Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Richard Seymour
International Socialism
All of this represents the culmination of the “new racism”, a trend
described by the philosopher Martin Barker in 1981. Shorn of explicit com-
mitment to biological determinism, or an express belief in the supremacy of
“the white race”, its core axioms centre on the cultural practices of ethnic
minorities and their supposed incompatibility with “mainstream” culture.
Its advocates, originally only hard-line followers of Enoch Powell but now
embracing sectors of the centre left, rely on common misunderstandings
about the nature of racism in order to ring-fence their culturalist discourse
as a neatly distinct matter from racism proper.
: Barker, 1981.
10: BNP, 2002.
11: Wente, 2009.
12: Mayell, 2002.
International Socialism
Multiculturalism, though challenging spurious conceptions of an ethnically
“pure” nationhood, has its weaknesses as a response to racism. It fails seriously
to address the systemic roots of racial discrimination. And in attempting to
“celebrate” diverse cultures in a depoliticised fashion, it transforms culture
from a process in which one might participate into a static object to be pas-
sively observed and enjoyed.19
Liddle’s defence indicates several prominent features of contemporary
Islamophobia. These include the claim that there are such things as discrete,
largely impervious cultures and that there is therefore a cultural “norm” that
a problematic minority is violating on behalf of its own alien cultural tenets.
A constant theme of the anti-Muslim animus today is that its conspicuous
symbols such as the hijab or even the burqa indicate a hostility to “main-
stream culture” and a desire to separate from it. That such ideas should then
become the basis of an attack on an older scapegoat—young black men in
this instance—belies the complacent view that official hostility to Islam has
no broader implications for race relations.
A third example of such defensive pleading is that, in advocating
racist practices, one merely seeks to conserve a valuable social and cultural
order that is endangered by cross-cultural penetration.
These confusions are possible in part because of the exaggerated
importance attached to “scientific” racism. Racism, in this sense, entails a
belief that the variation in physical human appearance is arranged according
to a hierarchy of superior and inferior races. As the anthropologist C Loring
Brace puts it, “race” is a concept that has “no coherent biological validity”.
Variations in physical characteristics such as skin colour, tooth length,
blood type, nose length, the presence or absence of haemoglobin S are
not distributed in a way that conforms to notions of race. The margin for
biological racism in respectable opinion has been squeezed (though it still
has its defenders among devotees of The Bell Curve, which argues that black
people are inherently less intelligent than their white counterparts).
Were it the case that racism amounted to a discredited belief in a
non-existent entity, further discussion would be futile. It would be aimed at
correcting a mistake that few are likely to make. But such a view of racism
is highly misleading. Racist narratives do not begin and end with the body,
and the present-day emphasis on cultural difference is not as anomalous as
it might at first appear. “Race” overlaps with a range of other discourses
such as nationality and ethnicity that are not strictly to do with biological
variation. The everyday language of racism draws on a “common sense”, a
International Socialism
poor Protestant labourers were in colonial Ireland they enjoyed privileges
with respect to their Irish Catholic counterparts.
Following a series of multiracial class rebellions against inden-
tured servitude in 17th century Anglo-America, epitomised by the Bacon
Rebellion of 1676, the ruling colonists turned to a system of racial slavery
that accentuated and exaggerated the differences between the oppression
of African and European workers. Through a series of legal and political
innovations very similar to those elaborated in Ireland, a “white race”
was constructed in opposition to more oppressed Africans and American
Indians. Racial oppression did not depend on supposed physical differ-
ences.23 “Race-making” processes continued to be important for capital
accumulation in post-slavery America as new groups of immigrants were
racially “othered”. Irish, Hungarian, Polish, Italian and Jewish workers,
who would today be considered “white”, were racialised in such a way
as to exclude them from the privileges of “whiteness”, while at the same
time setting them in competition with one another as well as with Chinese
immigrants and African-Americans. The “race management” strategies of
American capital involved the constant adjustment and adaptation of racial
categories and stereotypes such that the demarcations of “scientific” racist
discourses were not strictly relevant.24
Instead of looking for a reference to supposed static entities called
“races” to define acts of racism, it makes more sense to consider raciali-
sation as a constant process. Just as fascism is notoriously a “scavenger”
ideology, opportunistically appropriating ideological bric-a-brac from
other outlooks and traditions, so racist ideologies are continually con-
structed and reconstructed with a variety of elements of national, regional,
religious, sectional and class stereotypes. What they have in common is
their relationship to the practice of racial oppression in which a minority
is systemically excluded from the opportunities and entitlements of normal
citizenship. Nor are they strictly literal in their expression. Racism operates
to a great extent by allusion and conflation—mark the speed with which
“Muslim” was substituted for “Asian” in the target of racist polemics after
2001. Indeed, that very shift tells us that the cultural racism currently
directed against Muslims is rooted in several generations of anti-immigrant
racism and, before it, imperial racism.
