Britain’s Racist Election - 2015

Britain’s Racist Election is a 2015 documentary that tells a forgotten story in British politics: the 1964 Smethwick general election. Traditionally a safe Labour seat, the West Midlands’ constituency experienced an unexpected Conservative Party victory – a reverse alignment with the national trend that witnessed Labour’s first victory in 13 years. The documentary sheds light on how the Conservative candidate high-jacked the election by resorting to racism as his main campaign tool.

Background:  

In the Heart of Black Country[1], the working-class community of Smethwick attracted immigrants from Commonwealth countries, especially after World War II. With one of the highest immigrant populations in the country (around 5000), the people of Smethwick reacted negatively as fears of losing jobs loomed amid factory closures. This set in motion a major transition that led to tribal and territorial manifestations, including immigrants being referred to as “blackies” & “wogs”, in addition to bans from public places on racial grounds.

A Contentious Anti-immigrant Campaign Pays off!

The racially hostile atmosphere in Smethwick was fertile ground for conservative candidate, Peter Griffiths. An admirer of South Africa’s apartheid policies, Griffiths launched a campaign in favor of strict immigration policies. Exploiting anxiety over a housing shortage, Griffith campaigned on the slogan inadvertently made up by his campaign manager’s young daughter “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote labour.” According to the Tory candidate, the slogan was "a manifestation of popular feeling, [adding that he] would not condemn anyone who said that." Griffiths would defeat labour candidate Patrick Gordon Walker by over 1700 votes (5%).

A Surprise Visit that Captured Little Media Attention:

The situation deteriorated after the election as the Conservative-led local council condoned racial segregation. A group of white residents successfully petitioned the council to set in place official housing allocation policies. Through these, the council would purchase houses and rent them to white British residents only. Luckily, then-Housing Minister, Richard Crossman, refused to allow the council to borrow the necessary funds for the implementation of the policy.  In what was described as a “rumpus” by British press, political activist Malcolm X paid a visit to Marshall Street, one of the iconic streets that would have been subjected to the policies. Nine days later, Malcolm X would be shot dead in New York in an event unrelated to his act of solidarity in Smethwick.

Image of Malcolm X’s little-known visit

to Marshall Street on 12 February 1965

Calls for a Snap Election: Labour Reclaims its Seat

The racial segregation reached its boiling point when a British branch of the Ku Klux Klan was formed in Birmingham, running terror in nearby Smethwick. Racially-motivated fighting increased as Griffiths home was bombed. The events would prompt the government to call a snap election in 1966, which Griffiths would lose to actor and Labour candidate Andrew Faulds. The latter would succeed in bridging the racial divide in the constituency[2], which he would represent until his retirement in 1997.

Legacy 

The 1964 Smethwick general election is long forgotten, as are the shameful campaign slogans and racial slurs (blackies and wogs) that were associated to it. Today, Smethwick is one of the most multi-cultural cities in England, hosting people of various ethnicities and religions. The town has remained faithful to its working-class community structure where, in many areas, there are more foreigners than there are citizens of British or even European descent. Seen from this lens, Smethwick should be remembered as a success story – one in which universal human values prevail over hawkish fascist tendencies, including the Birmingham branch of the British Ku Klux Klan.

Please shoot me a comment if you watch the documentary or agree/disagree with the content of this article!

---

[1] Black Country was one of the most industrialized regions in Britain where it said black soot from coal mines, foundries and steel mills covered the area and produced high levels of air pollution.

[2] The constituency was renamed Warley East in 1974 and later Warley in 1997.

1066: The Battle of Middle Earth - 2009

This British television series tells one of the forgotten stories of the year 1066. We usually associate this important date in England’s history with the Battle of Hastings and the Norman invasion. However, "the darkest year of all Englishmen" was also the setting of an event that hit the peaceful shores of the English shires, and exposed its untrained, yet brave farmers in the south. That event was The Viking Invasion.

During the 1000s, England was THE prize catch for European powers. Not only was it remote and able to fend off conquests thanks to its geographic location alone, but it also boasted acres upon acres of farmland and a perfect climate. The notable powers which were ready to pounce on the merest of opportunities were the ruthless Danes (Vikingr), the greedy Normans, and the powerful County of Flanders.

At the time, the ruling king, Harold Godwinson, was from the House of Wessex. Because of the tumult that would hit the Isles, he would ironically be the last proclaimed Anglo-Saxon king of England, opening the floodgates to a number of French (Norman) and German (House of Hanover/ Saxe Coburg & Gotha) monarchs who would later run England, Britain, and the British Empire. As the first of only three kings of England who died on a battlefield, along with Richard the Lionheart and Richard III, King Harold was known for his courage in warfare, having previously defeated the brave Welsh. King Harold had no royal ancestry. He ended up King of England simply because he refused to acquiesce to the demands of foreign powers, who had struck an agreement with his predecessor, Edward the Confessor. King Edward had promised England to many of his cousins across the North Sea in return for a peaceful death.

But 1066 was not the first time the Vikingr had posed an imminent threat to England’s stability. The Danes, through the House of Denmark, were intermittently kings of England, as rule seesawed between them and the Anglo-Saxons. Many of their conquests of the land had not bode well thanks to remoteness and Saxon defenses. However, the Men of the Fjords would not be deterred. These sea-warriors were the most-feared peoples of Middle Earth (or Land Between Heaven and Hell).

England-bound, the Vikingr would set sail. Focused on their mission, they would overlook an unstable Scotland – fresh from the regicide of King Macbeth (the very one from Shakespeare’s play) at the hands of King Malcolm III - which would not prove as sating as the fertile soil and fair air of England.

The English were “ready” for an attack, with their farmers courageously bearing their pitchforks and axes. However, directing their basic weapons France-wards, they found out, rather late, that they had lined up for the wrong battle. At the peak of harvest-time, the Normans did not dare approach the English coasts. The Vikingr, on the other hand, were the best at their trade, and under the leadership of King Harald Hardrada, were eternal warriors, who knew only one season - that of fighting season. Norse accounts reveal that the Vikings were merciless berserkers – or madly fierce warriors; hence, the term "berserk".

Relishing the opportunity, the Vikingr ravaged the unguarded North, sailing inwards and easily fighting off soldiers and farmers of Earls in ditch warfare. During this time, King Harold would end up making the move that would shape up the year 1066 as we know it. He would sacrifice the southern shores and mobilize his forces to the North to combat the Vikings. Unfortunately, the King’s first major challenge would come around with farmers from Crowhurst in his ranks.

The locals fought bravely in what is historically known as The Battle of Stamford Bridge, near York. In part II of the series, the Battle seals the opposing fates of both kings. The English benefit from a stroke of luck. As the Vikingr go about looting towns on the 25 September 1066, the English are quick to besiege the under-manned viking forces at the Bridge up North. King Harold would try to reach a settlement, even if it meant splitting the country. He wished to do so in the face of the Viking war-machine because the English needed every one of their men to counter the Normans in the southern front. But, the settlement never took place.

The same Norse accounts speak of a giant Viking who one-handedly stood on the Bridge and slayed 40 or so Saxons, preventing them from crossing the narrow bridge. In the process, he was also buying the vikingr time for the return of their fellow warriors. The Saxons opted for a cunning tactic, positioning a farmer under the bridge and spearing the fierce Viking to death from underneath. This opens the path for the English to corner the Vikings on the other side of the river. It also paved the way for a historic English victory over the invincible Vikings, who even after the death of King Hardrada, opted to fight over surrender. Many historians have dubbed the horrific Battle of Stamford Bridge as the beginning of the decline of the Viking age.

Shortly-lived, the English victory would amount to very little. A second predator would already be on the southern shores ready to conquer the unprotected shires of the south. There, brave King Harold would find his doom in the Battle of Hastings. In our heads and history books, this is the account we all recount. Well, this interesting documentary/series reminds us that 1066 was not only the year William of Normandy found his way to England, it was also the year brave English farmers challenged the odds and repelled the almighty men of the Fjords.

