Should the BBC be doing this?

Of course he was aiming to make a point!
He was aiming to make a point without necessarily thinking the same as those he had observed about whom he was making his point.

John Holbrook makes the point (people do make points, I find) that he thinks both Powell and his critics (see Times editorial of the time via the link below) failed to address the key issue: the need for integration, which is interesting because I got the impression when I read the speech that Powell did understand the need for integration but thought that the rate of immigration (being too high in his view) would preclude it.

twitter.com/jonholb/status/985191027719000064?s=21

Oh I do wish the Colonialists and Brits abroad currently, would understand the need for integration - I surely do.

Some have lived in Dordogneshire or the Costas of Spain for decades, and never meet locals, can't speak the language, have vans bringing over food they ordered on line from Tescos, have their own Churches, schools, clubs- and live entirely parrallel lives in ghettos.

Oh I do wish the Colonialists and Brits abroad currently, would understand the need for integration - I surely do.

Hear, hear! Just so.

Colonialists though? Do such exist nowadays? Can you explain what you mean by colonialists, please?

Colonialists

????

Do you mean the Colonialists who fail to integrate if they come to the UK or those Colonialists who live overseas?

There should have been a comma, I suppose.

Where?

What is a colonialist?

We know what they were. Are there any left?

Oh I do wish the Colonialists, and Brits abroad currently, would have understood, and understand now, the need for integration - I surely do.

sort of like that

Colonialist: Noun A person who supports the practice of gaining political control over other countries and occupying them with settlers.
"16th century Spanish colonialists in the Caribbean"
adjective

characteristic of or involving the practice of gaining political control over other countries and occupying them with settlers.

Are you sure this is what you meant jura?

Yes, colonialists in India, South AFrica and all over the British Colonies - did they integrate well, you think?

And yes, colonialist can be a noun as well as an adjective.

Many immigrants, including Brits abroad don’t learn the language of the country they chose to make their home. The choose schools, places of religious observance and areas in which to live, based entirely on where their compatriots have settled. It’s comfortable, shops sell the kind of food and clothes they prefer to buy.
I share the wish that this happened less and integration within communities was easily achievable.
I do feel slightly irritated that ‘the Brits’ are so often singled out for criticism.

My point Iam64- is that it is a bit rich for Brits to go and live in vast numbers in some parts of France or Spain- and complain bitterly about immigrants doing what you describe in UK- and then do exactly the same abroad. Can't you see.

I am afraid there are no communities in the South of France and the Costas of Spain who do it quite like that- so they are given as examples. As for the Colonies- the British were the Champions. Or course, the French did the same in North Africa - but propotionately, very small compared to British Colonialism.

It is amazing to see a large % of Brits in SW France voted Leave - and from discussions with groups there- seem to be those who have integrated the least and do not speak the language.

For me, not learning the language of a country you go and live in, shows a massive lack of respect.

Did and do Brits abroad add value? Most Brits I know who live abroad have generally bought their homes and are funding self reliant.
Despite the self flagellating Bri8ters (Brits who hate being Brits), most former British colonies appreciated the infrastructure and structure that Brits provided and which has allowed them to become more econmically viable than non Brit colonial countries. If we were/are so bad why do people still want to emigrate to UK and why is there a strong Commonwealth of former colonial countries which includes UK?

But jura the numbers of British people who have emigrated to "the Costas of Spain" for example is only 1.2 million and, as Joelsnan says, they are largely self reliant. By comparison, Britain had, in 2015, increased to 8.5 million. Many, though by no means all, were not self reliant. Again, as Joelsnan says, thousands of people are wanting to come and live in the UK for a better life than they currently have in their home country, for many reasons. They clearly don't perceive the British as racist xenophobes. Because the majority of us are not.

oh where to start? Add value- what does this mean to the people whose towns were bulldozed and sent to live in shanty towns and still do? There are so many ways to look at this. Perhaps go and visit District 6 in Cape Town to start?

