In the journal article chapter, The Interaction Between Race and Colonialism: A Case Study of the Liverpool Race Riots of 1919, Roy May and Robin Cohen discuss the main factors that contributed to the Liverpool Race Riots in 1919, they also mention other riots that took place in Cardiff, Barry, Newport, London, and Manchester. They attempt to show the reasoning behind the riots and focus on the root causes of the creation and the rise of racism in Britain.

May and Cohen argue that a main contributing factor to the growth of racism was a result of the stereotypical outlook that white people were superior and black people were inferior, had never left the public opinion in this period after the conclusion of the First World War. They claim that whites were chasing and beating blacks in the streets, and they were advised to stay indoors, however the black community state that this was rather difficult to do as they were getting let go from jobs and forced out of their homes. Many stories were released in the press of tales of violence from black people against whites and specifically white policemen, which May and Cohen say instigated mobs of white men going after blacks and attacking them, and in some cases drowning them.

Employment was another factor discussed in this chapter as it is said that a black sailor applied for and gained a post at a British port which sparked outrage amongst whites.
Discrimination was also prevalent in the fact that blacks had to make their own small communities in cities that were closer to the docks, away from prying eyes. This shows the divisions due to the topic of race were still being seen in Britain in the post-war period as blacks and whites remained separated.

In conclusion Roy May and Robin Cohen are successful in explaining the reasons behind the racism that was shown towards people of colour and give various examples of the racism experienced in Britain during the post- First World War period. They identify the key elements such as past opinions still being at the forefront of modern-day stereotypes, and the behaviour towards people of colour due to these opinions being passed through generations. Thus, making people still believe that whites were superior to blacks and that blacks should continue to be treated as second class. This is shown specifically by Roy May and Robin Cohen when discussing the Liverpool Race Riots of 1919.

Rodney and Augustus begin the article with a clear goal: to break down the myths and falsified histories that have been perpetuated by those who did not wish to verify and celebrate West Indian stories. The so-called “heroes” of history are the oppressors therefore they had control over the narratives that are studied; this is made evident not only through the misconceptions the authors present, but also by the fact that the majority of primary sources to back up their arguments are from slave owners, slave-ship authorities and anti-abolitionists. They also present some misconceptions from the other end of the scale that present black slaves as heroes, for example they argue that power shifts and differences in station meant many of the oppressed turned on each other. They also allude to the idea that certain misconceptions were played up for the benefit of slaves themselves; they suggest that slaves manipulated white masters into thinking they were not as smart that could not understand, when in reality they were capable and self-sufficient.

Some of the misconceptions the authors chose to disprove are as follows; that slaves were being taken away from barbarity and undeveloped social structures, that all slaves came from the lower classes and criminal populations, and the misconception that all black slaves were docile and tolerant of their lot, as well as lazy and unmotivated. They also argue that torturous slave treatment was not actually consistent all the way up until abolition and that the rights of slaves around this time have been wildly misconceived.

At one point the authors reference European serfdom, which is a term I had not heard before. It is a descriptor for the “condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord”* which is essential the makings of early slavery. The authors reference this when debunking the myth that people were already enslaved in Africa – domestic slavery was present, however it was nothing in comparison to the horrors that would await slaves transported to the Americas brought about by the Europeans.

This particular piece of writing fits in well with Session 3’s theme as it discusses why those perpetuating the beginnings of racist ideologies reinforced these myths. It not only presents the misconceptions but also dives into why oppressors wished people to have certain preconceptions about slaves. For example, the authors discuss how those who skew history to their perception are usually those who wanted to spread their racist, colonialist, or slavery-apologist opinions.

