How Malcolm X’s Visit to the Oxford Union is Relevant Today
The American Historical Review
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association (AHA). The AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States since 1895 -- the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge.
BY SALADIN AMBAR AND STEPHEN TUCK
DECEMBER 3RD 2014
Fifty years ago today, a most unlikely figure was called to speak at the Oxford Union Debating Society: Mr. Malcolm X. The Union, with its historic chamber modeled on the House of Commons, was the political training ground for the scions of the British establishment. Malcolm X, by contrast, had become a global icon of black militancy, with a reputation as a dangerous Black Muslim. The visit seemed something of an awkward pairing. Malcolm X encountered a hotel receptionist who tried to make him write his name in full in the guest book (she had never heard of him), sat through a bow tie silver service dinner ahead of the debate, and had to listen to a conservative debating opponent accuse him of being a racist on a par with the Prime Minister of South Africa. A closer look at the event, though, reveals the pairing of Malcolm X and the Oxford Union to be a good fit — and reveals much about the issues of race and rights then, and now.
From the perspective of the Oxford Union, a controversial speaker was an entirely good thing. The BBC covered Malcolm X’s costs and broadcast the debate. In late 1964, though, Malcolm X also spoke to student concerns about race equality. For many years, the British media’s (sympathetic) coverage of anti-racist protests in the American South and South Africa gave the impression that racial discrimination was chiefly to be found elsewhere. A bitter election which turned on anti-immigration sentiment in late 1964 in Smethwick, in the English midlands, with its infamous slogan, “If you want a n***** for you neighbour, vote Labour,” exposed the virulence of the race issue in Britain, too. Students followed this news abroad and at home. Some visited “racial hotspots” in person. Others joined demonstrations in solidarity. Still, on the surface, such issues seemed a world away from Oxford’s dreaming spires.
But some students in Oxford were also grappling with the question of race in their own institution. The Union President, Eric Antony Abrahams, was a Jamaican Rhodes Scholar, who had vowed to his sister in his first week that he would “fill the Union chamber with blacks.” Abrahams was part of a growing cohort of students from newly independent nations who studied in Britain, many of whom called for changes in curriculum and representation. Three days before Malcolm X arrived, Oxford students released a report showing that more than half of University landladies in the city refused to accept students of color. The University had an official policy of non-discrimination, but the fact that many landladies turned down black applicants in practice had been a running sore for years. The report, and Malcolm X’s visit, brought the matter to public attention. Student activism ultimately forced a change in practice, part of a nationwide series of protests against the unofficial color-bar in many British lodgings. At a time when Ferguson is rightly at the forefront of the news, events in Oxford in 1964 remind us that atrocities elsewhere should serve as a prompt to address, rather than a reason to ignore, questions of rights and representation nearer to home.
For Malcolm X, coming to Oxford was an exciting challenge. He loved pitting his wits against the brightest and the best. As chance would have it, as Prisoner 22843 in the Norfolk Penal Colony in Massachusetts, he may well have debated against a visiting team from Oxford. More germane, though, was Malcolm’s desire in what turned out to be the final year of his life to place the black freedom struggle in America within the global context of human rights. He had spent the better part of 1964 in the Middle East and Africa. In each stop along his dizzying itinerary of states, he attempted to build support for international opposition to racial discrimination in America. Malcolm’s visits to Europe in late 1964 were no different. But it was Oxford that afforded him the opportunity to broadcast his views before his widest single audience yet. Citing the recent murders of civil rights activists in Mississippi, Malcolm X told his audience: “In that country, where I am from, still our lives are not worth two cents.”
At a time when cities across the United States have recently braced themselves against the threat of rebellion in the aftermath of the acquittal of Michael Brown’s killer, it is hard not to conclude that for many African Americans, Malcolm’s words at Oxford continue to haunt the nation. Indeed, by placing the civil rights movement in broad relief internationally, Malcolm sought to link the fate of African Americans with West Indians, Pakistanis, West Africans, Indians, and others, seeking their own justice in the capitals and banlieus of Europe. Emphasizing the independence of this new emergent world both within and outside of the confines of Europe, Malcolm hoped that the “time of revolution” his audience was living in would in part be defined by a broader sense of what it meant to be human. There could no longer be distinctions between “black” and “white” deaths — despite his condemnation of the media for continuing to indulge such distinctions.
Saladin Ambar is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. His most recent book, Malcolm X at Oxford Union: Racial Politics in a Global Era (2014), examines Malcolm X's participation in the 1964 Oxford Union debate and the politics of national identity in both the United States and United Kingdom. Stephen Tuck is a Professor of Modern History at Pembroke College, Oxford, and the director of the Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH). He writes further on the subject of this blog in the American Historical Review article “Malcolm X's Visit to Oxford University: U.S. Civil Rights, Black Britain, and the Special Relationship on Race” and in his most recent book The Night Malcolm X Spoke at the Oxford Union: A Transatlantic Story of Antiracist Protest (Berkley, 2014).
