Talk:Empire Windrush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

It would be nice if this page had a picture of some sort, especially as pictures of the Empire Windrush are not particurlaly hard to come by, and it helps set the tone of a page and describe the ship. Can anyone find a suitable (royalty-free) one? 86.9.151.73 21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, some people might consider the use of the word 'cargo' an unfortunate choice, given some of the history of the British and ships full of black people... please don't take this the wrong way, I'm sure it wasn't intentional! pomegranate 10:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the ship

While recognizing the importance of this ship to the history of post-war migration to Great Britain, I don't believe that airbrushing away the rest of its history does anything to improve relations between black and white communities. Instead, it creates resentments in the white community who feel that their history is of lesser value. The Empire Windrush made fourteen round trips from the UK to the Far East and only called once at the West Indies en-route from somewhere else. Yet almost all the ship's history before and after its single visit to the West Indies was omitted from earlier versions of the text, and these were stories that deserved some mention, not least to remember the dead, wounded and missing in action of the Second World War and the Korean War, who had some association with this ship. These were people who fought and died, suffering hardships unimaginable to us, so that we are free today to express our views here and elsewhere. My cousin was typical of many of those. A young man drafted to fight a war halfway around the world in a place that few today can identify on a map or even care about; wounded in action at the 3rd Battle of the Hook, North Korea; nine months recovering in a Japanese Military Hospital before embarking with 1'500 walking-wounded and released POWs on the Empire Windrush for passage home; a hellish ten-week crawl to the Suez Canal followed by being shipwrecked off the Barbary Coast. Like many others my cousin never fully recovered. But his history, and that of his comrades-in-arms is airbrushed away because it doesn't fit neatly with the social engineer's view of what is important. Well its important to them, and it should be important to us if we have any respect for others. But respect for the white community seems to be a rare commodity in Blair's Brave New World, 2006. Brian.Burnell 10:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Southampton.

Thank you very much for adding the new material, most of which certainly belongs here. Some of the writing needs copyediting and wikifying, and you may like to read our WP:NPOV policy.

Wikipedia articles are written by Wikipedia's readers. As far as I can see from the article history, nothing has been "airbrushed" out: the only reason for material not being there already is that someone (like you!) had not taken the trouble to add it yet, so thank you again. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the improved copy edit. Almost all other non-wiki versions fall into the trap of 'airbrushing'. Especially the Dept of Culture's disreputable dismal efforts. I hate it when politics intrude. But my use of the term 'airbrushing' shouldn't be taken too literally, more as a convenient shorthand.

On POV. 'No landsman ever saw the ship again' is not important but is literally true, not POV. The vessel left port and sank. It never returned to any port to be seen by non-seafarers. The phase is a common one in maritime terms. Perhaps I'm too near the sea. I can smell the salt now.

The Tirpitz 'preying' on Arctic convoys. I'd really like that put back since its a common description used in naval histories of the period. Let me explain why. The Tirpitz never actually or physically 'attacked' any convoy. Not ever. So the amended text is just plain inaccurate. It was the mere presence of Tirpitz, lurking in Norwegian fijords that posed the threat, obliging convoys to take measures to minimise the threat, tying up large naval forces that would be better employed elsewhere, and by obliging convoys to take evasive measures, driving them into the arms of U-boats and the Luftwaffe. In that sense the word 'preying' is entirely appropriate and reflects most accepted versions of war history, including the official history. Perhaps a reference to that would be a good idea also. I'll try to find time for that later.

If I'm missing something ref your note about POV please elaborate. I'm always most careful not to let POV intrude, but no one is perfect. But talk pages are different. They are for expressing views; an important part of the process of getting consensus. Thanks again for the copy edit. Brian.Burnell 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Equally, thanks for the good information and editing by both editors here. It's a page that deserved more work.--Zleitzen 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK: the point I was making is that no-one has wielded an airbrush here; not yet, anyway!

I was editing for style and content, not just POV. I took out the "landsman" line because it didn't really add anything: "final voyage" "sailed for the last time" "sank"... I think we get the idea! I see your point re the Tirpitz, but "preying" just seemed wrong. Perhaps "threatened" is better?

The POV that I perceived (perhaps incorrectly) was the idea that Wikipedians were politically correct airbrushers, that Germany "preyed" upon Allied shipping (as if trying to interfere with enemy shipping in wartime is something wrong), the reference to "our glorious allies" (whether or not it was meant to be ironic or sarcastic), and the slight over-emphasis on the recovering wounded veterans of Chinese aggression on the final voyage. To be honest, I was also a little perturbed by your comments about the "white community".