When reading this text, a few points need to be taken into consideration for analysis. Firstly, this piece was written nearly 60 years ago, which is why terminology and phrasing is fairly outdated and would now possibly be considered inappropriate. There are also several sweeping statements made about black slaves that are backed up with little evidence and more likely a product of normalised racism of the 60’s. For example, “The fact that the negro slave could laugh at himself, his master, and those who surrounded him stands high to his credit.” Here, the writers are speaking as if it is some inordinate achievement or trait for a black slave to have a sense of humour, which is in my opinion, quite dehumanizing and othering.  Secondly, this source uses very few other sources to back up arguments, which is evident in its limited bibliography. This potential taints its reliability and usefulness. However, they do reference C.L.R. James at one point, who was a West Indian historian who was considered a “pioneering and influential voice in postcolonial literature.”**

*serfdom | History & Examples | Britannica

Paul Rich article on Immigration in Britain argues that “while official response to post-war immigration was slow to develop, the tensions and white backlash of the late fifties marked its emergence as a national political issue”.  Rich discusses how during the beginning of immigration, the Home Office targeted immigrants by planting worries around lack of employment and accommodation to colonial governors in post-war Britain. As well as this, Home Office following SS Empire Windrush docking in June 1948 stated, ‘sooner or later action must be taken to keep out the undesirable elements of colonial population’ because if not ‘their presence in Britain would present a formidable problem”. The Prime Minister Clement Attlee refused to take the ‘Jamaican Party’ all that seriously, however, the worry amongst government officials increased over the following years. By 1953, the numbers of Black immigrants were close to 3,000 a year. Due to this high number, other government departments such as the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office used Nazism to place emphasis on educational control training programmes to regulate more immigration control.

Rich also discusses that during the early 1950s, the local boards for public service across the country faced the immigration crisis with little clear guidelines and instead depended on whatever expert advice there was available – some from anthropologists and sociologists who were becoming more involved in the concern over ‘race relations’. One of these sociologists was Kenneth Little who undertook research alongside his students from the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh, Dr Kenneth Little concluded in his research that Black communities were not a single population, but instead divided between class, religion, and cultural differences.

Following the riots in 1958, increased political debate arose for race relations which in hand increased the want for immigration power in Britain. Labour activists such as John Hatch were keen to develop a powerful governmental retort to these riots during summer of 1958. However, there were very prevalent worries that any sense of concern surrounding Black immigration would cost them the loss of White working-class voters. Little addressed the Party’s leader to explain that basic understanding was merely not sufficient and they needed a sociological perspective to fully understand these issues and the audience to whom they were trying to please.

Finally, Paul Rich writes about the impact of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrations Act. This regulation imposed a different government purpose to interfere in the Commonwealth immigration and begin to impede the numbers of Black immigrants coming into Britain.

Personally, I agree with Paul Rich’s article. He is very concise and to the point while helps to understand all the wider issues that arose through immigration issues in Britain. He also uses America to support his argument which helps the reader to understand the differences between the extent to what is happening in Britain vs elsewhere in the world. As for historians’ debate, he doesn’t appear to use any. However, he does use many political leaders and sociological researchers throughout his article to further develop his argument.

The source examined this week is the article “Fighting Racism: Black Soldiers and Workers in Britain during the Second World War”, written by Gavin Schaffer in 2010. In this article, Schaffer discusses the changing dynamics of racial thought and how that created and influenced the reception of black people during the second world war. He argues that because of the Nazi racial state and the racial extremism in the US-Army, Britain aimed to re-think its relationship to racism. This, as argued by Schaffer, did change existing attitudes towards the black community, but the belief of black difference and interiority continued to exist, especially when it came to ‘miscegenation’.

To support this argument, Schaffer refers to several sources highlighting attitudes towards black people. Firstly, he looks at the War Office who stated that employing black people as combat would outweigh any advantages. In addition, the Royal Navy, when declining Hondurans volunteers, stated that it was not an issue of race but due to them lacking productivity. While the Royal Air Force employed black people during the war, later on, they explained that they would not employ Indian volunteers as these have in the past shown predatory behaviour. Through these examples, Schaffer highlights that during the war, Britain was reluctant to employ black people, but rather than saying it was due to racial thought, they used non-racial issues to continue racial discrimination.