International Socialism
way to implement controls that would be flexible, depending on political
and economic factors, and overtly colour-blind while permitting de facto
discrimination in favour of Old Commonwealth migrants. Even so the
controls implemented by the act still permitted the influx of more New
Commonwealth immigrants than had arrived throughout the 1950s. By
1982 no less than 80 percent of black and Asian immigrants living in Britain
had arrived after the act was passed. What the new controls did achieve was
not reduced immigration. Rather they entrenched institutional racism in a
new way, curtailing the citizenship rights hitherto extended to citizens of
the UK and Colonies and making their entitlement to live and work in the
UK subject to employers’ demand for their labour.28
Labour had pledged to oppose the act while in opposition on the
grounds that it was racist. Once in office, however, they effected a complete
volte face, embraced the act and tightened the restrictions in its provisions.29
It was in this climate that the elements of New Right thinking on race
started to come together. The transformation is neatly encapsulated in the
career of Enoch Powell. During his period in government as Conservative
health minister thousands of labourers from the West Indies were recruited
and he never once gave any indication that he was opposed to such immi-
gration. He spoke out against immigration controls in 1956 and in 1964 said
that he could not support “making any difference between one citizen of
this country and another on grounds of his origin”.30
Having lost the Conservative leadership election to Ted Heath
in 1965 he served in the shadow cabinet before emerging with a new
cause—one made infamous by his “rivers of blood” speech in Birmingham
in April 1968.31 This skilfully conjured racist hysteria with the use of anec-
dotes supposedly conveyed to him by his constituents. Most significantly
for Powell’s purposes he could claim that “thousands and hundreds of
thousands are saying and thinking” the things that he was expressing.32
The argument that he spoke for a hitherto silent populace represented
an important step in articulating the “new racism”. As theorists of the “new
racism” such as Martin Barker and Paul Gilroy have argued, the racism of
the New Right no longer depended on claims of white superiority, or even
of significant biological differences between “races”. It depended instead on
a view of human nature in which social solidarity is only possible among
People are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people
with a different culture and, you know, the British character has done so
much for democracy, for law, and done so much throughout the world that
if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be
rather hostile to those coming in.
International Socialism 11
on “culture” as the likely source of conflict.35 Good race relations, then,
depended on minimising the number of black and Asian people in Britain.
This approach was not unique to the New Right. It was an assumption built
into successive governments’ handling of race relations. But it was reflected
in the Thatcher government’s British Nationality Act of 1981, which con-
secrated existing practices by revising the category of “Citizenship of the
UK and Colonies” into new categories so that most Commonwealth resi-
dents no longer had the right of abode in the UK. By this time primary
immigration had come to a virtual standstill.
The official moves to shut down black and Asian immigration were
accompanied by a number of pieces of “race relations” legislation aimed at
outlawing racial discrimination. This set a pattern which has persisted to this
day. Since the 1960s successive governments have pursued a contradictory
policy of on the one hand separating race relations from immigration and
on the other using the issue of race relations to justify ever tighter immigra-
tion controls. A primary justification for immigration controls, pace Thatcher,
is that they ensure good race relations. The rationale is that by control-
ling the fears of the white population integration for Britain’s non-white
minority is made easier. Yet the signal sent by such a policy is that Britain
is in some sense threatened by the presence of immigrants, especially by
non-white immigrants. Roy Hattersley, once an advocate of strict immi-
gration controls, conceded the point more than a decade ago regarding the
Tories’ 1996 Asylum and Immigration Bill: “It is measures like the Asylum
and Immigration Bill—and the attendant speeches—which create the impres-
sion that ‘we cannot afford to let them in’. And if we cannot afford to let
them in, those of them who are here already must be doing harm”.36
This contradiction between anti-immigration measures and race rela-
tions policy has historically been overcome by exempting immigration policy
from the provisions of anti-racist legislation.37 New Labour’s Race Relations
(Amendment) Act of 2000 expanded the scope of the original 1976 legislation
making it illegal for public authorities such as the police and the Immigration
and Nationality Directorate to discriminate on the grounds of race or nation-
ality. However, there remains an exemption for immigration and nationality
functions, where discrimination on ethnic and national grounds is permitted
if it is required by legislation or ministerial authorisation.38 Thus agencies of
International Socialism 13
Refugee Council noted that while polling detected compassionate attitudes
to asylum seekers the public over-estimated the number of refugees living
in the UK by ten times. In one survey people thought that the UK had 23
percent of the world’s refugees, when the actual figure was closer to two
percent. And the majority of the public, almost two thirds, supported the
Tories’ 2005 proposal to withdraw from the 1951 Convention. A recent
poll found that two thirds of Britons believe the country has an “immigra-
tion problem” and 47 percent—twice the average across Europe—favour
discrimination against legal immigrants in terms of access to benefits.41
The anti-immigrant racism directed towards Eastern Europeans,
especially Roma gypsies in the form of asylum-bashing has also fed into
hostility towards Polish workers. This found a small but dangerous foot-
hold in the organised labour movement during the Lindsey oil construction
workers’ dispute in early 2009 where a prominent slogan was “British
jobs for British workers”. However, it is in the context of a pronounced
Islamophobia that New Right arguments over immigration and integration
have been taken up by segments of the centre left.
41: BBC News, 14 January 2010; Refugee Council, 2002; MORI, 2003; YouGov, 2003;
YouGov, 2005; Schuster, 2003, p152; Guardian, 3 December 2009.
42: Kundnani, 2007, pp40-54; BBC News, 11 December 2001; Kundnani, 2001; Cantle,
2001; BBC News, 2001; Independent, 16 September 2002; Lowles, Hope Not Hate website.
43: An extraordinarily useful resource for tracking anti-Muslim racism is the regularly
updated website Islamophobia Watch: www.islamophobia-watch.com
44: Daily Telegraph, 9 January 2010.
International Socialism 15
considerable extent the media bears responsibility for this. In 2007 a study
of one week of national newspaper headlines found that 91 percent of those
dealing with Muslims were negative.45
This is a trend that has become particularly marked as a result of the
war on Iraq. A detailed survey of the British print media (focusing on the
broadsheets and therefore omitting the more pungent output of tabloids such
as the Express and the Star) found that the single biggest category of Islam-
related stories in 2003 were those relating to terrorism, counter-terrorism
and “extremism”. The themes of such reporting were that British Muslims
posed a security threat to the UK, threatened mainstream “British values”,
and created tensions through their inherent cultural differences with other
Britons. The survey also noted that in the pre-9/11 period, though Muslims
were less likely to be discussed in the media because they lacked news clout,
the framework (of “fundamentalism”, criminality, Muslim politics, the
impact of Muslim schools, arranged marriages and—increasingly—“honour
killings”) in which Muslims were discussed tended to be in terms of their
non-proximity to mainstream culture. The construction put on such news
items overwhelmingly tended to depict Muslims as being inherently at odds
with a desirable norm.46 This once again warns against reducing the hostility
toward Muslims to a product of the “war on terror”.
The current wave of Islamophobia is given an official mandate by poli-
cies pursued by governments across Europe on the pretext of seeking the
“integration” of spotlit minorities, particularly Muslims. A pattern of measures
such as language tests, loyalty tests, and even—in one German state—inquiries
as to private beliefs concerning such matters as sexuality, has emerged as part
of the state’s crackdown on politically troublesome immigrant populations.
New Labour launched a series of initiatives concerned with promoting the
integration of Muslim communities. Just as Asians were previously singled
out for lectures on what language to speak, who to marry and what values
they should have, there was an increasing government focus on the suppos-
edly disintegrative propensities of Muslims, particularly after 7 July 2005.47
The precedent had been set by the government’s response to the
Macpherson report into police handling of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Home secretary David Blunkett protested against the idea of “institutional
racism” being a problem in Britain, and opposed the Macpherson report’s
proposals for anti-racism education on the grounds that Britons had too
International Socialism 17
in part be interpreted as a defensive response to official opprobrium. And
the very fact that such questions are being asked of Muslims is itself indica-
tive of the atmosphere of the tribunal. But if one half of the public at large
is not terribly bothered about patriotism or loyalty, why should Muslims
be expected to be different? The demand for “integration” is a demand for
double standards and ultimately for political quiescence.
Liberals have all too often provided cover for this particular kind of
racism. After 2001 the centre-left began to espouse arguments about national
identity and immigration that mimicked those of the New Right. The New
Labour friendly commentator and editor of Prospect, David Goodhart, revived
Powellite arguments that the welfare state was under threat from excessive
diversity. He maintained that the pro-welfare consensus was under threat
because people would be less willing to pool resources to look after people
who were unlike them and whose values they did not share. The upshot
was that the government should not only seek to control borders but should
work harder to “integrate” minorities—thus he applauded David Blunkett’s
demand that Asian families should speak English in their own homes. He
expressed the fear that “we will wake up in 20 years and find we have become
a US-style society with sharp ethnic tension and a weak welfare state”.52
Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality (now the
Equality and Human Rights Commission) initially denounced liberals of
Goodhart’s ilk as “liberal Powellites”, but later reversed his position and
advised that it was time to dump “multiculturalism” as it “suggests sepa-
rateness”. He said that it was necessary to fight for a “core of Britishness”
that would unite society, and was defended in this position by liberal
columnist Polly Toynbee. He warned that Britain was “sleepwalking to
segregation” with the development of “fully fledged ghettos”. In a detailed
response to these sorts of alarmist claims, a study by two experts based in
Manchester University found that the evidence does not support the claims
of disintegration along racial lines. For most young people from minori-
ties half or more of their friends are white, less than a fifth of minorities
born in Britain have friends only among their ethnic cohort (far fewer than
whites), and Asian Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus marry out of their own
group as frequently as white Christians.53
As liberals have embraced such discourses, the right has felt more
confident about exploring them, as when Lord Carey announced that
54: Times, 10 September 2008; 7 January 2010; Financial Times, 10 January 2010; Guardian, 11
January 2010; Finney and Simpson, 2009, pp82-86.
International Socialism 19
think of another form of dress which is so highly politicised—or so rejec-
tionist of mainstream culture”.55
However, what Smith means by “rejectionist of mainstream culture” is
made clear when she speaks of Islamists plotting terror while enjoying “some
success in persuading Muslim women to adopt the niqab and jilbab”. In a
paranoid leap of the imagination, Smith treats such garments as if they are an
extension of an “Islamist” agenda to subvert liberal democracy.56 Again this
is a continental trend. The feminist writer Joan Wallach Scott has described
how in France the “veil” is depicted as an “enemy flag” in the Republic.57
The Sarkozy administration’s attempts to ban the burqa bear this out.
Construing Islam as an “enemy” within segues into a dangerous
argument that Muslims are “colonising” Europe through sheer force
of numbers. Lord Pearson, the leader of the UK Independence Party
(UKIP), claims that on the basis of present Muslim birth-rates Britain will
have lost the ability to determine its “own” system of government within
ten or 20 years.58 Niall Ferguson has spoken of the “subtle Muslim colo-
nisation of Europe’s cities”.59
Across the continent such claims consistently inform right wing
hostility to Muslims. For example, the Lega Nord (Northern League) in
Italy ran an advertising campaign depicting the effects of “immigration”
on Native Americans—“Now they live in reservations”, the posters said.60
The metaphor of colonisation was dramatically pictorialised during the
successful Swiss campaign for a ban on the construction of minarets, when
its campaign posters depicted a Swiss flag covered from corner to corner
with ominous black minarets. In the foreground was a “veiled” Muslim
woman, again depicted in black.
Taking this language to its demagogic extreme, the BNP asserts that
“Islamic colonisation” in the UK amounts to a “bloodless genocide”. 61
The language of colonisation implies that the appropriate response is a
“national liberation” struggle. While such martial connotations would not
be welcomed by liberal Islamophobes, this is the message taken to heart
by would-be far-right bombers. Martin Gilleard, who manufactured nail
bombs for the purposes of such a struggle, said, “Be under no illusion, we
International Socialism 21
angered by the party’s allegedly lenient stance on immigration. The con-
clusion drawn by some Labour ministers is that the party should abandon
“politically correct” equal rights legislation and appeal to white workers on
the basis of pandering to anti-immigration sentiment.65 One study, based on a
composite of several polls, would appear to give some weight to this picture.
It identifies typical BNP supporters as middle aged white males working in
skilled manufacturing roles. They are not necessarily the poorest workers but
they are typically the most aggrieved. In contrast to NF supporters in the
1970s, they are older, less sympathetic to the Conservative Party and much
angrier about the state of society. They share significant demographic quali-
ties with Labour supporters and “52 of the 58 council seats won by the BNP
since 2005 have come at the expense of Labour incumbents”.66
Other research, however, casts a different light on this. First of
all there is the Democratic Audit study from 2004 which found that the
majority of BNP voters were ex-Tories rather than former Labour sup-
porters. “In fact the BNP gains most from the Conservatives and least
from Labour”, it said. That survey also suggested a more complicated story
with respect to the class background of fascist voters, a disproportionate
number of whom were “lower middle class”.67 Another survey carried out
by YouGov last year was large enough to include a representative sample
of BNP voters. It confirmed that the BNP had made substantial inroads
into the working class but still found that their voters tended to have voted
Conservative in the past rather than Labour.68 Indeed, the traditional base
65: Andy Burnham and Margaret Hodge have both made arguments along these lines.
Burnham responded to BNP gains in 2009 by arguing that “clearly there are concerns
about immigration. The government has got to respond to those concerns... We’ve got to
understand and connect with people as to why they voted BNP and never just dismiss why
they’ve done that.” Quoted in Bhattacharyya, 2009c. Hodge dramatically raised the profile
of the BNP by suggesting that rules for the allocation of social housing should be changed
to overcome an “essential unfairness” favouring immigrants, otherwise the BNP would gain
votes—BBC News, 21 May 2007. Similarly, a government minister responded to New Labour’s
defeat in the 2008 Henley by-election by fuming about Harriet Harman’s proposed equalities
bill: “We have, as Crewe proved, a problem with the white working class male vote. So what
does Harriet do on polling day? Announce that we will bring in laws to discriminate against
them. That is clearly not very helpful”—Daily Telegraph, 27 June 2008.
66: Ford & Goodman, 2010.
67: An important caveat about these findings is that the report’s authors rely on “social class”
breakdowns in which C1 and C2 voters are classified as “lower middle class”. This means
that they included skilled manual workers and clerical workers among the “lower middle
class” alongside supervisors, junior managers, small businessmen, and professionals. John,
Margetts, Rowland and Weir, 2004.
68: YouGov, 2009.
International Socialism 23
the view that all immigration to the UK should be stopped. More than a
quarter favour the government “encouraging” “immigrants and their fami-
lies” to leave the UK even if they were born here. Predictably, it is the
most right wing voters that entertain these views but they are also shared
by a substantial number of Labour supporters. Note the overlap between
the racist resentment of Muslims and the same resentment towards other
minorities. These are not separate but parallel phenomena.72
The BNP’s approach to would-be voters has been decisively shaped
by the new international political climate forged by the “war on terror”.
In this respect, it mimics xenophobic and fascist parties across Europe
by redirecting its fire onto Muslims, tailoring its message to avoid public
expressions of anti-Semitism and even for the first time expressing support
for the state of Israel. The first sign of the latter change came in 2006 when
Lee Barnes, the BNP’s legal officer, outlined the position with respect to
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon: “I support Israel 100 percent in their dispute
with Hezbollah... I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and
bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their
Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood.”
The party declared itself “prudently” on Israel’s side, for reasons of
“national interest”: Israel was part of a “Western, if not European” civi-
lisation whose opponents were “trying to conquer the world and subject
it to their religion”. An article on the BNP’s website explained that the
party had cast off “the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled
anti-Semitism which has held this party back for two decades”. BNP leader
Nick Griffin explained the new strategy berating those who wished to con-
tinue to focus on Jews by saying, “We should be positioning ourselves to
take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public
hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media”.73
However, this has not translated into a pro-war stance in the major
theatres of the “war on terror”, nor has it necessarily involved explicitly
cheerleading Israeli aggression. The BNP has opposed the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq, claiming to be the “only serious party calling for immediate with-
drawal from Afghanistan”. It has, however, tapped into pro-troops sentiment
by standing in wards where soldiers have died, and Griffin has even made
an appearance at Wootton Bassett where the coffins of deceased soldiers are
routinely paraded. On Operation Cast Lead, Nick Griffin explained to sup-
porters that though it was in the general interest of Britain for Israel to defeat
74: Griffin, 2009; Channel 4 News, 16 November 2009; Independent, 29 March 2003; Times, 10
November 2009; British Pride, 2008.
International Socialism 25
far-right businessman named Alan Lake, who has previously worked with
the fascist Swedish Democrats.75
What appears to be happening is that the organisational and “intel-
lectual” spine of the organisation is being supplied by organised Nazis while
the foot-soldiers are recruited from among football casuals and other violent
right wing, but non-Nazi, groups. This is not the first time that such a
tactic has been pursued. The National Front used to infiltrate and mobilise
skinhead and football hooligan groups during the 1970s in order to attack
the left and ethnic minorities. It is also analogous to the general tendency
by fascist organisations to use paramilitaries, comprising many who are not
ideologically committed fascists, both as weapons against opponents and
as socialising institutions that can help produce a disciplined fascist cadre.76
This is one reason why it is a mistake to simply dismiss the EDL as thugs
who can be dealt with by police as a public order issue.
Conclusion
The swing, within a decade, from post Lawrence Inquiry optimism to
the current abysmal state of affairs was not inevitable. To a consider-
able extent racism has been driven by policy and encouraged by media
reaction. Contrary to the ahistorical analyses of racism that see it as an
instinctive response to “otherness”—which by naturalising racism, under-
mines criticism of it—racialisation is a political act, and racism a structure
of political oppression. In this sense the revival of Powellite racism,
the “new racism”, is a result of various government strategies for man-
aging troublesome minorities, making immigration work to the benefit
of capital accumulation, and depoliticising anti-racism so that it can be
accommodated to the neoliberal settlement.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a purely top-down process.
Racist ideas have caught on because they in some sense explain people’s
experiences of the world, and they are particularly popular among those
for whom the world is structured by competition for scarce resources.
It is these groups of naturally right wing voters who gravitate toward
UKIP and the BNP. The “war on terror” has helped radicalise these ideas
and give them a poisonous edge, but it didn’t create them, and it isn’t
the principal source of them. To combat racism it is necessary not only
75: Barnes, 2009; Linden, National Front website; Lowles, Searchlight, 2009; Cressy, Hope
Not Hate website; This Is Lancashire, 30 January 2010; Tweedie, 2009.
76: Thurlow, 1998, pp252-255; Dunning, Murphy & Williams, 1988, pp182-183; Mann,
2004, pp26-29.
Bibliography
Allen, Theodore W, 1994, The Invention of the White Race: Volume One: Racial Oppression and Social
Control (Verso).
Anjum, Maher, 1999, “Owning up to Being Middle Class: Race, Gender and Class in the
Context of Migration”, in Christine Zmroczek & Pat Mahony (eds), Women and Social Class:
International Feminist Perspectives (Routledge).
Barnes, Lee, 2009, “The Transition Point for Nationalism”, 21st Century British Nationalism,
21 June 2009.
Barker, Martin, 1981, The New Racism: Conservatives and the Ideology of the Tribe (Junction Books).
Bentham, Martin, 2009, “Figures Back Him but Don’t Tell Whole Story”, Evening Standard,
7 December 2009.
Bhattacharyya, Anindya, 2009a, “Racist ideas fuel the BNP”, Socialist Worker, 20 June 2009,
www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18177
Bhattacharyya, Anindya, 2009b, “Defend the Muslim Community”, Kafa launch meeting,
26 June 2009, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-pA5wqwzZM
Bhattacharyya, Anindya, 2009c, “Why does Racism Still Exist”, Marxism 2009,
2 July 2009.
BNP, 2002, “Frequently Asked Questions”, BNP website.
BNP, 2009, “Genocide: How Islamic Colonisation Destroys Your Heritage”, BNP website.
Bogues, Anthony, 2005, “John Stuart Mill and ‘The Negro Question’”, in Andrew Valls
(ed), Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, (Cornell University Press).
British Pride, 2008, “The Truth about the British Empire”, 1 November 2008.
Brown, Andy R, 2005, “‘The Other Day I Met a Constituent of Mine’: a Theory of Anecdotal
Racism”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 28, Number 4 (July 2005).
Cantle, Ted, 2001, “Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team”,
Home Office, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/12/11/
communitycohesionreport.pdf
Casciani, Dominic, 2004, “Is this man the left’s Enoch Powell?”, BBC News website, 26
April 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3652679.stm>
Cressy, Simon, “English Defence League cracks begin to show”, Hope Not Hate website,
www.hopenothate.org.uk/features/English-Defence-League-cracks-begin-to-show.php
Crown Prosecution Service Management Information Branch, 2007, “Racist and Religious
Incident Monitoring Annual Report 2006—2007” (December 2007), www.cps.gov.uk/
Publications/docs/rims06-07.pdf
Davidson, Neil, 2006, “Carnival, March, Riot”, International Socialism 112 (autumn 2006)
www.isj.org.uk/?id=261
International Socialism 27
Drew, Dave, 1982, “Metropolitan Police Statistics: Race and Crime”, Radical Statistics 24, (June
1982), www.radstats.org.uk/no024/drew.pdf
Dunt, Ian, 2009, “Muslims more patriotic than Brits”, (7 May 2009), www.politics.co.uk/
news/equality/muslims-more-patriotic-than-brits-$1293822.htm
Dunning, Eric, Patrick Murphy and John M Williams, 1988, The Roots of Football Hooliganism: An
Historical and Sociological Study (Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Esch, Elizabeth, and David R Roediger, 2009, “One Symptom of Originality: Race and the
Management of Labour in the History of the United States”, Historical Materialism, Volume 17.
Finney, Nissa, and Ludi Simpson, 2009, “Sleepwalking to Segregation”?: Challenging Myths About Race
and Migration (Policy Press).
Fekete, Liz, 2006, “Enlightened Fundamentalism? Immigration, Feminism and the Right”,
Race and Class, Volume 48, Number 1.
Ferguson, Niall, 2004, “A World Without Power”, Foreign Policy.
Ford, Robert, and Matthew J Goodman, 2010, “Angry White Men: Individual and
Contextual Predictors of Support for the British National Party”, Political Studies,
Volume 58.
Gilroy, Paul, 1987, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, (Routledge).
Githens-Mazer, Jonathan, and Robert Lambert, 2010, “Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate
Crime: A London Case Study”, European Muslim Research Centre, University of Exeter,
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/emrc/publications/Islamophobia_and_Anti-Muslim_Hate_
Crime.pdf
Goodhart, David, 2004, “Close the Door Before it’s Too Late”, Guardian, 19 February 2004.
Greenslade, Roy, 2005, Seeking Scapegoats: the Coverage of Asylum in the UK Press (Institute for Public
Policy Research).
Griffin, Nick, 2009, “Israel’s Gaza Affair”, BNP website, January 2009.
Hardy, Jane, “Migration, Migrant workers and Capitalism”, International Socialism 122 (spring
2009), www.isj.org.uk/?id=535
Hillman, Nicholas, 2008, “A ‘Chorus of Execration’? Enoch Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ forty
years on”, Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 42, Number 1 (February 2008).
Home Office, 2002, “Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity
in Modern Britain”, www.privacyinternational.org/issues/terrorism/library/
uksecureborderssafehavens.pdf
Home Office, 2007, “Home Affairs—Second Report”, Session 2007-07 (House of
Commons), www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/
cmhaff/181/18102.htm
Ignatiev, Noel, 1995, How The Irish Became White, (Routledge).
Israely, Jeff, 2009, “An Italian Town’s White (No Foreigners) Christmas”, Time (1 December
2009), www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943676,00.html
Jacobson, Matthew Frye, 2001, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and
Abroad, 1876-1917 (Hill & Wang).
John, Peter, Helen Margetts, David Rowland and Stuart Weir, 2004 “The BNP: The
roots of its appeal”, Democratic Audit, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex,
www.democraticaudit.com/download/breaking-news/BNP-Full-Report.pdf>
Jones, Catherine, 2001, Immigration and Social Policy in Britain, (Routledge).
Joshi, Shirley, and Bob Carter, 1984, “The Role of Labour in the Creation of a Racist
Britain”, Race and Class, Volume 25, Number 53.
Kundnani, Arun, 2001, “From Oldham to Bradford: The Violence of the Violated”,
Institute of Race Relations (1 October 2001).
International Socialism 29
Smith, Joan, 2010, “Nothing Liberal about Defending Burkas”, Independent (19 January
2010), http://bit.ly/smithindy2
Spencer, Ian RG, 1997, British Immigration Policy since 1939: the Making of Multi-racial Britain
(Routledge).
Spencer, Sarah, 1998, “The Impact of Immigration Policy on Race Relations” in Tessa
Blackstone, Bikhu Parekh and Peter Sanders (eds), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing
Agenda (Routledge).
Thatcher, Margaret, 1978, World in Action (27 January 1978), www.margaretthatcher.org/
speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103485
Thurlow, Richard C, 1998, Fascism in Britain: from Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts to the National Front
(IB Tauris)
Tweedie, Neil, 2009, “The English Defence League: Will the Flames of Hatred Spread?”,
Daily Telegraph (10 October 2009), www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6284184/The-English-
Defence-League-will-the-flames-of-hatred-spread.html
UK Border Agency, 2006, “Immigration Directorates’ Instructions”, www.ukba.homeoffice.
gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/IDIs/idischapter12/section9/section9.pdf
Walker, Monica A, 1984, “Some Problems in Interpreting Race and Crime Statistics”,
Radical Statistics 31 (October 1984), www.radstats.org.uk/no031/walker.pdf
Wente, Margaret, 2009, “Feminism’s unlikely ally, and radical Islam’s foe”, Globe and Mail
(13 November 2009), www.theglobeandmail.com/books/martin-amis-versus-the-taliban/
article1362629/
YouGov, 2003, “Immigration and Asylum survey for the Sun” (August 2003), http://bit.ly/
asylumsurvey1
YouGov, 2005, “YouGov/Mail on Sunday survey” (February 2005), http://bit.ly/mailsurvey
YouGov, 2009, “European Elections” (May—June 2009), www.channel4.com/news/
media/2009/06/day08/yougovpoll_080609.pdf
Younge, Gary, 2009, “I’ve changed my mind about racism”, Guardian, 28 December 2009,
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/28/goodbye-noughties-race-relations