Talk:Rivers of Blood speech

Maybe

maybe i'm just a squemish liberal but i don't realy like having a national front link on this page. A text is a text, but the NF are not a good site for any information...

My initial reaction too but reflected that it's a free speech thing and people can make up their own minds. I couldn't find any libertarian sites hosting the speech.Cutler 20:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It seems NPOV to me... I'll host it! (ricjl 10:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))

It's available at Wikisource Spike iron 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Why is this separate from Enoch Powell? Surely these patagraphs don't make sense except as part of his career? Wetman 00:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of material

I'm afraid you can't really just go and cut out the balance of view because it doesn't fit with one's ideals - neutral doesn't mean subscribing to this ridiculous notion that any mention of racial tensions is taboo. Since you have the side of the argument that the speech should immediately be condemned (not exactly neutral), you have to then balance it out with the possibility that it contained elements of truth. Powell's speech can be interpreted in many different ways and I think a lot of people can appreciate the message that failing to integrate another culture into your own can cause problems - for example Pakistan's ambassador to the UN's recent comments. [1]

You are invited to write such a topic. Make sure it is well sourced and written factually and I'm sure no reasonable man will object. Impartiality shall reign (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of last paragraph of speech

The immediately preeding sentence an part of the paragraph is "For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish." Rich Farmbrough 19:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be added!

• The woman who never was? by the BBC. "Enoch Powell's infamous 'rivers of blood' speech at a Conservative Party meeting in Birmingham in 1968 marked both the end of his chances of holding ministerial office and the birth of an enduring mystery. In that speech he quoted a letter which referred to the plight of an unnamed woman pensioner in his Wolverhampton constituency whose life had, he claimed, been ruined by immigration." Robert C Prenic 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Druscilla Cotterill

Please merge any relevant content from Druscilla Cotterill per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druscilla Cotterill. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:13Z

"References to the speech" section

I can't help but notice that all the given references to the speech are supportive ones - "Enoch was right", and so forth. Can't we include some of the negative references, which I think far more people may have used? I've hardly ever heard the "Rivers of Blood" speech referred to in a positive light.

WikiReaderer 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of critics, but few references in popular culture that are not supportive, because critics tend not to use it in that way. Bob Pervert 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify opinion poll figures

I've requested clarification re the opinion poll:

The Gallup Organization took an opinion poll at the end of April and found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed. 69% felt Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20% believed Heath was right. Before his speech Powell was favoured to replace Heath as Conservative leader by 1%, with Reginald Maudling favoured by 20%; after his speech 24% favoured Powell and 18% Maudling. 83% now felt immigration should be restricted (75% before the speech) and 65% favoured anti-discrimination legislation.

The last statistic goes against all the previous ones. Should it perhaps read "65% opposed anti-discrimination legislation"? Or "65% favoured discrimination legislation"? Or "65% favoured anti-anti-discrimination legislation"? If it means what it says, then the marked contrast needs to be highlighted better; perhaps:

The Gallup Organization took an opinion poll at the end of April and found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed. 69% felt Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20% believed Heath was right. Before his speech Powell was favoured to replace Heath as Conservative leader by 1%, with Reginald Maudling favoured by 20%; after his speech 24% favoured Powell and 18% Maudling. 83% now felt immigration should be restricted (75% before the speech). Nevertheless, 65% favoured anti-discrimination legislation.

jnestorius^(talk) 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Cabinet

Apparently what angered many Shadow Cabinet members, not least Ian Macleod and Quintin Hogg, was that Powell was a relatively silent member of the Shadow Cabinet, and had given them no indication at all that he would be making this speech. Millbanks (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