Schaffer also evaluates the general public’s view of black people. While some scholars argue that the general public did not share the same racial attitudes as the government, Schaffer disagrees with that as the Mass Observation archive indicated ambivalence from the public towards black people in wartime Britain. Schaffer argues that the prevailing opinion during the war towards black people was hostile. Schaffer argues that even if people accepted racial equality, they were still opposed to ‘miscegenation’ in wartime Britain. While these prejudices did continue to exist, they did not stop the growth of black working communities in Britain, but racial attitudes continued to shape post-war labour relations, making work opportunities for black people difficult.

The points made by Schaffer are backed up by primary and secondary sources. For his analysis, Schaffer primarily focuses on government papers and Mass Observation (MO) reports which were collected during the second world war. The MO papers, as is highlighted by Schaffer, are only showcasing one specific group of society, the middle-class liberal/left-wing group. Therefore it can not be seen as fully representing the whole of Britain’s society during the war years, but it still represents a part of people’s views at the time and therefore is of value to Schaffer’s discussion. The author refers back to other scholars, such as Peter Fryer, which supports his argument further.

Schaffer’s article fits into this weeks topic well, as it discusses black people’s presence in Britain during World War Tow and Britain’s perception of them. Overall, I think Schaffer’s argument is convincing as he uses a range of sources to express attitudes towards black people in Britain, which highlight that black people were still seen as inferior to white.

The article, “Race, Archival Silences, and a Black Footballer Between the Wars”, by Martin Johnes explores the life of Welsh footballer Eddie Parris in order to investigate the working-class black experience in interwar Britain. Black society in the 1920s and 1930s remained subject to racism. As well as the divide between whites and blacks based on racism there was also a divide within black society based on cultural and class differences as students and professional black people were held in higher regard than British born black people in the ports and in London. Nonetheless the interwar period was populated with increasing black political and imperial involvement where racism was a unifying force across class and ethnic backgrounds unlike anything Britain had seen before. In this article, Johnes uses a range of primary and secondary sources to highlight how within the existing historiographical discourse, the individual experiences of black Britons can often be lost within the overarching emphasis on black-white relations and reactions of racists. This is really potent for this week’s material of Inter-war society and politics as it takes a look at black experiences within this specific time in British history through a deeper, more interpersonal lens. We are encouraged through his work, to remember that the research and information studied is based on black individuals’ real-life experiences which Johnes argues should not be ignored or overlooked.

By focusing in on a single individual, Johnes article is unique, sparking interesting insights into the study of race. In his work he refers to several historians, for instance, when addressing Historian Bressey’s ‘absence of colour’ in archives findings and analysis, Johnes identifies that primary archives were often white washed and ignorant to the real experiences of black people in Britain. When describing Parris’s early life Johnes makes a point of describing how Eddie grew up within a turbulent time for race relations in Britain, living in Newport at the time of the race riots of 1919. Johnes suggests this may have had a great impact on the Parris family considering Eddie’s mother was a white British women married to a black solider at the time concerns over the genetic effects of miscegenation fuelled mass riot. Johnes goes on to suggest that even though the racist hatred and violence had significantly reduced by the interwar years, racial equality was not a widely adopted idea. Johnes also explores the idea that British culture was inherently racist which is a concept explored widely within the historical discourse usually argued to be derived from the broad process of imperialism due to how it traditionally placed the white race as superior to the other races of the British Empire.

Overall, Johnes presents the overarching idea that although Parris’s relationship with football, which would have brought him into the public eye, highlights a step forward in regard of racial prejudice but condemns that his life and career were not free of race. On the whole, this article is convincing as it is raw and shows how individual experiences throughout history can be applied to a wide topic base to bring light to important information that would have otherwise been missed.

I am going to discuss David Killingray’s chapter “To do something for the race: Harold Moody and the League of Coloured Peoples” in Black Intellectuals in Britain. The main points discussed in this chapter are the influences on Moody’s views and interpretations of race relations in Britain and how he applied these views throughout his life and career.

