It was a provocative decision by the producers of Archive on 4, 50 Years On: Rivers of Blood (Nathan Gower and David Prest) to base their programme around a full exposition of Enoch Powell’s infamous 1968 speech on immigration, all 3,183 words of it, spoken by an actor (Ian McDiarmid) as if he were giving the speech in front of an audience. Why give further publicity to a speech that gave such offence at the time, and so dangerously expressed such inflammatory opinions? But the explosive reaction to the Radio 4 programme on social media, even before it went out on air, explains and justifies their decision.
The speech, given in Birmingham just two weeks after the assassination of Martin Luther King, is constantly referenced, yet very few people ever heard it all the way through or read the full text. Why not get beyond the ‘rivers of blood’ quote we all know (which is in full, ‘I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood’) to hear the whole speech, and in context? Why be so frightened of it now? Why, when we read and listen every day to so many heedless words and senseless tweets, should what Powell said not be analysed and seen in detail for what it is? (Ironically, it was the presenter Amol Rajan’s unguarded tweet in advance of the broadcast that set off the tumultuous reaction in the first place.) The speech, after all, is an event, or rather is representative of a point of view, that is (as Rajan points out) part of postwar British history, whether we like it or not (after the speech there were strikes in support of Powell among steelworkers, dockers and the meat traders of Smithfield).
In any case, Powell’s words were not given to us on Saturday night as one long spiel, as if allowing Powell full sway, without question or interruption.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in