But anyway, thanks again for the contributions - the landing of the migrants from the Caribbean is the main episode for which the ship is remembered, but she clearly had an interesting history both before and after. And thanks for you comments Zleitzen. Who knows: this topic ought to be Featured article material. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does the word preying 'seem wrong'? A fox can prey on chickens. Does that also 'seem wrong'? Or is it perfectly normal use of the English language? Logically presented reasoning is needed here or the judgment of readers of these pages may be that the writer has some hidden agenda. Reassure me that is not so with some reasoning.

Let me dispose of the 'preying' or 'threatening' thing and the comment suggesting that it wasn't wrong to interfer with unarmed merchant shipping even in war. It most certainly is wrong. It most certainly is a breach of the Geneva Conventions, then as now. It most certainly is a WAR CRIME committed by CRIMINALS convicted at Nuremburg, who waged aggressive war on the whole of Europe. On you and on me. We have that in common, but it seems not much else, for the seemingly insignificant comment that it wasn't wrong raises more fundamental issues for me. It signalled to me that your values were probably fundamentally different to mine, probably incompatible. However I'll be content with the word 'threatening'.

While the use of the term 'our glorious Allies ....' was perhaps overegging the praise somewhat, and may have contained a trace of irony, it was intended to convey to readers who were probably not around at the time, the incalculable debt we owe to the Russian people, and which was only too quickly forgotten after 1945. The price of that unfortunate loss of memory was the Cold War that followed. And note that I used the term Russian people, not their government.

As for wikis being 'politically correct'; some are unfortunately, but I was careful not to suggest that was the case here. Those were your words. Neither did I use the term 'Chinese aggression' or suggest they were aggressors. That was your mistaken interpretation, not mine. My understanding of the Korean War is that the North Koreans were the aggressors, aided and abetted by the USSR, while not actually committing any troops. The Chinese could reasonably be described as fighting a defensive campaign to prevent certain (un-named and unshamed) distrusted foreign powers encroaching to China's borders.

Nor do I believe that there was an over-emphasis on the 'recovering wounded veterans ...' We simply have different values, make different judgements. Failure to understand that a diversity of viewpoints is important for the health of a free society is the truly dangerous thing in my view. It leads to loss of freedom, house arrest, suppression of dissent, concentration camps, the gulags, Guantanamo. Now where have we heard all that before?

Moving to 'the white community'; have people learned nothing? Will they never learn the basic truth that if humans are denied respect for their values they will respond accordingly? If you show disrepect for them you drive them into the arms of extremists, as recent elections have shown yet again. And by the way, to be an elected member of a Council for Racial Equality one needs to gain a substantial number of votes from 'the black community'. I managed that with ease. How many elections have you contested as a candidate?

I acknowledge that for many people the Empire Windrush is most notable for its association with the West Indies. But that merely reflects the domination of the agenda by those with a multicultural axe to grind, who have largely succeeded in promoting their particular world view through the education system. All that proves is that populations have an endless capacity to absorb junk; as also with food, Hollywood movies .....

Thanks again for your welcome improvements to my edits. If I have a problem with it, it is that I tend to judge harshly those who lack the self-confidence to attach their real name to their opinions. Old-fashioned perhaps. But the old values are often the best values, and there does appear to be a cultural and political divide here that seems to me unbridgeable. Nor am I especially eager to win people over, being perfectly content with who I am. So perhaps it would be better to agree to differ and stop trying to score points, and bashing each other about. Brian.Burnell 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the rhetoric above, why have you changed "threatened", with which you said you were content, to "preyed upon"? I still think "preyed upon" is wrong, not least because the threat of the Turpitz was much more effective than any offensive actions it took (Turpitz only sortied once or twice against Allied convoys, Operation Sportpalast and possibly Operation Rösselsprung, and never engaged the target). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back because that was my preferred text, that appears in numerous official histories, including the Stephen Roskill official history of the war at sea. The second reason was that I was deeply offended by your remark that "it seemed wrong". 'Preyed on' is a phase that is in normal English usage. Before criticising my English usage you would be well-advised to look critically at your own. See next.

A request to you to justify precisely why "it seemed wrong" was not responded to. I waited for some time for you to do so, but there was no response. I ask again why does it 'seem wrong' to use those words as in "the fox preyed on the chickens".? Answers need to be rationally argued, not subjective or based on personal taste.

You also made unfounded allegations of POV IN A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION which you then failed to substantiate when challenged. The main article page needs to be free of POV. But the Talk page is for contributors to argue their cases for edits. Of necessity that means that all contributions to Talk pages are POV and nothing else. That is why the POV guidlines do not apply to Talk pages. I seems to me that you have become confused about these important distinctions.

