We did not call, but still they came

The "Windrush" myth is taking shape before our eyes

The Armchair General notes that there is much excitement about the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the ship called the Empire Windrush — which arrived on 22 June 1948 — and the contribution of the so-called Windrush Generation.

The myth currently being constructed is that those coming from Jamaica on the ship were invited, in order to rebuild a Britain struggling to recover from Word War II; we are told that, with so many young men killed in the fighting, Britain needed menial workers to selflessly come and rebuild our economy. Indeed, this view of events has been cemented in a much-lauded poem by Professor Laura Serrant.

Remember… you called.
Remember… you called
YOU. Called.
Remember, it was us, who came.

Like almost any story constructed by governments and charities over at least the last thirty years, this narrative is dodgy at best and downright dishonest at worst. The simple fact is that the ship’s operator had expected to leave Jamaica under capacity and so offered passage at half price: many local men (and it was all men) took the opportunity.

Writing in The Spectator, in an article well worth reading in full, Ed West points out that the British government certainly did not encourage these immigrants at all.

Far from calling them, the British government was alarmed by the news. A Privy Council memo sent to the Colonial Office on 15 June stated that the government should not help the migrants: ‘Otherwise there might be a real danger that successful efforts to secure adequate conditions of these men on arrival might actually encourage a further influx.’

Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones replied: ‘These people have British passports and they must be allowed to land.’ But, he added confidently: ‘They won’t last one winter in England.’ Indeed, Britain had recently endured some very harsh winters.

The Ministry of Labour was also unhappy about the arrival of the Jamaican men, minister George Isaacs warning that if they attempted to find work in areas of serious unemployment ‘there will be trouble eventually’. He said: ‘The arrival of these substantial numbers of men under no organised arrangement is bound to result in considerable difficulty and disappointment. I hope no encouragement will be given to others to follow their example.’

Nor was it the solely the evil Tories who were concerned:

Soon afterwards, 11 concerned Labour MPs wrote to Prime Minister Clement Attlee stating that the government should ‘by legislation if necessary, control immigration in the political, social, economic and fiscal interests of our people… In our opinion such legislation or administration action would be almost universally approved by our people.’ The letter was sent on 22 June; that same day the Windrush arrived at Tilbury.

One can hardly be surprised: after all, 75 years ago, the Labour Party at least strove to represent the working class of Britain and the simple fact is that there was, at the time, massive unemployment — so much so that the government was heavily subsidising tickets to Australia (at £10) in order to encourage British people to emigrate (over 2 million British people left between 1948 and 1960).

There is a certain amount of well-intentioned inclusive myth-making in this story, and from a historical point of view the idea that ‘diversity built Britain’, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, is bizarre. Until 1952 Britain was the richest country in Europe, after which we massively fell behind our continental rivals – so if diversity did ‘build’ the country, it didn’t do a great job.

One can argue, I think, that the Windrush Generation made a great many contributions, in common with many immigrants; and if their contribution was not, in reality, as large as is claimed, then they share that with the EEC/EU’s Common Market which, again (and despite all the claims), brought no discernible benefit to the UK.

As to why this myth is being promulgated… Well, as Mr West points out, certain elements in the UK need to justify the huge influx of immigrants: the narrative being created is that, without these noble men (and, eventually, women) coming to save us, Britain would not have survived — and that no one should grumble because without their “sacrifice”, our whole country would have failed and life would be immeasurably worse for everyone.

And this narrative is necessary because, as Tim Worstall points out, our demographics have changed incredibly quickly in a very short space of time.

Between the 2001 and 2021 censuses, non-white (ie, not “White British” classification) grew by 15% of the population. That’s one hell of a change in population demographics. The entire white population of South Africa is only 7.7%.

Again, this is to be entirely neutral about good or bad. But it really is one hell of a change.

It is indeed, and one can see why the increasing disquiet amongst the population about rampant immigration put the wind up our governments over the last couple of decades.

Equally, one can also see why other factual parts of the immigrants feelings might be suppressed. Returning to Mr West’s article, one almost feels some pride in how many of these travellers welcomed the prospect of journeying to Britain.

Many felt enormous joy at visiting England, a feeling described by one passenger, the calypso singer Lord Kitchener — real name Aldwyn Roberts — who wrote ‘London is the Place for Me’ onboard.

He later recalled: ‘The feeling I had to know that I’m going to touch the soil of the mother country, that was the feeling I had. You know how it is when a child, you hear about your mother country, and you know that you’re going to touch the soil of the mother country, you know what feeling is that? And I can’t describe it.’

This “enormous joy”, of course, does not fit in with another of these modern narratives — the one in which the British were all evil, rapacious slave-masters who must immediately pay large sums of money to our former colonies.

In the opinion of your jaundiced General, immigration has been a mixed blessing — and, as an old-fashioned liberal type, I am generally in favour of people being able to find a better life for themselves (especially those from our former colonies who, essentially, see themselves as British).

However, many do not feel the same way — and, as we head into an inevitable and incredibly painful recession, these voices are going to become louder and more strident. Words of violence will become more seductive — as they always do during the bad times — and we should be on our guard.

But, ultimately, we cannot take the right action — in any circumstance at all — unless we are honest about our history. So, whilst we may celebrate the landing of the Empire Windrush, we must not forget that much of today’s narrative is simply that — a story that, whilst comforting to repeat, is very far from the truth.