Britain as a country is no stranger to violence, hatred and chaos. But if you were to ask a member of the public which traits are synonymous with Britain, words like ‘respectable’ and ‘traditional’ are more likely to appear. The idea of a national identity is one which is purely imaginary yet manifests itself in the lives of every British citizen, for our past and present contribute to this idea that being British means something. As a nation plagued by a long imperial history, race has always been an abrasive element in British society that flares up every decade or so; now, in 2024, we are seeing riots across the country flying the banner of racism and bigotry high as they purportedly protest violence against children among other issues. With the Prime Minister labelling such acts as “far-right thuggery”, it seems pertinent to look back on Britain's history with race and identity, and how violence and the far right have played a vital role throughout. By tracing Britain's national identity crisis in the postwar era, we will uncover how an ‘us vs them’ attitude was formed, which still lingers on today with detrimental effect.

 

A major turning point in the classification of a strictly British identity came in the wake of World War 2, which had many consequences for Britain’s empire and global reputation. Prior to this, Britain was mainly identified as an empire who dominated many lands, and to be British was to be proud of such ‘achievements’. WW2, however, was a war with multiple ideological underpinnings; namely, the triumph over oppression and evil. Empire-Building was no longer at the forefront of national priority; instead, fostering independence and moving away from imperialism seemed to be in the international mood. This meant that the way Britain saw itself needed an overhaul, as they could not define Britishness purely on notions of imperial glory. Therefore, a new, domestic, and inward-looking idea of national identity was created by academics during wartime. The ‘ordinary’ British life was simple and modest, based on the myth of ‘little England’. This rhetoric was originally contrasted to the Nazi society to show how we were a more civilised, united nation. World War 2 breathed life into a new British identity that aimed to revitalise the themes of unity after the war; all classes were involved in the struggle, with the working classes in particular showing stoic qualities, leading to a more socially cohesive society. The traits that were labelled as British were also antithetical to those found in fascism, such as independence of thought and diversity, with the propaganda of Britain focusing on the freedom of artistic expression compared to the constraints in Nazi Germany. The British identity was built around these ideas of unity, tenacity, and democracy in the face of threats like fascism.

 

Moving into the 1950s, the question of Britishness and the role race had to play became increasingly prominent, as immigration rates rose following the 1948 British Nationality Act. This stated that all citizens of the Commonwealth and British Empire would be included under a common subjecthood, giving them all equal status and the right to live and work in the UK. The act was an attempt to bring focus to Britain as the ‘mother country’ of its multicultural empire wherein members of the commonwealth could flow in and out of the UK, in similar pre-war migration patterns. The politicians who conceived the idea did not prepare for mass immigration from non-white countries, instead only expecting the labour shortages from the war to be filled in by those from the ‘old’ world and not the ‘new’. While Labour’s policy seemed progressive and anti-racist on the surface it was still done in the hope that immigration would continue as it was before the war, making the British Nationality Act mostly symbolic in its implementation. Immigration restrictions based on race were not possible based on the principles that the Commonwealth were created under (British exceptionalism, freedom of movement), and given the choice between controlling all immigration or none, Labour had to choose the latter. Those in the Conservative party against immigration were confined to the backbenches. From there, they raised issues such as housing and employment about the new immigrants, but they were really questioning their colour and character. Under the Conservatives, toward the end of the 1950s, race took increasing importance in politics; the rate of immigration continued to increase with the figure in 1974 reaching 1.6 million, nine-tenths of which had arrived since 1954.

 

The next piece of significant legislation concerning immigration came in 1965 in the form of the Race Relations Act. Labour had previously committed to anti-discrimination laws following the Notting Hill riots (which will be discussed further on), but previous governments had not made any leeway into such legislation due to the fear that they would be censoring free speech. Nevertheless, the combination of an influx in coloured immigration and the relatively recent political memory of agitation against the Jewish community culminated in the first concrete law prohibiting discrimination in public places. Whilst not perfect, this act was a step in the right direction for the government, as they could now play an active role in curtailing racism and developing a multicultural society safe for those moving to the UK. The limitations of the act however have been discussed by historians, pointing out its tame and toothless nature as only one section held any power to criminally indict people. Section Six gave the Attorney General sole authority in prosecuting those charged with incitement of racial hatred. This was criticised by the likes of the Race Relations Board who only gained the right to civil cases in the 1968 act.