Your failure to understand that it is a war crime to attack unarmed merchant shipping on the high seas I was willing to ascribe to a lack of knowledge, yet when it was pointed out to you, there has been a singular failure to apologise for your misjudgement. You should do so now. Scattering unjustified POV allegations around is guaranteed to attract criticism and generate uneccessary edit wars.

Finally. I was amused to read your unusual interpretation of the threat posed by Tirpitz "that the threat posed by Tirpitz was much more effective than any offensive action it took." Your interpretation may well be right. Its a valid point. But it is also POV that is not shared by many better naval historians than you or I. But because you make your point on this Talk page it must fairly be judged acceptable, POV or not. Yet you condemn others for alleged errors that you commit yourself. On that basis a rational conclusion is that you have allowed youyrself to become confused. I hope that this clarifies these issues, and that we are able to work together in a more constructive manner in the future. One thing is certain; I am not going to submit to what I percieve as bullying. Not ever. And Tirpitz is spelt with an 'i', eg. Tirpitz. And your offensive gibe about rhetoric was uncalled for. Rhetoric is not bad. It encourages clarity of thought; something that is singularly lacking here. You should apologise without reservation. Brian.Burnell 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please See: Wikipedia:Assume good faith - To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Please assume good faith.--I.1 01:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

There is and always was good faith. However good faith can be sorely tested when an editor adds patronising and insulting gibes, apparently intended to offend. Editors may choose to write in a style that they consider not rhetorical, and that is their absolute right. But there is no absolute right to insult others for their style. By using the phase 'ignoring the rhetoric' that editor was being dismissive. He was suggesting that my views were of no account; not because of content, but because he did not like the style. Nothing could be more calculated to offend. He should be more tolerant. And he has still not justified his allegations of POV. One has to assume that inwardly, he is perhaps wishing that his allegations had not been made. If that is the case he should move on. No one, least of all myself wants to rub his nose in it. Life is too short, and there are too many other worthwhile things to do.

On the phase in contention 'preyed on'. If a rational case not based on personal taste or prejudice can be made for not using it I would yield. So far there has been no attempt at making a rational case, and without that I will not yield.

I suspect, based on his texts, but perhaps without justification, that there is a personal thing here, with that editor resenting the Empire Windrush page recording the ship's history before and after its important association with West Indian migration. This page is an Empire Windrush page. It is about the ship; and while I have no personal objection to the page being used to record its association with West Indian migration, neither would I approve if it was 'hijacked' for that purpose alone. There is a case for the history of West Indian immigration into Britain being recorded, and recorded in its proper place; on a page created for that purpose. Perhaps other editors would like to create that page. That would be a constructive way forward for them, and I wish them luck in it. In good faith. Brian.Burnell 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Brian.Burnell, I have thanked you three times for your contributions to this article, with express reference to your additions of the interesting history of the vessel before and after her voyage from the Caribbean in 1948. I have copyedited your additions, leaving the substance of the text essentially the same, and I trust that I have improved your text a little (as you indicate above). I do not understand how my actions lead you to suspect a "personal thing" to "hijack" this page. I do not own this page, and neither do you.

I apologise if you were insulted by the words "ignoring the rhetoric", but how else was I to understand your references to history being "airbrushed away" by a "social engineer", failure to "respect ... the white community", "a WAR CRIME committed by CRIMINALS" and "loss of freedom, house arrest, suppression of dissent, concentration camps, the gulags, Guantanamo", and now "unfounded allegations of POV IN A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION"? None of these issues are really relevant to the content of the article. I do not want to debate the rights and wrongs of the Second World War or race relations in the UK. I just want to make this article as good as it can be.

I have not "[scattered] unjustified POV allegations around". I stated above precisely where I perceived some POV, whilst simultaneously accepting that I could be incorrect. POV is inherently a subjective matter, not readily susceptible to analysis on an objective, rational basis. The best I can do is to tell you how I understand what you have written, and if you did not intend me to read it that way (assuming, in good faith, that you would not intentionally write POV text, but that we are all human, and something that looks NPOV to you may look POV to someone else) then we need to agree on a mutually acceptable compromise that we all agree is NPOV. I thought we had done that through my copyediting changes, which you seemed to accept, and in particular by changing "preyed on" to "threatened", but apparently not. So let us talk about that further.