The key arguments in this chapter are that his early life in Jamaica, conversion to Christianity and scientific knowledge helped to shape his ideas and perceptions of race in Britain. Killingray explains how being exposed to a social order and hierarchy based on colour during his upbringing in Jamaica shaped Moody’s later views on race, while scientific perceptions of all men being equal and his conversion to Christianity as a teenager in the 1890s underpinned all his ideas on humanity and race. Moody used the accepted Christian view that all people were equal in the eyes of God to counter the Colour Bar, arguing that it was totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Killingray also discusses the creation of the League of Coloured Peoples, which Moody wished to be led solely by black people.

Killingray uses a wealth of primary evidence and works written by Moody himself including repeated references to the Moody papers giving a personal account of his earlier life and views that he held while in Jamaica, for example, that he himself looked down upon African peoples. Newspaper articles from the Express & Star and references to Youth and Race a Christian pamphlet by Moody are also used to support his arguments of the influence of Christianity and scientific knowledge and how they underpin Moody’s views on race relations. In addition, Killingray briefly cites the works of Jeffrey Green, Herbert Aptheker, Sam Morris and others to support his arguments, however the names of these scholars are only discussed in the footnotes rather than being mentioned explicitly in the text, as Killingray engages more with primary evidence.

The chapter fits well into this week’s theme – Inter-War Society and Politics – as is discusses Harold Moody and the League of Coloured People which are both prominent issues in this week’s content. Also, this chapter is overwhelmingly positive about Moody, in contrast to criticisms he received that he was an ‘Uncle Tom’ figure under the control of his “imperialist masters”. The Colour Bar is a term used which may not be known to the group until this week. It was the discrimination – usually implemented by employers, landlords or businesses – against people of colour. This included refusal to rent property to people of colour, refusal of employment or services and unequal access to the same opportunities as white people. Overall, Killingray’s chapter is convincing due to it’s in depth use of both primary and secondary evidence in support of his arguments. He also went into great depth about Moody’s influences – more so than other scholars – and the activities of the League of Coloured People.

The Interaction between Race and Colonialism: A Case Study of the Liverpool Race Riots of 1919- Roy May and Robin Cohen.

Roy May and Robin Cohen discuss the main causes and reactions of the Liverpool Riot of 1919 and argue that racism in Britain is deep rooted and stems from the British Empire. May and Cohen argue that they have created a clearer, more coherent image of the factors contributing to the riots through their use of primary sources. Their work is important when studying the Liverpool riot as it underlines the key causes and frames the societal context of the post-war period.

Within this article May and Cohen identify four main factors which can explain the outbreak of violence that occurred in Liverpool in 1919. Firstly, the fear of miscegenation is underlined as many white people showed hostility to relations between white women and black men, a good example of this is from Sir Ralph Williams, a colonial administrator who condemned such relations in written in The Times. Moreover, the concentrated black population in the south side of Liverpool is identified as having acted as a catalyst for hostilities between races which led to violence and this can be seen expressed in newspapers such as the Liverpool Echo. Thirdly, May and Cohen maintain that the riots should not be viewed as the work of hooligans or deviants from any side as this can excuse the involvement of white workers and their violence against black people, and can downplay the experiences of the black population. Finally, the competition for employment after the first world war is highlighted as a main cause for the disturbances, the mass demobilisation of soldiers increased competition for jobs. Aside from the four main factors identified, May and Cohen make the point that racism in Britain is deep rooted within the British Empire, this argument is maintained throughout the article.

May and Cohen utilise newspapers to reveal common societal views and perceptions and to highlight the events that unfolded. Newspapers are useful in drawing connections between events that have occurred and their reactions from different perspectives. Key terms that have been used within this article include repatriation, this was prevalent scheme in Britain during the riots, aimed at dispersing the riots, and dictated that black people should be sent back to their country of birth, this is important because it centres black people at the root of the causes of the riots.

