Powell as a threat to the party

leadership and ideals, while condemning the racial tone implied in the „Rivers of Blood‟

speech. Wood conveyed the urgency of Conservative unity before the coming debate onthe Race Relations Bill. The article prevented an ambush by Labour officials.



21

II. Secondary

Brooke, Peter. “India, Post-Imperialism and the Origins of Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood'Speech.” The Historical Journal 50, No. 3 (Sep. 2007): 669-687.

Brooke claims Powell‟s primary concern with his speeches of 1968 was not freeing Britain fromthe empire but to address his true worries over the „curse of India‟, the threat of „communalism‟to democracy. Brooke benefitted greatly from the help of Richard Ritchie, Powell‟s personal

archivist for 30 years. Brooke provides a chronological development of Powell‟s views on

immigration and the role of empire in the context of global events relating to race.

Christian, Mark. “The Politics of Black Presence in Britain and Black Male Exclusion in the

British Education System.” Journal of Black Studies 35, No. 3 (Jan. 2005): 327-346.

Christian addresses the institutionalized racism that contemporary British society has been forced

to confront. Christian argues that the efforts of Enoch Powell to exploit the fears of the British

working class in his 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech helped to create an anti-immigrantxenophobia that still permeates British society today.

Freeman, Gary P. “Migration and the Political Economy of the Welfare State.” Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 485 (May 1986): 51-63.

Freeman analyzes the role that a welfare state‟s closed system plays in regard to immigration.

Welfare states are dependent on membership, posing the political issue of who is amember versus who is not, ie. citizenship. National welfare states inherently cannot

coexist with the free movement of labor.

Hartesveldt, Fred R. van. “Race and Political Parties in Britain, 1954-1965.” Phylon 44, No. 2(Spring 1983): 126-134.

Hartesveldt traces the development of racism in Britain in the post-war period and how bothmajor political parties attempted to grapple with it. He felt that both parties dealt with the

issue inadequately and abandoned their own traditions for vote garnishment.

McNeil, Daniel. “'The rivers of Zimbabwe will run red with blood': Enoch Powell and the Post-

Imperial Nostalgia of the Monday Club.” Journal of Southern African Studies 37, No. 4

(December 2011): 731-745.

McNeil covers the topic of fading imperial Britain and the emergence of independent African

nations and the role of white and non-white race relations throughout the commonwealth.

McNeil claims that the Monday Club formed in the 1960s clung to three strains of post-colonial

melancholia: that racial intermixture leads to violence and economic instability, the importanceof strong white rule in limiting racial violence and industrial retardation, and attempting to seize

the position of the victim, that of reverse discriminatory practices on western civilization.

Messina, Anthony M. Race and Party Competition in Britain. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1989.



22

Messina argues that the post-1958 politics of race in Britain are linked to a post-war political

consensus formed between the Consevative and Labour parties that drastically altered inter-partyinteractions. Consequently, the link led to the parties forming a bipartisan racial consensus and

subsequently prohibiting political party competition on race-related issues between 1964 and

1975Messina relied heavily on Gallup polls and numerical studies done by Don Studlar thatreveal a divergence between elite political agendas and voters‟ concerns. This monographreveals what could be termed a borderline conspiracy as the political parties actively worked

together to the detriment of the general public and the exacerbation of race related issues rather

than their abatement.

Owen, Nicholas. “The Conservative Party and Indian Independence, 1945-1947.” The Historical

Journal 46, No. 2 (June 2003): 403-436.

Owen addresses the Conservative response to the Indian independence movement of the mid-

1940s. This article shows the first issues faced by party politics in the postwar era about Britain‟s

imperial legacy and what to do in the increasingly unpopular colonial sentiments of the time.This article also provides a great framework for the Conservative party structure that would

come together to deal with Commonwealth diplomacy in the following decades and redefine

Conservatism in modern terms.

Rutherford, Jonathan. Forever England: Reflections on Masculinity and Empire. London:

Lawrence & Wishart, 1997.

In this work, the issues of class, gender, and race relations in England during and after the post-

Imperial age are addressed. This work is valuable to my project in that it gives insight into the

motivations of Enoch Powell and provides a baseline to decipher whether his anti-immigration

policies were racist, practical or merely a reflection of the English identity.