The first definition of "prey on" given by dictionary.com is "Plunder or pillage; also, make a profit at someone else's expense, victimize. For example, Vikings preyed on the coastal towns of England, or The rich have been preying on the poor for centuries". I do no think this is an accurate or NPOV way to describe the role of the Tirpitz in Norway (and thank you for the spelling correction). I think "threatened" is a better word to use. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept that a term used in a British officical history of war at sea is necessarily NPOV. What term would a German use? If you want to use that term because it is used in an official history, then put it in quotes and add an attribution and a reference, so we know who thinks the Tirpitz was "preying upon" Allied shipping.

If this is going to be a contentious point, perhaps the best solution would be for that sentence to simply state that "She was later used as an accommodation and recreational ship attached to the battleship Tirpitz, stationed in the north of Norway." and leave it at that (not least because the next phrase, "from where the Tirpitz and her flotilla preyed on Allied convoys en route to Russia" ignores the Tirpitz's role in Operation Zitronella/Operation Sizilien, the attack on Spitzbergen in September 1943). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into a serious edit war, nor do I bear any ill-will. If we can both agree on that then perhaps we might make some progress, although this is becoming rather tiresome and absolutely pointless.

The allegations of POV made originally referred to POV on this Talk page. How many times does it need to be stated that Talk pages are for discussion of edit conflicts, that of necessity involves promoting a point of view. As you yourself do. Accepting that doesn't require bucketfuls of academic rigour. In the absence of that rigour, contributors will speculate on what other motivation drives the accuser, justified or not.

Neither am I much interested in the Nazi perspective. History is written by the victors, and they included more than the British.

I wouldn't myself extend the account to the role of the Tirpitz in the Spitzbergen operation because that is beyond the scope of a piece on Windrush. The proper place for that is elsewhere unless Windrush was intimately involved there. But its a judgment call.

I have no great problem about using the word 'threatened'. Where there is a problem is in your original assertion that 'preyed on' 'seemed wrong', and was POV. I disagree. Had you phased your initial challenge differently, and had you provided a rational explanation to why it 'seemed wrong' rather than suggesting that it offended your personal taste, then there might well have been a compromise at that point. Now you offer a further choice, which in my personal view is even less desirable. It is simply not acceptable in my view, to rewrite history in terms that imply that we are unable to face up to who was wrong and who was right. One doesn't have to be on the side of the victors to recognize that the Nazis were the bad guys. Germans themselves will thank you for that. They were not defeated; they were liberated.

For me the phase used as in 'the fox preyed on the chickens' is the appropriate one here. The only possible reason for objecting is on grounds of personal taste, and personal taste defines who we are. For me, I wouldn't dream of entering the Louvre and modifying the Mona Lisa, and I don't believe other wiki people would either. So why do so many feel free to impose their personal taste on others?

You apparently, are not fond of rhetoric. I have my own bête noires, one of them a hectoring and patronising tone; intended or not. None of us are perfect, and a failure to remember that we all have different human characteristics is a guaranteed route to conflicts. We would all benefit from an ocassional reminder that we get back what we dish out to others, intended or not.

As I said earlier this is becoming pointless and tiresome, and there are so many other creative uses for my time, and I suspect yours too. Can I suggest that as civilised people we simply agree to differ and leave it at that. Brian.Burnell 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting it quite simply Brian

• history in wikipedia is not written in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". Nor from the side of the "victors". It should be written in the most neutral fashion possible. Should German colonial victories in South West Africa be written from the side of the victors? No.
• I'm sorry you have found your communication with another user "pointless and tiresome". Perhaps you should have initially refrained from writing off-topic controversial statements concerning "respect for the white community" on the Empire Windrush talk page to justify your edits. You are welcome to remove them.
• If you don't like people mercilessly editing your work and compare it to entering the Louvre and modifying the Mona Lisa. Then you are clearly at the wrong forum.
• I also have my own bête noires. These are lack of respect for other users, and lack of understanding of wikipedia policy and guidlelines. I believe you have contravened some of these. Starting with Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Having breached that with your early comments - you already find yourself on a sticky wicket. Fortunately wikipedia is a big enough place so yourself and ALoan don't neccessarily need to encounter each other again. Live and learn.--Zleitzen 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • There was nothing, repeat nothing, un-neutral about the phase 'preyed on'. Nor do I accept your notion that any of us should be neutral in relating the history of the Nazis. Too many took a neutral view of Nazism in the thirties, and we see were that led everyone. But your suggestion that this conflict that I characterised correctly as 'pointless' is best called off here. There will be no further response. I have more pressing things to do, and I'm sure you have too. So I wish you well with them. Brian.Burnell 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)