Ultimately, May and Cohen’s account of the Liverpool riots is useful in detailing the multiple causes and factors contributing to the outbreak, it is also important in identifying different reactions and perspectives on the events that occurred, the use of newspapers within the article has aided this. Additionally, it is important that May and Cohen have highlighted the connection between racism in Britain and its origin in the British Empire.

The article I will be discussing is C.L. Joseph’s ‘The British West Indies Regiment 1914-1918’ published in the Journal of Caribbean History in May 1971. The main argument put across in the article is that the war office undervalued black West Indians during the first world war and reduced them to menial jobs, despite their best efforts in volunteering and aiding the war effort. To support this argument, Joseph made several points throughout the article. One of the first is that the British war office refused to consider the West Indian Regiment as anything other than a labour corps and would not let them fight in Europe. He mentions that they then sent the 1^st battalion to Jamaica and the 2^nd to East Africa to remove them from the European frontlines. The war office also never justified this and there was plenty of evidence as to why this shouldn’t have been the case such as the previous training of soldiers in the west African regiment, and numerous medals awarded which Joseph lays out on page 123. Some black soldiers then formed the Caribbean League to argue for better treatment after the events of Taranto where they were made to clean latrines and dirty linen, they were also segregated with separate canteens and cinemas as well as hospitals where some died of neglect, When they enlisted they were promised the same treatment as British troops but Joseph makes it clear that this was not true.

All of these points are backed up with stable evidence. Throughout the article Joseph relies heavily on primary sources such as Government letters and other forms of communications, statements and statistics. There is also a good use of tables to express data such as the monetary contributions made to Britain from the West Indies, the amount of West Indian soldiers from each region, and the amount and type of medals awarded to black soldiers. The article was published in 1971 so it was an early work in relation to what is available today, however he does make use of what secondary sources were available at this time and engages where necessary. Within the conclusion he gives reflections on other historians works and opinions. He is exceedingly critical of some of these, most notably, he denounces H. G. deLisser for whitewashing the events and nit-picks at Cundall’s work also. Though the work he is most admirable of is C.L.R. James.

The theme of this week is “black people’s experience in the first world war,” of course this piece fits well in this week’s topic as it focuses on the experiences of soldiers in the West Indian regiment as they struggled to receive fair treatment while representing the British army. Overall, it was a convincing article. Joseph goes very in depth and gives piece after piece of evidence that the British war office belittled the West Indian troops at every step. He engaged well with the sources available and supported his argument well with solid points and evidence throughout.

In this article Willan focuses on The South African Native Labour Contingent (SANLC), a South African labour force sent to serve in France on behalf of the British Empire during WW1. The article was written in 1978 and can be found in the Journal of African History, Vol. 19.

Black people were recruited to serve under the British military in WW1 as their labour was considered useful on the battlefield. However, they were not allowed to fight in the army as it was believed that black men fighting against/alongside white men would cause problems. Olusoga believes that black people were not allowed to fight against/alongside white men because it would undermine their ‘white prestige’. This fits in with Week 7’s focus on Black people in WW1 as it shows how Africans contributed to British political interests in the 20th century through the roles they performed in the First World War.

The SANLC were focused on aiding the labour shortage at the French ports and at the war front. Their main focus was on manual labour. For example, loading/unloading goods, helping to build roads/railways, quarrying, and forestry.

“splendid reputation for good work under the hardest conditions concievable”

– War Office

Willan argues that the SANLC being recruited to fight in France was a social experiment which allowed the officers to implement strategies of social control on a small scale so that this could be applied to wider society. There was a heavy focus on segregation within the SANLC camps and they were kept under strict control so that they were always under surveillance and were prohibited from mixing with the Europeans. Officers from South Africa were selected to command the SANLC because it was believed that they better understood African mentality and customs which allowed them to keep the men compliant. In addition, six foot fences were placed around the camps to minimise contact with the outisde, and the men were not permitted any alcohol or anything which would encourage reckless behaviour.

Since Europeans were not allowed into the camps and were not permitted to communicate with the natives, Willan argues that this prevented the Africans from developing a sense of entitlement and equality which would have had an effect on political consciousness.