 

Government policy regarding immigration and race during the 1950s was apprehensive and largely symbolic; they did not champion the issue of discrimination against people of colour, but rather used legislation to help quell the minority of fascist voices in the country who were targeting the likes of immigrants and the Jewish community. The limitations of the Race Relations Act supports this view, with the government's ambivalence towards impactful laws on the issue leading to the necessity for more effective laws in 1968 and 1976.

 

The final section of this article will look at the role of violence and the far right in Britain’s race relations, how ideology tied with a certain view of Britishness led to riots and disorder on the streets. How did the wartime conception of British identity hold up in the absence of a strong uniting force like war? In 1958 violence erupted on the streets of Nottingham and Notting Hill, with predominantly white youths attacking and threatening coloured people. This incident stands relatively alone when it comes to larger-scale racial violence in Britain; Liverpool saw riots in 1948 against West Indian and Asian immigrants, and Middlesbrough was similarly home to riots in 1961 after an Arab was arrested for the murder of a local boy. There was, however, an absence of orchestrated group violence during this period. Political groups that previously advocated for violence and disorder, like the earlier fascist parties led by Oswald Mosley, were willing to work within the political structure to spread their ideas. The National Front, Racial Preservation Society, and English Rights Association were more successful than extremist groups that advocated violence, like the Greater Britain Movement and even a briefly present Klu Klux Klan. Despite refraining from the path of disorder and violence, these right wing parties that were able to command a modicum of support still purported anti-immigrant vitriol, but their sentiment was not strictly bound to the political fringe.

 

Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech shows how anti-immigrant and racist attitudes were present in the leading parties, although his subsequent removal means the Conservative Party did not want to be associated with that kind of blatant language. These ideas combine to create the ‘us v them’ attitude of race relations.As previously discussed, Britain’s reimagining of its national identity led to the identification of certain attributes with Britons, which inevitably leaves those who don't necessarily share those qualities as ‘others’. Assimilation into British society became much harder for immigrants as they were automatically disregarded as being part of the culture, and this became increasingly based upon their skin colour first and foremost. In conclusion, race relations of the mid-20th century sparked important questions on Britain's national identity, and the role it would play in the world as a leading multicultural nation. It is clear that the answers have still not been found, as we are repeating the more violent and disorderly parts of this history today on the streets of major cities across the country. We are faced with a bigger challenge now which comes from the popularity and confidence of the Reform Party - no longer are their views confined to local meetings, but with voices in Parliament and a large internet presence, the greatest threat to British society is in its strongest position yet. The encouragement of riots and disorder by far-right commentators online is a new element to politics, one which opens doors to issues of free speech, incitement, and accountability.

​

Written by Thomas Sturgess

 

Bibliography

 

Ashcroft, Richard T. and Bevir, Mark. “British Multiculturalism After Empire: Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship.” In Multiculturalism in the British Commonwealth: Comparative Perspectives on Theory and Practice, edited by Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, 25-45. Oakland: University of California Press, 2019.

 

Easton, Mark. “The English Question: What is the Nation’s Identity?.” BBC News, June 3, 2018. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44306737.

 

Foss, Brian. “Message and Medium: Government Patronage, National Identity and National Culture in Britain,1939-45.” Oxford Art Journal 14, No.2 (1991): 52-72.

 

Hartesveldt, Fred R. van. “Race and Political Parties in Britain, 1954-1965.” Phylon 44, no.2 (1983): 126-134

 

.Holmes, Colin. “Violence and Race Relations in Britain, 1953-1968.” Phylon 36, no.2 (1975): 113-124.Panayi, Panikos. “Middlesbrough 1961: A British Race Riot of the 1960s?.” Social History 16, no.2 (1991): 139-153.

 

Schaffer, Gavin. “Legislating Against Hatred: Meaning and Motive in Section Six of the Race Relations Act of 1965.” Twentieth Century British History 25, no.2 (2014): 251-275.

 

Whitehead, Jamie. “Starmer condemns 'far-right thuggery' on UK streets and says those involved 'will regret it'.” BBC News, August 4, 2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0jqjxe8d1yt.

 

Waters, Chris. “"Dark Strangers" in Our Midst: Discourses of Race and Nation in Britain, 1947-1963.” Journal of British Studies 36, No.2 (1997): 207-238.