The Three Musketeers - 1973

So, I decided to put my faith in Alexandre Dumas Père's The Three Musketeers for some historical insight into one of the lesser-famed eras of the Bourbon Dynasty. As you may be aware of, the reign of the petulant Louis XIII was rendered significant by the ever-present Cardinal Richelieu. In fact, the latter was one of the main reasons why I went for the movie. As an International Studies and Diplomacy Student, I have "grown tired" of the burdening literature, as well as the praise attached to this powerful statesman of the clergy. In short, the Cardinal benefited from the young age of Henry IV's issue, who inherited a powerful state at the tender age of 8. Richelieu was appointed his Chief Minister to help him pave his way into king-hood - a position he kept until his death. Pulling the strings at all times, he is accredited with blueprinting the current diplomatic system of nation-states that succeeded in creating a balance on the continent. Years before the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, he based the system on négociation continuelle by establishing the first foreign ministry, and dispatching emissaries or ambassadors throughout Europe.

With more than a dozen film adaptations and a number of animated ones about the Three Musketeers, I found myself in a bit of a pickle. Right when I was scrolling down the long list, my eyes came across one starring Charlton Heston. I'd only watched the guy before by accident , but my father never stopped saying how he considered him one of the greatest actors of all time. I put my father's taste to the test and opted for Richard Lester's 1973 version.

The movie did not disappoint with it's formal language and comical take of Dumas' masterpiece. It also shed light on the bravado of the age with D'Artagnan being urged by his father to make it into the King's Guard, and to literally "fight, fight, fight" to get there. The fiery D'Artagnan makes his father proud by scheduling three duels, which end up being with none other than Athos, Portos and Aramis. The fights never take place, of course, as the group focuses its efforts on combating the Cardinal's Guards, prompting the much-awaited cry of: "one for all, and all for one". As I am not interested much in the plot, I'll keep it there and move on to some of the things that caught my eye.

First of all, to both my "liking" and surprise, Cardinal Richelieu was depicted as a cruel, a plotting and an abusive man. It was striking to see even King Louis XIII revere him and fear the arousal of his ire. The fact that my motivation to watch the movie stemmed from my interest in Cardinal Richelieu and Charlton Heston was made even better when it turned out that the actor played that very character. Unfortunately though, Heston did not get as much screen time as I would have liked!

The second thing I was intrigued by is how Louis XIII, historically dubbed the Just King, is depicted as a fun-loving and idiotic monarch. Caught up in his various amusements, he also shows signs of petulance, not putting too much thought in his decisions, and not hesitating to arrest at will. In the comforts of a barren Court where his amusement is paramount, he enjoys playing chess with sign-bearing-dogs as chess pieces. His rumoured homosexuality was never touched upon; however, jealousy of his own wife, Queen Anne of Austria, was alluded to. Queen Anne further brings disgrace to Louis XIII's reign through her open relationship with the Duke of Buckingham, which only the king is unaware of.

A die-hard tennis aficionado, I was delighted to see the game played in the movie. I was never aware that the sport existed back then. In all fairness to Nadal and company, the game was played in the most unorthodox of ways. That is, I am not sure they would have made a name for themselves playing the sport in those days. So, prompted to research the history of the sport, I interestingly found out that the game was named after the word "tenez" - French for receive - in the 16th century. Glimpses of the British aristocracy in the movie also revealed that billiards was quite common back in the day, although the table seemed to have no holes, and the balls were proportionately huge.

Like contemporary times, back in the day, you couldn't spell sports without gambling. During various instances in the movie, peasants and laymen go gambling-galore, spilling out the beans. Sometimes, the games people were gambling on made those of the Roman Empire quite classy and noble. Add excessive drinking to the equilibrium and you are sure that Bet365.com would have made a fortune back then.

The last thing I would like to talk about is historical accuracy in this movie. Château Versailles is shown at the very end, specifically during the ceremony where D'Artagnan becomes a Musketeer, earning that ever-so-precious personal musket. To the furthest of my knowledge, Château Versailles was not the principal residence of Louis XIII. Although the latter purchased it, it was his son, The Great Louis XIV, who made Versailles the well-known edifice of today and the main residence of the French monarchs that followed. For such a formal appointment, I would have assumed that the King would have carried it out at Fontainebleau.

If you watch this movie, remember that it was made 39 years ago. If you're accustomed to IMAX filming quality, this adaptation will surely come across as blurry. There's a 2011 version that might be more appealing. I, myself, am a fan of more recent movies, but I personally found this one captivating. Through it's historical context, it was also thought-provoking, reminding me of the various be-headings of French Monarchs. It was also a reminder of King Juan Carlos I's ancestry. For after Louis XVI lost his head, the Bourbons dispersed with some landing in Spain, reigning until as recently as 1931 through Alfonso XIII. Franco made sure to remedy that when upon his death, he appointed Juan Carlos as a royal successor, once again associating the Bourbons with monarchy.

