Talk:Rivers of Blood speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] 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]

[edit] Purpose of last paragrpah 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

For neutrality, in terms of the "We should have listened" buttons couldn't something be added like, "Others just wondered what, after all, had been lost, except perhaps an interbred society of Anglo Saxons with their arrogant narrow heads mainly up their own cultural buttholes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.162.223.52 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that is a seriously racist and bigoted view and certainly not something Powell would have said about any racial group. added 08/03/08

Fuck off back to Africa, Powell was right. Look at the movie kidulthood and tell me I'm wrong.58.107.175.21 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Epbadge.jpg

Image:Epbadge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Epbadge.jpg

Image:Epbadge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] britain love it or leave it!!!!

Enoch Powell was right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.127.221 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)