East Indians

I removed the last sentence in the Reaction section because of gratuitous political correctness. Powell made the mildly favorable East Indian comments for political cover. There is no indication of any such real conviction. I am currently reading a collection of essays and correspondence of Enoch Powell wherein he refers to East Indians as "monkeys." Powell later said too that the conservative classic Camp of the Saints (which criticizes the East Indian "invasion" of Europe) is one of the best novels ever written.--Elizabeth66 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion because the quote does not make sense without it. If Powell says he is "racialist in reverse" you can't leave it there, it doesn't make sense unless the explanation is quoted too. This is information relevant to the article from a verifiable source: you are removing it because you don't believe he was sincere. That is a POV, people should be left to judge for themselves whether he was sincere or not.--Johnbull (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that someone add the fact of the "monkeys" references in his writings, immediately after noting his quote claiming that East Indians are "superior". That seems most NPOV from where I sit. I'm not doing the action myself because I am completely new to learning of the speech, the man, or anything directly related, don't have firsthand knowledge of the "monkeys" quotes, and am not even a Brit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

De Valera speech

I think some note should be made on this page in reference to the speeches made by Éamon de Valera, the Irish leader, during the Irish Civil War which were known as the "Wading through Blood", or "Rivers of Blood" speeches. A quotation from De Valera can be found here. TheLopper (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Enoch Powell.GIF

The image File:Enoch Powell.GIF is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

wrong info

It was written in the Rivers of Blood speech that Powell proposed anti-discrimination legislation when in fact it was the contrary. His speech was racist, and he advocated against anti-discrimination legislation to "protect" the country from minority immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.86.97 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

The reasoning behind the protection of this article is discussed at Talk:Enoch_Powell#Edit_warring. Please discuss the issues there. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Worker Quotation

Shortly before the speech's 40th anniversary in 2008, the Socialist Worker newspaper condemned the speech as "the nastiest and most calculated piece of racism ever to be heard from the lips of a senior politician in postwar Britain" and blamed it for the rise of the then new founded National Front and the British National Party which was subsequently formed by some of the National Front's former members in 1982.[27

It is my opinion as stated in the removal of this quote that this paper is 1) Has a small readership rendering its views rather irrelevant 2) Largely biased and Socially divisive paper. Considering the status of this speech I don't feel such biased and under subscribed views should be included. Let's keep it to the mainstream papers and historians please. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Worker quote is properly sourced, so I am reverting your deletion. It was not me that originally added this passage (and I do not support the SWP) but theirs is a legitimate perspective and many people will at least agree with them on this issue. The article contains references to support Powell received from unsavoury far right groups (e.g. the white power rock band "Brutal Attack") and it is necessary that all sides of this debate are explained in order that the reader can see reaction to the speech in context. You say that the Socialist Worker is a "biased and socially divisive paper". Well that's exactly how some of us feel about Enoch Powell's speech. Your user page states that you are a "Conservative/Libertarian" who believes in "freedom of democracy". Do your libertarian and democratic values not include the right of anti racists to express their opinion? Multiculturalist (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Times newspaper declared it "an evil speech", stating "This is the first time that a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way in our postwar history."[16] The Times went on to record incidents of racial attacks in the immediate aftermath of Powell's speech. One such incident, reported under the headline "Coloured family attacked", took place on Tuesday 30 April in Wolverhampton itself: it involved a slashing incident with 14 white youths chanting "Powell" and "Why don't you go back to your own country" at patrons of a West Indian christening party. One of the West Indians who was cut, a Mr. Wade Crooks of Lower Villiers Street, was the child's grandfather. He had to have eight stitches over his left eye. He was reported as saying "I have been here since 1955 and nothing like this has happened before. I am shattered."[17] An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC television programme Panorama in December 1968 found that 8% of immigrants believed that they had been treated worse by white people since Powell's speech, 38% would like to return to their country of origin if offered financial help, 47% supported immigration control, with 30% opposed.[18]

Please read above. The overall view of the socialist worker is already highlighted and discussed in the article. Please refer to the previous comments I made about suitability of sources. Criticism is allowed but as you will see in the Wiki guidelines, it must be by a mainstream source or by a specialist historian. The only time minor sources are allowed on their own are generally with small articles on a specific topic, or with stubs. Seeing that this is a major part of the political history of this country, I do not class this article as either of those.