Well, I'll keep it at that and I hope you enjoy the movie if you decide to go for it!

King George & Queen Mary: The Royals who Rescued the Monarchy - 2012

What I found most interesting in this BBC documentary is how the British Monarchy was whiskers away from perishing. In comparison to the copious documentation of the glorious periods of Queens Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and the like, historians tend to overlook George V and his equally important legacy. At a tense and dangerous time when leaders' heads fell like flies in Europe, George V was shrewdly able to save the Saxe Coburg & Gotha Dynasty, and the British Monarchy in the process.

Like his father Edward VII, George was an unlikely heir to the throne, second in line to his older brother Albert. Mired in numerous scandalous accusations, including homosexuality, insanity and gambling, Albert's life ends prematurely due to illness, thrusting the reluctant George into the limelight. Hardly trained for the task, George is not ideally educated, having had his lion's share of training in the Royal Navy. While intensively prepping him for royalty, his "domineering" grandmother, Queen Victoria, pressures him to marry the Protestant German Princess of Teck, May (later Mary), initially intended for his late brother.

During his reign from 1910 to 1936, the King encounters numerous challenges, the most important of which is the First World War. Ironically, the War was against a cousin: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Another important reminder in the documentary is the kinship relationship that bound European leaders as recently as a little less than a century ago. At the time, George V - a descendant of the House of Hanover - was rumored to have been lacking in the patriotism department due to 200 years of German ancestry. Bearing inconclusive truth, the rumors were legitimate, as the royal family not only had German identity, but also spoke German and, until the war, also felt German.

Furious at the accusations, George V pulls out an ingenious coup de grace that saves his dynasty and possibly his scalp. He boldly changes the name of his dynasty from Saxe Coburg & Gotha to Windsor, after one of the oldest British/English castles - ironically built by the French Normans. The nominally updated version of the Monarchy is so significant in our present-day history that the imprints are still borne out in the current Windsor Queen Elizabeth II.

Bearing no resemblance to his vice-laden father, King Edward VII, and his late brother, Albert, George V did not only change the ruling family's name, he was also the personification of the medievalesque notion of a king and his people on one side battling the domination and monopoly of the bourgeoisie and aristocracy on the other. This was further paved by the Marconi radio system that brought the monarchy straight into the living rooms of all laymen. Fuelling his popularity was the fact that anyone could obtain the highest Order of the British Empire (OBE) during his reign. Unlike his predecessors, the only requisite was the merit and effort committed to the service of the Empire. His name was also chanted during football games in such a precarious time for monarchs.

King George V had 50 first cousins all over Europe, 27 of which were deposed post-WWI. Of these, the one that stands out most was the last Romanov Tsar Nikolai II, who bore a carbon copy resemblance to the British Monarch. In fact, the decision to refuse his close cousin asylum in Britain during the Bolshevik communist overthrow of 1917 was literally fatal, as Nikolai II would be swiftly & “unprofessionally” tried, and sentenced to a gruesome death/assassination along with his other family members. Despite the sort, George V displayed a great deal of patriotism, avoiding to let emotional ties jeopardize his claim over the Empire.

BBC documentaries have built a sound reputation for their accuracy. A number of high-profile historians offer their enlightening insight into the life of the punctilious and said-to-be pedantic monarch. This makes watching the movie a delight. Queen Mary's role is focused on in the second part of the documentary (which I am yet to see) where she plays another essential role, pressuring George's oldest son, King Andrew VIII, to abdicate due to his relationship to Wallis Simpson, the twice-divorced American whose brash threatens to sink all of what George V had salvaged.

Both King George V and Queen Mary's efforts are rendered very influential in light of the relative internal stability - barring altercations with the IRA - the UK has known. Their efforts have saved a monarchy which is on the verge of celebrating a Diamond Jubilee next February. Of the people Queen Elizabeth may wish to thank for the privilege, I am sure George V and Mary rank high on her short list!

Here's the link for part I of the documentary: http://www.putlocker.com/file/B464DF98D054DB4A# . If you like this genre, you won't regret giving it a watch!