In this article I am going to discuss whether Colin Holmes was appropriate to state 'From a report of British history you'll be able to question the common eyesight of Britain as a country characterised by a nature of toleration.
By looking again at British background it is clear to see there were a lot of prejudice and too little toleration for immigrants arriving to Britain. The first example of intolerance towards immigrants I am going to look at is when Jewish immigrants arrived to Britain from 1880 onwards. The Jews, who were moving from Russia in an attempt to have a better quality of life in Britain, didn't receive the warm welcome they expected. They experienced intolerance from the Anglo-Jewish Community already set up in Britain. By 1914, 150 000 immigrants possessed joined up with the 60 000 strong Jewish community in Britain. The Anglo-Jews attempted to discourage any more migrants by paying for advertisements to state there would be no assist in Britain, which was organised by the Jewish board of guardian. The chief rabbi also discouraged more Jews by expressing to fellow workers in European countries to preach that London streets 'were not paid in silver'; basically stating London had not been all it was damaged up to be. The attentiveness of Jews in a single area concerned the Anglo-Jews for a number of reasons; they considered them as foreigners as they spoke Yiddish not English and also experienced different cultures. They were worried that a big focus of Jews in a single area would make them stick out more and break down the good relations they had developed with the rest of the British community. The federal government taken care of immediately these views by transferring the 1905 Aliens Work, which made it difficult for Jews to migrate to Britain. The 1919 Aliens restrictions Act also made it harder for immigrants as immigration officers were given the powers to refuse entrance and immigrants were required to establish they could support themselves and that they were medically fit. Each one of these reasons support Colin Holmes' affirmation that Britain was an intolerant country. The Anglo-Jews and the government were both intolerant.
After the next World War there was a labour shortage in Britain because the united states needed rebuilding after the wide damage of the war and many people chose to move in another country. To attract personnel, the government made a decision to advertise careers in the British colonies and as a result many migrated to Britain. However, after they migrated to Britain they confronted intolerance through the 'shade bar'. The 'colour pub' was a kind of racism which prevented dark-colored and other cultural groups from stepping into pubs, clubs, renting homes and getting job. One of the first things that an immigrant needed was to find somewhere to live a life. Those in need of accommodation now needed to be resident for 5 years in order to be qualified to receive council casing. Immigrants were therefore dependant on private enclosure and bombing during the war meant there is a housing shortage. Advertisements were put up in vacant rooms saying things such as "No coloureds" and "No niggers". This is the first point where immigrants experienced the 'shade bar'. When immigrants arrived to Britain they needed someplace to work, 50% of Western world Indians had lower status careers with higher skills when they migrated. Trade unions also insisted that employers limit the amount of careers to 5% of dark people and also demanded that dark-colored people were made redundant first purely because of their race. Each one of these reasons were results of the 'color pub'. Another example of the 'shade bar' was at the training system where black children were automatically put in lower ability groups and experienced racism from peers. This paragraph provides information to establish Colin Holmes' affirmation is correct.
In 1965, the competition relations work was handed, this meant that the federal government must have realised that there was prejudice towards African-Caribbean immigrants and supports Colin Homes in his statement that we were an intolerant region. However, the Competition Relations Act experienced several flaws and weaknesses which included racism in cover and employment, the two areas which triggered the most troubles and drawbacks for cultural minorities like the African- Caribbean's, were dismissed. Other weaknesses that came up to attention from the act included that no single body of men and women had powers of enforcement of the take action and also no person was designed to feel accountable for making sure the act worked well. Due to these weaknesses, the function was not a lot of in practice the 'incitement to racial hatred' was used to demand more black people than white. Therefore, the act was not effective, there was no sign of racism decreasing and racists were generally, not punished. In 1976, the government realised that racism was still a concern in society and tried to boost on the 1968 Work. The new Contest Relations Take action made racial discrimination unlawful in employment, housing and education also the commission rate for racial equality was set up to ensure that people understood about the work and that it had been enforced. However, once again there were weaknesses in the action. Resources, such as money were necessary for victims of racism to take legal action to prosecute offenders. No data acquired ever been accumulated for just how many blacks and whites applied for careers, were successful, utilized, promoted and well paid. Consequently, it was very difficult to confirm if racial discrimination still occurred. After the death of Stephen Lawrence the work was generally criticised for failing woefully to make public systems, including the police force to adopt positive action against racism. This paragraph gives strong evidence helping Homes' declaration that Britain was intolerant as the government felt it acquired to try and prevent intolerance via their acts.
