Why was Britain gripped by widespread social disorder during 1919 Essays

Why was Britain gripped by widespread social disorder during 1919 Essays Why was Britain gripped by widespread social disorder during 1919 Essay Why was Britain gripped by widespread social disorder during 1919 Essay Essay Topic: Mythologies In 1919, against a background of worldwide violence and unrest involving people of African dissent, there occurred in Britain a series of racial riots and incidents, which in their severity and extent were unlike anything that had gone before1. There were riots in; Barry, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool, London, Newport and South Shields. The motives behind these race riots are hard to establish because there are so many different crucial factors for the social disorder in 1919. I intend to divide the question up based on the key words or phrases in the question, I will particularly focus on the race riots in Liverpool. It will always be difficult regardless of the period to try and understand peoples mental motivations for things such as riots and racial attacks when one is not in that society, just as today we find it hard to understand or sympathize with racial attacks. However there are elements that could and presumably did contribute to the heightened tensions of 1919 that reached its zenith with the race riots in the summer months, including; the First world war, popular opinion, jealously and innate and socialized racism. In the year 1919 the nation was literally in turmoil, the period itself was a transitional one being after the first world war and this formed what I believe to be one of the crucial factors in the race riots in 1919. It is possible to underestimate the immense effect the literal first world war would have had on society. Men were trained to be soldiers and a key feature of army training is to dehumanize and demoralize men, so they will be institutionalized therefore more effective and obedient soldiers. This must have had an overtly negative effect on the situations leading up to the race riots. The men may have possibly through trench warfare been more accustomed to violence and have less of a respect for the sanctity of human life and possessions and they would have been more willing to resort to violence. There was also a firm idea of Britishness instilled in to the soldiers of the First World War. Undoubtedly men who fought for king and country were more concerned with this idea, and wold want to preserve British culture and a pure race. There was also the element of colonialism, England as a colonial power was thought to be above those countries and areas it controlled, and therefore there was a lack of respect for other races. Another possible yet hypothetical argument could possibly be that of racism in the army. There have been numerous cases of racism and possibly this is a way of thinking believed by many who serve, this may have affected the way men thought about those of ethnic or racial minorities. Undoubtedly war had unleashed demons that couldnt be tamed and British men ( it is hard to know about the women) were more ready to use violence. There had been many precedents before the 1919 riots, therefore the riotous nature of the cities is an element in the fracases. There had been major anti-German and anti Jewish riots previously. The armistice celebrations in 1918 had degenerated into riot and disorder. The 1911 Transport strike showed the industry militancy spilling into violence. There was also riots in May 1915 at the sinking of the Lucitania Ship and the 1918 end of the war celebrations descended into mad looting and celebrations. Liverpool in particular had a history of riotous behavior. There had been five major riots in Liverpool, 1911,1915,1919, police riots. Once a riot starts it is opportunity that spurs a lot of people on to commit crimes that they would not usually commit. It is possible that there became an opportunistic element to the riots with different groups in society taking advantage of the disorder and the pressure on the police force to loot and attack. It is probable that there were many people involved in the riots that werent directly affected by the implied problems of immigration. It was those seafarers who were directly involved. However it is reported that there were over 6000 people rioting, I believe it is not possible for all 6000 to be involved in the seafarer industry therefore some must have been opportunistic rioters, such as the younger gangs of children who were often active in initiating the disturbances. Rioting recently in other countries such as Russia worried the government and, produced a feeling that social dissent happening in one part of the world had a direct effect on another2. Also once the rioting started in Britain their was a ripple effect with other port inhabitants seeing riot as an acceptable way to vent their anger at the injustices that that government made on a minority group. After the First World War there was an uncertainty felt by many, this specific context is incredibly important as to why the riots began. There was such a huge element of politics involved. The 1918 khaki election was directly in the aftermath of the First World War. The election rhetoric was highly confusing, they talked about the fruits of the British peoples labor and payments for their war time effort. There was never a specific line set out, the population was waiting with baited breath. One slogan that many picked up on was the, homes for heroes. This social policy intended to replace the urban slums with fresh housing stock. In reality there was a shortage of houses so many were facing the possibility homelessness which dramatically increased the tension especially in Liverpool and London. Looking at the race riots specifically in Liverpool it is possible to see how all these wider issues coupled with local problems led to the race riots; the significance of unemployment among seamen as a casual factor of the 1919 disorder similar episodes occurred among other sea faring communities. 3The long-term effects were important, chiefly that of economics. The Seafarers had returned to the ports and there was huge competition for jobs since thousands of immigrants had been imported to fill those spaces vacated by the British servicemen. There were reported incidents where Black British citizens and immigrants were turned away from jobs in order to employ British servicemen. It has been estimated that between November 1918 and March 1919 over 2,100,000 ranks had been de-mobilized. 4, There was a reported population of 3000 black seafarers in Liverpool coupled with the Chinese and Filipino workers, unemployment levels were huge. In some factories white workers refused to work along side black workers, so they were dismissed and replaced with white workers. An interesting point however is that the Seafarers didnt object to working along Scandinavians, so it was not a case of nationality it was purely defined by the color of the skin, which could suggest that it wasnt xenophobia. Another element that caused resentment was that foreign seafarers were employed for less than British men, this undercutting then forced the British workers wages down, laborers believed that blacks usurped whites through their acceptance of lower wages 5. This was also a problem that dated back to the 1880s and there is evidence of xenophobic behavior backed up by the unions. Linked to the dire economic situation was the perceived ideas about the wealth of black resident.. It was a popular thought that the black community had benefited from the war. Some black residents had purchased houses and this was thought to be unacceptable while white demobilized soldiers were homeless. However Jenkinson argues that, while primarily rooted in economic grievances, breaking out again in the early 1920s when the fortunes of the merchant shipping industry fell even lower as the post war recession set in therefore if] economic competition directly provoked riots, reinforces the notion that racial antagonism rather than a basic cause of the violence, was entrenched in the superstructure of Britain at this time. 7 Inter racial sexual relations was another element that heavily influenced the riots. The fear of miscegenation was picked up by the popular press and was almost used as an excuse for the racism. This is particularly evident in Liverpool and London where this is mentioned as a motive from the outset. 8 Sexual relations possibly angered the white population for a number of reasons. Firstly they could have been intimidated and jealous of the reality that they had been away and life had carried on without them. Secondly after fighting the war for Britain the ex-servicemen were possibly more patriotic and wanted to keep the idea of Britishness and a pure white race, even though this was never admitted openly. This issue was highly contended all over the country not just in the port towns. There were numerous newspaper articles perceiving this was a problem, even broad sheets felt threatened by the idea of white women marrying or engaging in sexual relations with black men. Jenkinson believes that, black men and white women was mentioned as an anathema, and soon the stress was laid on savage instincts of the black man9. This is also highlighted in the Liverpool Courier; the average Negro is nearer the animal than is the average white man, and that there are women in Liverpool who have no self respect. 10 However it is important to note the hypocritical element in this argument because there was reported to be over 600,000 half-caste children in South Africa due to white servicemen engaging in sexual relations with the native women. Rowe makes the interesting point that the feelings of miscegenation may not have been a prominent cause for the riot within the working class communities, it is possible the opinion of the middleclass journalists who reported on the race riots in the press. 11 The second element of the question is the idea of rioting in the whole of Britain. There was disorder in 1919 in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. In Ireland and Scotland, the rioting was not racially orientated, however its influence is evident. Glasgow saw social unrest in the early months of 1919. There was a General Strike to attempt to petition for a 40 hour week. However it was the governments reaction that had a negative effect. The industry in Glasgow was paralyzed and the government feared that the protesters could turn revolutionary (influenced possibly by other countrys as mentioned earlier). The government sent in army troops and tanks showing that they didnt want disturbances to the peace at any cost however it served to make the demonstrations more violent and made residents more disillusioned with the government. Ireland also suffered riots in January. The IRA assassinated the RIC, this was the first moment the IRA used an assassin as a weapon and it deeply shocked Ireland. The unrest continued with the banning of Dail Eoreann and Sinn Fein. South Wales suffered race riots due to its ports prominent position. Britain as a whole had a unison of innate racist attitudes (as I mentioned earlier) even if institutionalized and subverted. However the police force, the government and popular press were all guilty of racism. This can be seen in the arresting of black men in Liverpool and Cardiff, The initial arrest of black men, soon followed by the dropping of charges before trial, the finding not-guilty verdicts and convictions for lesser offences. This suggests that many of the arrests made in 1919 were because of the color of the mens skin and not because of their actions. 12 The government showed racist actions by the solution of repatrinisation and deportation. This shows a lack of compassion and one would say racist mentality towards those that were originally employed to help with the war effort. The popular presss biass were shown through their racist headlines and the focus on crimes committed by black people rather than those white people who started the riots. Therefore Britain as a whole appeared to identify with the ideas expressed by the seafarers, and this popular moral support would have probably encouraged the riotous behavior. The idea that the British people were gripped by the riots is an easy thing to believe and this is also an important element to the rioting. The psychological theory of crowd behaviorism is believed by many to explain football hooliganism, but it can also be applied to the race riots of 1919. There is a group identify felt by a riotous mob, a feeling of belonging and union which would make some have the courage to do things that they would never do on their own. There is also the element of the invisible man effect. This states that when a member of a group, individuals feel that they are not recognizable and they are therefore more inclined to act violently. It is possible, looking at Liverpool that the mob felt a group identity and so were willing to act violently. Finally it is important to question why ethnic and racial minorities were the victims in riots. Racial minorities were used as scapegoats for political problems and the governments inability to cope with the extra citizens after the war. The seafarers were also jealous of the minorities and threatened by them; when the shortage evaporated, post war economic crisis, colored semen were seen as being in direct competition and became objects of hostility. 13 Xenophobia, imperialism, jingoism influenced popular opinion; The effect of the colonial experience in the growth of racism had a dual impact racial theories were used to legitimize relationships of dominance and disability within the empire. On the other hand the very achievement of military superiority and administrative control over the colonized peoples fed back to the metropolis in the form of stereotypes mythologies a nd ideologies which confirmed the supposed superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race. 14 This point is highlighted by the participation of young boys in the riots, they possibly partly opportunistic, but undoubtedly the influence of older working friends and parents would be immeasurable and influenced racism in the next generation. The idea that society was fundamentally racist holds more weight when the beginning of the riot is observed. Jenkinson comments that; For two to three weeks before the wide scale violence of Liverpools racial riots in June 1919, blacks had been the object of attacks by whites police raided an illegal black gambling house. 15 She goes on to describe a disturbance between blacks and Scandinavians which resulted in the death of a black man, Charles Wotton. Jenkinson stresses that, while the initial fracas involved less than two dozen blacks and Scandinavians, very soon the native population became involved16, which suggests those racist feelings were looking for an outlet, which they found. There were many causes for the riots in 1919, they were much more than simply racially inspired17. Jenkinson argues that it would be wrong to pin the causes on white fear and prejudice, it was in fact much more than that covering a number of social and economic issues. The war effected the way people thought and they were more willing to use force, which became crucial when the riots began. Unemployment, lack of housing and the governments false promises of money and homes fit for heroes just frustrated and angered the British population, who then turned their attentions on to the minority groups who they perceived to be benefiting at the expense of themselves. The previous rioting had an effect and made the riots more inevitable. Britain undoubtedly became gripped by the riots and many would have joined in because it was the popular thin at the time. The workers not having a way to express their anger would have also contributed to the frustration that heightened the tensions in 1919. The issue of inter racial sex was perceived to be a main causation however that notion has now being questioned and it is thought that, racism in Britain is deeply rooted in the mode of domination cemented by the imperial heritage. 18. Even thought the race riots were caused by factors other than racism, ultimately it turned in to a racist witch-hunt which cumulated in deportation of many valuable members of British society, all in the name of British Imperialism.