As for my own POV, if I had a political agenda or something to prove, I would have vandalised the article and removed the quote from the times, which essentially expressing the same view as the Socialist worker. It's a reliable source and a massively popular one. I understand your willingness to help, but I think you need to read a few more of the guidelines first.You don't have to be a socialist to be an anti fascist. And anyway, anti fascism is irrelevant her since Powell was not a fascist, just arguably racist. There is a huge difference. since Thank you for your understanding Alexandre8 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New round of edit warring

Once again I hae protected this article due to edit warring and once again there has been no discussion apart from in edit summaries. Discuss your issues here before you start edit wars please. Woody (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page abuse yet again from multiculturalism. I'm afraid your opinion has no place on here multi, just public consensus. The consensus is that you stop edit warring with this change. Thank you. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep away from personal comments and keep discussion to the issues at hand. Why do you think your version of the article is the correct one? Please give your reasoning and hopefully those who oppose your version will offer their rebuttal. Woody (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd just check his history you'd see what I mean. But point taken. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Woody - If you do check my history, please check previous versions of my TalkPage - because Alexandre8 has hidden some of the previous silly comments he made on this (including a grovelling apology he was forced to make to me on one occasion). Also, please check previous versions of his TalkPage - where he has hidden the numerous occasions on which he has been chastised for personal attacks etc. Turning to the issue of the edit warring on the Rivers of Blood article, I have simply added the word "claims" to clarify the fact that there was a dispute between Margaret Thatcher and Edward Heath as to whether she protested to Heath about the sacking of Enoch Powell. She says she did, Heath says she did not. As her claim to have objected is unsourced, I do not think it is right that we simply allow her supporters to make her version of events the standard factual one: surely at the very least they should be required to provide citation. There is a similar dispute on the Countryside Alliance article (Alexandre8 has been stalking me there, too) in that there is a series of blatantly pro-CA POV statements (e.g. "The Alliance champions rural businesses") with no citation provided. Alexandre8 has persistently reverted my editing of the pro-CA POV.Multiculturalist (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please remind yourself Multi that on the times you have been rebuked by me, you have been in the wrong with your edits as by public consenus as well. You're wrong here, you're wrong there. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not by public consensus, no. Your opinion does not equate to public consensus. Further more, I notice you have no answer to my assertion that the POV passage you wish to protect has no citation to back it up. Multiculturalist (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh you're just talking drivel now. Almost all your edits result in edit wars. Take a hint. Alexandre8 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, almost all of the edit wars I've been involved in also involve you (e.g. BNP, EDL, Rivers of Blood and now the Countryside Alliance). By the way, did you ever give Snowded an apology for accusing him of being a member of Unite Against Fascism?Multiculturalist (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

since when was your name snowed? shh already.Alexandre8 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

David Starkey

Either the reference to David Starkey should be expanded on to make the context of his comments clear, or it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Rivers of Blood"?

I can't help but think that this page is not properly titled. As contributors know, the phrase "rivers of blood" does not appear in the text (nor could it have, as the phrase does not appear in the Aeneid.) In the various published collections of Powell's speeches (e.g., Reflections of a Statesman, Enoch at 100), the speech, which Powell gave on April 20, 1968, is simply referred to as an "Address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre."

Perhaps "Rivers of Blood" could remain the page's title but the first paragraph could go something like this:

Enoch Powell's April 20, 1968 address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre (commonly called the "Rivers of Blood" speech") was a speech. . .