SANLC Members at Work

Willan refrences many different sources in this article ranging from other historians’ publications to official papers. This is useful as it allows the author to draw upon different historical opinion as well as primary evidence in order to effectively illustrate his arguments. There is much reference to the Cape Times. However, as the author mentions in his article, the newspapers often glorified the SANLC and reported little evidence of any unrest or unhappiness among the natives which means that newspaper reports may not be the most reliable form of evidence for reinforcing his arguments.

Overall, the article provides an in-depth analysis of the SANLC and the social conditions in which it existed. Willan makes arguments which are supported by other historians such as Olusoga which shows the integrity of his work. Moreover, the author provides plenty of background information as to why Africans came to join the SANLC which helps put the article into the context of the wider issues Africans faced in the 20th century such as racial prejudice and government instability.

References

Willan, B. P. “The South African Native Labour Contingent 1916-18”. The Journal of African History Vol. 19, No. 1 (1978): 61-86

Olusoga, D. “Black and British : a forgotten history”. London, United Kingdom: Pan Books, 2017.

John Stuart Mill “On the Negro Question” Fraser’s Magazine (1850)

John Stuart Mill was a Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party in the second half of the 19^th century. He was progressive and believed in individual liberties. This essay was written by him in 1850 to the editor of Fraser’s Magazine Town and Country, a conservative literary journal published in London. His writing was in response to an article published by Thomas Carlyle in 1849 about how, despite Carlyle’s claims, it was not acceptable to keep black people who were previously enslaved as indentured servants, meaning they were contracted to work without any guarantee of pay.

In this piece, Mill wishes to dispute the beliefs of Carlyle and argues that slave owners kept slaves purely for their own gain, claiming that “the motive on the part of the slave-owners was the love of gold; or, to speak more truly, of vulgar and puerile ostentation”. He goes on to berate aristocrats who believe it to be a “scandal” that former slaves should now enjoy their existence on little work, so wishes to keep them as servants. The essay critiques Carlyle’s theory that working is a moral, God-given obligation and draws irony from the example that the black servants work for whites who do not work at all. He discusses the ‘worth’ of work and the outcome of it, by claiming that “when justice and reason shall be the rule of human affairs” then we will question the worth of the labour necessary to procure luxuries. He claims that “human beings cannot rise to the finer attributes of life” with a life filled with labour, which could suggest he believes people should have a better work/life balance and not live to work.

Mills suggests that everybody should have to work but it should be distributed fairly and writes that if a man does not work, he should not eat. To further this point, he uses a term used by Carlyle that white people should also have the “divine right” to labour, by doing so he shows how Carlyle’s claims are one-sided and racist. He also makes an argument that slaves made white people better off, whereas white people made black people endure suffering, saying that buried black people in Jamacia could have “done better without Colonel Fortescue (White), than Colonel Fortescue could have done without them”.

He uses an analogy of two trees growing at different rates due to different circumstances and compares this with humans of different skin colour, stating that humans “have infinitely more operation in impairing the growth of one another” in a claim that white people are not scientifically any superior to black people, but believe themselves to be because they impaired the growth of blacks.

John Stuart Mill Biography:

He was educated at home and had read the likes of Plato and Aristotle by the age of twelve. He became a utilitarian at the age of seventeen. He believed in women having the right to vote. Himself and rumoured lover Harriet Taylor became socially isolated after their denial of sexual relations were not believed by their friends. He founded the London Review and the Westminster Review and used them to support politicians who shared his views. He believed in proportional representation and his now wife, Harriet Taylor, changed his views on a secret ballot, making him against one. He wrote many books on philosophy and economics. He won a seat in the house of commons and campaigned for women’s suffrage. His opposition to colonialism in the West Indies was unpopular and lost him his seat in 1868. He was not necessarily a fan of universal suffrage because he thought the enfranchisement of men would therefore happen before upper-class women got their right to vote.