Enoch Powell was the conventional minister of health from 1960-1963. He had encouraged dark Caribbean nurses to come quickly to Britain to help solve the labour lack in the NHS. From middle 1960s however, he previously improved his views and made several speeches so that they can stop further immigration. In 1968, he made a conversation, what became known as 'the river of blood conversation'. In this, he recommended that terrible consequences would come up if immigration persisted. Powell's speeches were exaggerated and used in dramatic language to put frightening images of the possible effects if people sustained to migrate here. After his 'river of blood vessels conversation', Powell was sacked by the federal government. However, he extended along with his extreme views with crowds of supporters marching to parliament in support of him. In 1969 he became more extreme and demanded to have the full of the Caribbean migrants re-emigrated. Throughout the 1970s he extended to make his racist speeches and became known as 'Powellism'. After Powell made his talk there was an important upsurge in racism and racist attacks on black, African-Caribbean's and Asian people. Powell and his supporters using their extreme racist views and needs like the repatriation policy to send the immigrants home supports the idea from Colin Holmes that Britain was intolerant.
After Powell was sacked The NF (Country wide Forward) gained associates as some traditional members left in support of Powell and became a member of the NF. The NF was setup in 1967 whenever a few small racist groups joined together. The aim of the National Front was to get political power to be able to present racist laws and procedures. The NF used racist propaganda, intimidation and assault to get its meaning across. The NF, a racist gang numerous supporters backs Colin Holmes' view that Britain was intolerant.
In 1981, there were many violent disruptions in Brixton. This became known as the Brixton riot. In the space of a couple of days, at least 7000 cops and 5000 young people, both black and white, clashed in the street. Rioting took place in Brixton for a couple of reasons. The vast majority of police officers were white and were looked at by the dark community as racist and hostile. One major source of tension was created by the use of the 'SUS' legislations. This allowed cops during the 1950s, 60s and 70s to arrest young dark men with no proof a crime. This gave two police officers the energy to arrest someone simply because they thought they were acting suspiciously. Regulations was broadly abused. Even in the 1970s black people still confronted harassment and discrimination from white cops. The police existence in the Brixton riots was described as being "an military of profession" by Lambeth council.
In April 1981, police create a new procedure in London. The aim of the procedure was to prevent crime by just stopping and searching as many people as it can be in a one week period. 112 cops in 10 squads were included, four of those squads were sent to Brixton. 943 puts a stop to were made and only one person was imprisoned for robbery. The number of officers deliberately focusing on black rather than white people caused extra resentment in Brixton. Following the Brixton riots, the federal government appointed Lord Scarman to discover within the police of inner metropolitan areas. Lord Scarman concluded there have been several improvements that needed to be made. He mentioned that the riot was triggered by the behaviour of the police and the police were not on the whole racist, although there was "occasional racial prejudice". African american people in Brixton suffered with racial discrimination on and from growing unemployment. In his statement he said positive action was needed to stop racism. Lord Scarman also recommended police should become more locally established and liaise with locally structured community organisations. These suggestions again claim that the statement that Britain is intolerant is appropriate because of the idea that immigrants faced discrimination from the areas and faced discrimination from areas such as employment and property.
In Apr 1993, an adolescent called Stephen Lawrence was murdered because of the coloring of his skin. An inquiry in to the murder and the police investigation that implemented found racism and incompetence among the list of metropolitan police acquired prevented justice and because of this Stephen Lawrence's killers received away with murder. The inquiry, 'The Macpherson Article', concluded the authorities service was institutionally racist. The statement made seventy recommendations; these tips were manufactured in order to market racial equality within the authorities service and English society. The article recommended the police should give anti-racist training to officers and make more work for ethnic minorities to join the authorities service. It also recommended the police service should be inspected similarly to how 'OFSTED' inspects universities. This might check the authorities service was tackling racism in an optimistic way. As a result of the Macpherson survey, the Race Relations Amendment Action 2001 was launched. This guaranteed organisations and general population bodies, unveiled positive anti-racist strategies, organisations and general public systems must consider the effect on racial equality and inspections will check the authorities are interacting with anti-racist targets. The actual fact the government released these amendments proves Colin Holmes' view, Britain was intolerant.