Does this seem reasonable? Stealstrash (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's reasonable. The "Rivers of blood" can remain in bold, though, as the speech is known under that name and the long description sounds a bit bureaucratic. --Jonund (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable and very astute: it should really have been changed like this a long time ago. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened to our consensus here? I'm changing back…Stealstrash (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can t help but think that this page is not properly titled, too. Wikipedia prides itself on exactness. Given that Powell didn t actually refer to rivers of blood, but was quoting from classic Latin (a point which is probably lost on the modern general public, even if it was not then), surely we should refer to it accurately. If the speech was commonly referred to as "The Rivers of Milk" speech, wouldn't we title the article correctly? Also, when WIkipedia is used as an authority by many search engines it perpetuates the error and misunderstanding of what he was saying, not "I genuinely believe rivers of blood will flow" but, rhetorically, "I have a great foreboding of blood shed→". I propose Enoch Powell's April 20, 1968 address (commonly called the "Rivers of Blood" speech") altho I believe quotes are discouraged in article titles. At _least_ it should be in quotes. Jabberwoch (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Farage

I believe that Farage's position on the speech (as in, "the basic principle" was right) should be mentioned in the article, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.213.117 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference to 1930s in speech

He argued that journalists who urged the government to pass anti-discrimination laws were "of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it".

It would be helpful, now that decade is so far back in time, if someone could clarify what the exact 'rising peril' was that Powell referred to. It may be easy to presume he was talking about communism, fascism, or German Nazism. Powell may have been putting the then desire for international appeasement on the same plane as the desire for the race relations laws he criticised.Cloptonson (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly referring to the simplistic explanations of "appeasement" (of Nazi Germany, which after the event got lumped in with Mussolini & Franco even though it had been a lot less clear at the time) which were common ground in political discourse for a generation or two after the war. "If only we had rearmed more, if only we had "stood up to" Hitler when he [insert chosen act of aggression here - Churchill later earmarked the remilitarisation of the Rhineland but he hadn't been saying any such thing at the time!]". I had to listen to all this, seemingly endlessly, from my late Dad (born 1915) when I was growing up ... Paulturtle (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rivers of Blood speech predecessor

I have been reading an article, 'My father and Enoch Powell' (Shropshire Star, 8 October 2016), looking at Nicholas Jones' account of his father Clem Jones' friendship with Powell, which the former abruptly ended after the speech was made. It mentions Powell's first public airing of concerns for community relations in the Midlands came in a speech at Walsall in March 1968 (previous month), when Powell alleged an anonymous constituent's claim their child was the only white one in their school class, and was being bullied by non-white pupils. When Express & Star journalists could find nothing to confirm the story, Clem Jones challenged Powell, adding that Jones himself had been getting similar anonymous complaints which had all proved false and could be traced to local National Front members. Powell told Jones he did not accept the attribution to the NF and that this speech had drawn him 'bags of supporting mail'. I am looking at working this into the Background section - any thoughts?Cloptonson (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rivers of Blood speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511101758/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=ac315342-4333-4bcf-8916-fe85d7d21746 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=ac315342-4333-4bcf-8916-fe85d7d21746

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is poorly organized with the effect of making the speech look better/more popular

Why is "Support for the speech" different from the reaction? Support is a type of reaction.

If it's because the support section has more of a long-term view, why isn't that idea in the title i.e. legacy? Why then are actions/quotes from the 2010s in the reaction section?

How is "Support for the speech" meaningfully different from "Acknowledgement from politicians," such that they have to have two separate sections?

Why is there no section for continued criticism? Link #67 contains criticism from current politicians, so it's not like criticism is hard to find.

Why should retrospective discussion be broken up into support and criticism at a high level?

Wrong citation date: Heffer 1999 should be Heffer 1998 (?)

All the citations for Simon Heffer's biography, Like the Roman, say 1999 but this must be wrong as the book was published in 1998. I'll try to fix it... Hyuhanon (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Actual Speech Text

Addition of a section with solely the speech text, and not divided up by “explanation(s)” of segments of the speech, would be helpful. 2601:408:600:400:B9DF:483C:FF22:912 (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Powell Foresaw the Future

Writing from the perspective of 2024, it's clear that Powell was right 2600:8800:218F:2D00:716F:58EC:5822:6307 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)