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/12/malcolm-x-oxford-union-debate-history/#sthash.zD8uqaPP.dpuf
AHR Forum: Transnational Lives in the Twentieth Century
Malcolm X's Visit to Oxford University: U.S. Civil Rights, Black Britain, and the Special Relationship on Race
Stephen Tuck
Stephen Tuck is a University Lecturer in U.S. History at Oxford University and the Director of the Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities. His most recent book is We Ain't What We Ought to Be: The Black Freedom Struggle from Emancipation to Obama (Harvard University Press, 2010; supporting website www.weaintwhatweoughttobe.com). He is currently working on projects exploring the relationship between the rise of Jim Crow and the so-called secular age, the connections between the United States and Europe over civil rights, and the effect of national location upon American historical writing.
ON DECEMBER 3, 1964, A MOST unlikely figure was invited to speak at the University of Oxford Union's end-of-term “Queen and Country” debate: Mr. Malcolm X. The Oxford Union (as distinct from the university's representative student union) was the most prestigious student debating organization in the United Kingdom, regularly welcoming heads of state and stars of screen.1 It was also the student arm of the British establishment—the training ground for the politically ambitious offspring of Britain's better classes. Malcolm X, by contrast, personified revolution and danger. As The Sun, the most widely read British tabloid, explained to readers in a large-font caption under a photograph of Malcolm X: “He wants a separate Negro state in which coloured people could live undisturbed. And many Americans believe he would use violence to get it.”2 Certainly the FBI did. Its file on Malcolm X, opened in 1953, expanded by the week as he toured Africa during the second half of 1964, giving a series of belligerent speeches and meeting with the leaders of newly independent nations to seek their support in calling for the UN to intervene in U.S. race relations.3
The peculiarity of his presence at the Oxford Union was not lost on Malcolm X. Indeed, his entire trip to Oxford was a study in contrasts. He was met at the rail station by the Union secretary, Henry Brownrigg, who found himself tongue-tied in the presence of a black revolutionary. In an awkward silence, Brownrigg took him to Oxford's preeminent hotel, the Randolph, a Victorian Gothic building with a quaint old-fashioned ambience. But Malcolm X seemed to interpret the choice of a hotel somewhat in need of internal refurbishment as a racist insult, a view reinforced by the receptionist's insistence that he sign his surname in full in the hotel guest book.4 The motion that he was to support in the debate, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” was a quotation from, of all people, Barry Goldwater, the outspoken conservative Republican nominee for president in 1964 who had opposed the recent passage of the Civil Rights Act.5 Even the dress code at the silver service dinner before the debate did not suit him. By tradition, male speakers wore bow ties, which was also part of the distinctive dress code of the Nation of Islam. But having left the religious movement acrimoniously earlier in the year (and now living under a death threat as a result), Malcolm X was the only speaker or committee member to wear a straight tie instead. (The only other person to wear a straight tie was the steward.)
Malcolm X's friend, the black arts poet and filmmaker Lebert Bethune, who was in London in late 1964, could not resist the chance “to see the sacrosanct image of Oxford shattered by the fist of revolutionary logic. So I took a train to Oxford just to be there for the blow.”6 That blow landed most heavily against Humphrey Berkeley MP, Malcolm X's conservative debating opponent. Berkeley charged Malcolm X with racism, and mocked him, too, asking, “why not Malcolm Z?” Malcolm X returned Berkeley's insult: “The speaker that preceded me is one of the best excuses that I know to prove our point,” and threw back his argument: “He is right. X is not my real name.” That had been taken by Berkeley's forefathers, he said, who had raped and pillaged their way through Africa. “I just put X up there to keep from wearing his name.” The students laughed when Malcolm X feigned ignorance of Shakespeare and then quoted extensively from Hamlet. They listened attentively to his assault on the American media, and even when he blamed President Lyndon Johnson for the recent murder of white missionaries in the Congo.7 He lost the vote, but he won plenty of admirers.8 Bethune judged it “one of the most stirring speeches I have ever heard delivered by Malcolm X.”9
Although Malcolm X's speech at Oxford has been widely acclaimed, the visit itself generally occupies at most a curious footnote in the civil rights literature.10 Historians interested in his growing international vision have understandably been drawn to his travels through the Middle East and Africa over his appearance one evening at a fusty old English university. But given the lengths to which he went in order to make the trip, it was clearly important to him. He accepted the invitation even though he was too busy in late 1964 to respond to similar invitations from leading American universities; he agreed to speak for no fee even though his finances were in a parlous state; and he accommodated Oxford's schedule even though the debate could hardly have come at a more inconvenient time.11 Having been abroad throughout the second half of 1964, he was eager to be home. “I miss you and the children very much,” he wrote to his wife, Betty, in August, “but it looks like another month at least may pass before I see you.”12 In fact, it would be another three. He returned home on November 24. By that time, Betty was heavily pregnant (the baby was born while he was in England), his mother was seriously ill, and the Nation of Islam was seeking to evict his family. Meanwhile, his new organization, Muslim Mosque Inc., was in a complete shambles in his absence.13 Yet he still felt, as he put it to one of his closest colleagues, Charles 37X Kenyatta, that “the long-run gains [of a trip to England] outweigh the risks.”14
The importance that Malcolm X attached to visiting Oxford, and the gains that he hoped to make, point to a little-known British-American dimension of the civil rights years. His talk at Oxford was the first stop in a short tour of four English cities, to be followed by a return trip in February 1965.15 His visit was but one of many by high-profile U.S. civil rights activists to Britain. Just three days after the Oxford debate, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr., preached to an overflowing congregation at St. Paul's Cathedral.16 In turn, such visits represented but one aspect of a much broader transfer of ideas, news, and people back and forth between Britain and America, intimately interlinked with the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia—a close relationship over the issue of black equality that served as a counterpart to the so-called special relationship between the two governments.