In conclusion, yes Colin Holmes' interpretation that Britain was intolerant could be valid. Holmes was a historian, and it would be his job to analyze the topic extensively and gather proof to confirm his points. For instance, he would have plenty of sources designed for him to work with such as newspapers articles and reviews, police accounts like the one I used whilst researching the Brixton riots. Other resources that were available included federal government reports, witness assertions and statistics from other sources. All these most important sources provide substantiation that Colin Holmes' view that Britain is intolerant could be valid.
There have been many types of intolerance throughout Britain, therefore proving Colin Holmes' view correct. The prejudice immigrants received from the 'colour bar' constrained them leading normal lives in enclosure, work and education areas of their lives, when these were promised equality from the British Nationality Take action in 1948. Also, Jews faced prejudice from the already set up Anglo-Jewish community in Britain when they migrated within search of an improved quality of life. They fled in concern with their lives anticipated to violent protests called pogroms happening throughout Russia. Other examples of intolerance include the National Leading, a racist organisation with desire to to gain politics power and create racist procedures and laws, to get rid of dark immigration. The Stephen Lawrence case and the Brixton riots are also examples of intolerance within the authorities service. Each one of these examples of prejudice prove Colin Holmes was appropriate in his declaration, that people are in tolerant as a land.
However, on the other hands we cannot be certain that Colin Holmes statement was accurate the price, taken fro his book, "from a report of British record it is possible to question the common perspective of Britain as a country characterised by a nature of toleration". This quotation from Colin Holmes' book does not always represent the entire view of the e book, it is only one estimate and we have not browse the whole book, it may therefore, have been removed from context. Holmes, was a historian from Leeds University or college and therefore may have just explored the north of Great britain, therefore wouldn't normally represent the actions and views of the whole country, this may suggest Colin Holmes was biased.
Throughout British history, there's been data to suggest Britain is a tolerant nation for example Simon Cohen an Anglo-Jew who emerged to Britain from Poland in 1870, create a hostel to help Jews migrating to Britain from Russia, even though he encountered disapproval from the Jewish board of guardian. The federal government introduced laws to try and prevent racism and although they faced wide criticism, the federal government did realise there was a problem and this provides evidence that we were a tolerant country. The conventional health minister, Enoch Powell, was sacked after making his racist conversation, "the river of blood conversation, in which he demanded the deportation of all Caribbean migrants. The fact that he was sacked proves Britain acquired a tolerant authorities. Another example of tolerance is usually that the National Entrance was never elected which again demonstrates the British community, on the whole were tolerant. These examples of tolerance suggest Holmes' interpretation was not accurate.
Overall I think that before, Britain is a tolerant nation, there were examples of intolerance, however in my opinion I believe these good examples have engaged the minority of individuals. However, I still think there's a good way before the challenge of racism is totally resolved and I believe colleges and other organisations need to provide more info on multi-cultural society, so everyone can understand just how people live in different cultures and agree to them. From my very own personal experiences, I have already been lucky enough never to encounter any examples of prejudice in my own university, however I understand that my university is not as multi-cultural as many other academic institutions in the region. In a recent review 50% of newly qualified professors feel they do not have the self-assurance and cultural understanding to deal with dark-colored students (Guardian-2006). Other figures from the Home Office also suggest racism is rife with black people being six times more likely to be searched than white people and 61 267 racially aggravated offences reported to law enforcement in 2006/2007, a 28% increase during the last 5 years. This shows racial intolerance is on the increase and further action needs to be taken to avoid these problems. Thus, suggests that Colin Holmes' interpretation that Britain was intolerant is appropriate.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay