Poor old Enoch. Didn't really deserve to be turned into the bogeyman he was.
Poor old Enoch. Didn't really deserve to be turned into the bogeyman he was.
It surprises me, when you listen to that speech, that he didn't moderate his language somewhat. Even for the time in question, it wasn't the sentiment that was so shocking, but the intemperate language - and Enoch had a brain the size of a planet; he must have known that his choice of words would cause quite the stir.Originally Posted by Burney
True, but he was rather naive, I think.
The thing is that it was very well received by the public at large. The people who got their knick-knocks in a twist were the media and political establishment. Everyone else thought he had a point.
Of course he's turned out to be a bit of a Cassandra. Albeit one who'd identified the wrong threat.
Making the point that important a 'different' culture in a massive way extremely quickly is likely to cause some social issues strikes me as remarkably sensible and not a little obvious. He had to go and get all 'bloody' about it.
The Rivers of Blood bit isn't the bit modern lefties get cross about, though. They hate the bit about the black man 'holding the whip hand' over the white man (with its implicit suggestion that things ought naturally to be the other way around) that grinds their gears.
Causing quite the stir was the entire point of the speech.
Yes, insofar as he wanted a conversation to be had. But 'causing a stir' in the sense of 'destroying his career and credibility' probably wanted his desired outcome.
The true cost was infamy, and some rather dubious supporters. As you say, he was a rather clever man. whatever language he had used this was going to make him a hugely controversial politician. He cant have not known that.
What sort of fúcking name is Enoch?
It's a biblical name you godless fúcking heathen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote