|
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, just that the word 'detested' was a bit harsh to describe people's attitudes to post-War immigrants.
As much as I respect a historian like EP Thompson, his attitude towards the Government and Empire is famously - although not at times unreasonably - hostile. Commonwealth members had the right to become permanent British citizens until 1962, a point where most of the Empire had ceased. The period between 1962 and 1972 (when increased restrictions were introduced) was dominated bythe 90,000 Gurjurati Indians expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin.
The period between 1945 and 62 was a period when no restrictions applied for commonwealth citizens to enter Britain. The problem was that most simply didn't want to leave their homes for cold, foggy London. The years immediately following the War saw Britain employing ex German and Italian POWs to help counter the labour shortage, but when this proved insufficient, they looked towards commonwealth countries like Jamaica to work primarilly in the postal and transport system.
Historians will forever argue about the real causes, effects and attitudes towards immigration in Britain at this time. Certainly it was a complex, messy affair but not the period of Empire maintenance you portray. If anything, Britains political landscape in the postwar years up to the 70s (if we conveniently forget the Suez crisis) was immensely oriented towards domestic issues and remains one of the most progressive phases in its history. Of course, a statement like that is itself massively open to debate.
Re Arms distribution: I'm not sure about the obviously unofficial channels of arms distribution that help fuel street crime. Again, I believe that a vast majority of those heading this trade are white, but also continue to believe that, if given the opportunity, blacks would happily replace them, and sell their arms on to the exact same people.
|