- This topic has 4 voices and 19 replies.
-
Posts
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.htmlPowell has been accused of being a racist with this speech. I may need to reread it slowly and carefully again, but I just don't see the racism here. Instead I see a sincere and dire warning of multiculturalism.
Depending on interpretationIn context:http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/20/newsid_2489000/2489357.stm
I too do not see anything racist in the speech but I can see how others could. There is a segment of Western society that thinks anyone defending the West by definition must be a racist because they see nothing good or redeeming in Western society or culture.
You are absolutely right, such a speech is not racist at all !! You have the right to protect your values, beliefs, customs and everything that make you real citizens in your community. Lucky that you could overwhelmed those feathered natives and implement the real values ! Who do they think they are ? You came in America by God's will !
Lucky that you could overwhelmed those feathered natives and implement the real values ! Who do they think they are ? You came in America by God's will !
Powell is talking about Great Britain here, not America.
Lucky that you could overwhelmed those feathered natives and implement the real values ! Who do they think they are ? You came in America by God's will !
Powell is talking about Great Britain here, not America.
Are you a Briton ?
After reading that speech, I didn't find anything “racist”. All I found is fear… TMHO Powell's speech is based on fear.
Lucky that you could overwhelmed those feathered natives and implement the real values ! Who do they think they are ? You came in America by God's will !
It wasn't luck, it was superior firepower and doctrine. I am a right of conquest guy so I will not be made to feel bad when the weak subdue the strong. I might even go so far as to say I am somewhat of a Social Darwinist. If the West goes under, it will largely be our own fault and for many of the reason's outlined in Powell's speech.
It wasn't luck, it was superior firepower and doctrine. I am a right of conquest guy so I will not be made to feel bad when the weak subdue the strong. I might even go so far as to say I am somewhat of a Social Darwinist. If the West goes under, it will largely be our own fault and for many of the reason's outlined in Powell's speech.
When I mentioned America, my purpose was to highlight the fact that, once upon a time, you were migrants as well. But the history of America is another debate.What I wanted to provoke, was a kind of reflexion : those condemning immigrants, seem to forget they were migrants themselves (why the Puritans fled?). Call it Social Darwinism, it doesn't matter much to me.What is shocking in Powell's attitude is his intolerance. Intolerance towards difference, intolerance towards Britain's history, intolerance towards what was against his personal goals. His views are not universal but local; for a man looking for a nationwide status, his speech fell a bit short hence his eviction.Nonetheless Powell's prediction that "by the year 2000, up to seven million people living in Britain would be of ethnic descent" wasn't correct: none of his worst scenarii happened (any granny invaded by hords of immigrants?)Powell was against everything that would imply tolerance. Disraeli and Splendid Isolation are over.Immigration is a major historical, yet current influence and integral part of how nations continue to grow and change in population and diversity. http://www.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/immigrants-immigration
What is shocking in Powell's attitude is his intolerance. Intolerance towards difference, intolerance towards Britain's history, intolerance towards what was against his personal goals. His views are not universal but local; for a man looking for a nationwide status, his speech fell a bit short hence his eviction.Nonetheless Powell's prediction that "by the year 2000, up to seven million people living in Britain would be of ethnic descent" wasn't correct: none of his worst scenario happened (any granny invaded by hords of immigrants?)Powell was against everything that would imply tolerance.
Omer, Name me a historical example where immigration without integration was not ultimately destructive to the society the immigrants came to? I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The argument, today and at the root of Powell's speech, is not ultimately against immigration, it is against immigrants who do not integrate. This is an old debate and those that advocate multiculturalism fail to grasp that people like me do not object to immigration, we object to people who immigrate and then try to change the society they arrive at into the one they left. If it was so good, why did they leave in the first place? The recent debates about the veil in France or the utilization of Sharia law within Europe are perfect examples of what I am talking about. These things are inconsistent with Western values; the West should not be forced to change to accommodate aliens, it should be the other way around.Before you go there, I disagree with the west trying to impose our Western values on other countries. We got our current systems by degree, we should let others do the same as well. We can help reformers but imposing reform by force is not true reform. We should stay out of others' business unless out own national or regional interests are at stake.
and the speech isn't only about immigration, it is also about non-productive immigrants who come to the nation to get free stuff like health care.
Omer, Name me a historical example where immigration without integration was not ultimately destructive to the society the immigrants came to? I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The argument, today and at the root of Powell's speech, is not ultimately against immigration, it is against immigrants who do not integrate. This is an old debate and those that advocate multiculturalism fail to grasp that people like me do not object to immigration, we object to people who immigrate and then try to change the society they arrive at into the one they left. If it was so good, why did they leave in the first place? The recent debates about the veil in France or the utilization of Sharia law within Europe are perfect examples of what I am talking about. These things are inconsistent with Western values; the West should not be forced to change to accommodate aliens, it should be the other way around.Before you go there, I disagree with the west trying to impose our Western values on other countries. We got our current systems by degree, we should let others do the same as well. We can help reformers but imposing reform by force is not true reform. We should stay out of others' business unless out own national or regional interests are at stake.
I have an example : Early Christians and Rome.(Another example (less obvious) : the Wisigoths and Rome. (reasons for the shift from foederati to enemy of Rome))This discussion was about Powell's speech on immigration. If you want to talk about immigration and integration, it's another debate and, yes, I do agree with you about this. However, strictly speaking, nothing in Powell's speech is namely about integration but immigration only.
Both examples are wrong. There is a large percentage of historians, me among them, that would argue that Christianity was at least partially responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. The Christians certainly subverted many of the ancient Roman institutions. The Wisigoths subdued and then supplanted the native Italians while maintaining some of the forms of the Empire, they certainly did not sustain it or do it any good.As I read it, Powell's speech is both decrying the levels of immigration and the lack of integration of current immigrants. He proposes to stop the flow of immigration and create a method to send those that fail to integrate back home. Both issues are tied up with his speech. The section of powells speech where he talks about the old lady and her rooming house is directly speaking about the lack of integration by immigrants.
Both examples are wrong. There is a large percentage of historians, me among them, that would argue that Christianity was at least partially responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. The Christians certainly subverted many of the ancient Roman institutions. The Wisigoths subdued and then supplanted the native Italians while maintaining some of the forms of the Empire, they certainly did not sustain it or do it any good.
Large percentage of historians : References and evidences are welcome 🙂 If you say "partially", it's not totally so my example is still valid.About the Wisigoths, what were the reasons for that ? Were they not allied ? Who or what caused that shift ?