But currently, even if Brits bring 'value' to parts of rural SW France - and I do not deny they do not (but at the same time send prices soaring so locals can't afford to stay- it goes both ways, very complex...) - this does not excuse the lack of integration and learning the language. You can do both- you can have groups of friends, clubs, etc- of your own nationality, and continue to speak your language, value your culture and history, etc- AND also integrate, AND also make the effort to learn the language, etc- It is not a question of 'either... or'- DH and I are clear evidence of that.

Most immigrants I know in the UK, from ex Commonwealth or East Europeans- do both. Some of my ex students in the UK spoke 3 or 4 languages, depending with whom- totally British and integrated- and yet living with part of their life with their own community, language, clothing, ceremonies, culture and more.

Apologies, I should have said By comparison, Britain's immigration had, by 2015, increased to 8.5 million.

If Powell truly wanted people coming to the UK to integrate more, it probably wasn't a great idea to write a speech referring to "a decent fellow Englishman"who wanted his three children to re-locate to another country because "the black man will have the whip hand over the white man", and to go on to describe newcomers as "an alien element".

Powell was opposed to any race relations legislation being enacted. He said:

"There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination" ......

"The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming."

What absolute nonsense. Even today, with legislation in theory outlawing discrimination on the grounds of race, time after time research has shown that there is discrimination against ethnic minorities in employment, housing, education and the law. When Powell made his speech it was infinitely worse.

He refers to an unnamed (and, as far as I am aware, never identified) woman whose life, he claimed, was made hell by the changing character of her neighbourhood as black people moved in and white people moved out. He goes on to to speak of "children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist".

He speaks of it being a dangerous delusion to imagine that integration can be achieved - it not being possible because " To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members." It is, in my view, a ridiculous remark. White British people have different lifestyles, beliefs and behaviours, and thank goodness for that. I would not want to live in a country inhabited by clones who are indistinguishable from one another.

Jenny Bourne of the Institute of Race Relations wrote an article in 2007 critiquing Powell's speech. For those who are interested (and I suspect there won't be many, judging by some of the comments on this thread), here is the link:

www.irr.org.uk/news/the-beatification-of-enoch-powell/

"Although Powell might have echoed sentiments of West Midlands voters, he actually went onto create the Rivers of Blood he warned against. The bloodshed was not that of white English but of the black newcomers, which is why it went largely unreported.............

"Much of what became known as "Paki bashing" can be traced to the impact of his speeches."

I must say I am very shocked to see that many people on this thread are comfortable with the tone and language used in Powell's speech and that they actually agree with much of what he said. It is really quite disappointing and unnerving.

I have a deep distrust of political censorship in general. I think it is hugely important to hear and understand what is being said politically, however controversial, obscene or ridiculous, because it is always better out in the open rather than sub rosa, private, confidential or secret. That way, the wrong things said can be countered by the right things said – however long it takes.

absent if we had a free press which covered all shades of political opinion I might agree with you but there is such an unbalance that there is in effect censorship every day by what is not covered or reported for purely political reasons.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the speech should not be available to read - it is after all easily accessible on the internet.

I do have some concerns about devoting a whole programme to it on the BBC, particularly as it will be 50 years since the speech was made. In my view, it might lend it an air of respectability, coming across as a sort of "tribute" to Powell and his ideas.

Censorship is surely when certain material is withdrawn from public view or parts of it are removed, as happened with the book Lady Chatterley's Lover?

I do feel many people are applying current social sensibilities to a speech written and delivered within a very different social context.
The speech should be heard and the social, cultural and demographic changes that have ensued since the delivery of the speech should be examined to show that despite this speech Britain is the country of choice for many economic migrants.

Thanks for that excellent link,Eloethan

I'm glad I'm not the only person to note the rhetorical devices Powell used to heighten emotional response to his speech. Of course, all good speechmakers do it if the objective of their speech is to persuade. We should be aware of this, though, and be prepared to do a bit of critical analysis.

On the contrary, the medium was the message. It was the way that he talked, the metaphors he chose, the cadences and rhythms, the apocryphal stories from constituents, the references to personal responsibility, the quotations, the blood and gore, appeal to buried feelings of folklorishness, that made his speeches on ‘race’ (there were in fact three in 1968 and many beyond) so momentous and resonant. The medium was the message, and the message became, to mix a metaphor, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

apocryphal stories are used in parliament now