Smith, Evan. “"Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar

Race Relations.” Science & Society 72, No. 4 (Oct. 2008): 455-481.

Smith addresses the Communist Party of Great Britain‟s role in antiracism in the postwar era

between the 1940s and the early 1980s. Smith reveals the inadequacy of political representationgiven to black immigrants and the failings of the CPGB to embrace the growing importance of

race relations in Britain in the controversial period following imperialism.

Solomos, John. Race and Racism in Britain. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1993.

Solomos urges scholars and general audiences to broaden their grasp of racism from

generalizations and assumptions to a context in which racialization is shaped as a political

process. Through all the legislative measures produced by the government, Solomos reveals thatthe ambitious nature perceived has not been substantiated and British society has not progressed

much in the decades since the initial legislation. This work is bountiful in additions to my

research in its historical linkage of race to immigration, competing theories on why the major parties pressed so heavily, and why these acts were not all that they appeared.



23

Street, Joe. “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom

Struggle on British Race Relations in the 1960s.” Journal of Black Studies 38, No. 6 (Jul.,

2008): 932-950.

This article addresses the political campaigning of Peter Griffiths in the 1964 Smethwick

elections, Malcolm X‟s subsequent visit to the small town, and the political atmosphere thatarose out of these events, in which Powell‟s „Rivers of Blood‟ speech finds context. TheSmethwick Telephone is used extensively and helps to reveal the role the press played in

accommodating the politicization of immigration and especially race in British politics.

Studlar, Donley T. “British Public Opinion, Colour Issues, and Enoch Powell: A Longitudinal

Analysis.” British Journal of Political Science 4, No. 3 (Jul., 1974): 371-381.

Studlar focuses on British public opinion on coloured immigration and race relations during the period from 1959 to 1972. This article is invaluable in its proximity to the legislative reforms on

immigration as well as proving the distance to be found between political elites and the public at

large.

Toye, Richard. “From 'Consensus' to 'Common Ground': The Rhetoric of the Postwar Settlement

and its Collapse.” Journal of Contemporary History 48, No. 1 (Jan. 2013): 3-23.

Toye notes a trend in British politics towards decreasing political conflict and increasing political

consensus. The consensus was used by the political establishment to shut out alternative opinions

at the cost of public support. In the 1960s, right wing Conservatives attacked the rhetoric ofconsensus, preferring a common ground shared with the people than a middle ground found

between politicians.

Trelford, Donald. “Beloff, (Leah) Nora (1919 –1997).” Donald Trelford in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Online ed., edited

by Lawrence Goldman. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Trelford provides a biography of Nora Beloff, with particular highlights being her appointment

as the first female political correspondent of a British newspaper as well as her

commitment to the truth finding enemies such as Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Wilsonmet with her editor advocating Beloff‟s dismissal and hinted the government was keeping

her under surveillance.

Wallman, Sandra. “The Boundaries of 'Race': Processes of Ethnicity in England.” Man 13, No. 2(June 1978): 200-217.

Wallman gives a comprehensive look at how England used the terms race and ethnicity in the

post-war period to create an „us‟ and a „them‟, „them‟ being the non-white outsiders. Theconcept of race was vigorously manipulated by both the Left and the Right, while modern

mass media helped to disseminate these divisive viewpoints.



24

Waters, Chris. “"Dark Strangers" in Our Midst: Discourses of Race and Nation in Britain, 1947-

1963.” Journal of British Studies 36, No. 2 (Apr. 1997): 207-238.

Waters speaks of the erosion of national unity following World War II and the great imperial age

with a new definition of citizenship in the new, multiethnic Commonwealth, where race played a

pivotal role in the new sense of national belonging. The concepts of “hosts” versus “strangers”helped create a new British identity in which color would be the defining factor.

Wenham, Brian. “Trethowan, Sir (James) Ian Raley (1922 –1990).” H. C. G. Matthew in Oxford

Dictionary of National Biography, edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison.Online ed., edited by Lawrence Goldman. Oxford: OUP, 2004.

Wenham provides a biography of Trethowan, who was a trustworthy journalist and would

become head of the BBC. His close friendship to Edward Heath is essential to understanding the picture he painted of Enoch Powell, as well as his adherence to one-nation Conservatism.

the people's champ

Documents