What distinguished this particular transnational connection from those between the United States or Britain and countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean was a widely held perception during the 1960s that the two countries were on a shared trajectory with regard to race matters. The fact that both progressive and conservative activists in both Britain and the U.S. made use of, and were shaped by, this supposedly special relationship over race speaks to debates around the nature of Americanization, transnational history, the civil rights movement, and Atlantic history. In particular, the British-American relationship on race highlights the many different purposes to which the American story could be put, the compatibility of comparative and histoire croisée approaches, the early salience of what would come to be known as Black Power ideology in Britain and the United States, and the persistent influence of Atlantic connections even in a global age.
The impact of this other special relationship can be obscured by the power of national narratives, and overshadowed by the well-known international links between Western civil rights campaigns and anticolonial nationalist movements.17 But when the travels of a particular person are followed to a particular place, the connections quickly become apparent. Set in the context of wider British, American, and global connections related to civil rights, immigration, and citizenship, Malcolm X's travels to England provide an especially apposite journey to follow. The very fact that he was invited to Oxford highlights the asymmetrical nature of the relationship and the appeal of Black Power, yet his encounter with what turned out to be a vibrant Oxford movement concerned with civil rights demonstrates the need to de-center the United States in the study of the modern global anti-racist struggle. While in England, Malcolm X would come to view the two countries as directly comparable in terms of racial conditions, reflecting a common presumption that was misguided in many ways, yet led to the stories of protest in Britain and the United States becoming deeply entangled. That he and his Oxford hosts would seek to use the visit for their own purposes points to the multiple ways in which British and American activists used the transnational relationship to strengthen their domestic campaigns. And finally, what turned out to be the considerable consequences of his time in Oxford reveal the transformative, yet often unexpected, impact of these transatlantic connections—not just on the course of British activism, but even on such a celebrated global figure as Malcolm X.
JUST AS HISTORIANS HAVE TENDED to overlook the course and consequences of Malcolm X's trip to Oxford, they have devoted little attention to the broader issue of British-American links during the civil rights era.18 This lacuna in the literature stands in stark contrast to the extensive historical scholarship on antebellum British-American connections over slavery, and persists despite the fact that black studies scholars have been in the vanguard of the transnational turn. As the historian of African American and global black history Robin D. G. Kelley observed, “black studies … were diasporic from their inception.” Precisely because of this diasporic framework, however, the first African American historians “always began in Africa” rather than Europe.19 There is an emerging interest in the international context of both the British and particularly the U.S. struggles over racial equality in the mid-twentieth century.20 But historians of black Britain have mostly looked to the important connections with the British Commonwealth.21 For their part, scholars of the U.S. civil rights movement have focused on the Cold War context and links with postcolonial nations or the Communist Bloc—and the United States has tended to remain at the center of the analysis in the so-called American century.22
A closer look at Malcolm X's travels to England, however, shows that the British-American relationship over race was something far more complicated, and far more significant, than a mere adjunct to, or spillover from, the U.S. civil rights movement. To be sure, the relationship was imbalanced, as indeed was the special relationship between the two governments. After all, the mid-twentieth century was, as transnational historian Ian Tyrrell aptly put it, the “high noon of American hegemony.”23 By 1964, Malcolm X had become the global icon of black militancy. That was why he was invited to Oxford. But it was a two-way relationship nonetheless, one that was distinct from the bilateral relationships between Western and postcolonial countries in terms of both its development and its impact. Moreover, because of the Cold War and British Commonwealth frameworks, and the strategic location of Britain and the U.S. in their respective hemispheres, the two countries were thoroughfares for activists, news, and ideas from every continent. In other words, America was not the starting point of this exchange, nor Britain the final destination.
Indeed, the reason that Malcolm X wrote to accept the invitation “without hesitation” was his recognition that Oxford activists were already “on fire” against racial discrimination.24 In 1964, the Union had become a flashpoint of British and Commonwealth anti-racist protest politics. The organization's president that semester, Eric Abrahams, was—most unusually—a Jamaican.25 Highly intelligent (a Rhodes Scholar studying law), politically savvy, an ardent pan-Africanist, and a fine orator, Abrahams was something of a miniature version of Malcolm X.26 He had even recently returned from a lecture tour in the Middle East. Moreover, the Union treasurer was a Pakistani student, Tariq Ali, an outspoken left-wing activist. When introducing the debate, Abrahams joked that Ali was Oxford's very own red Muslim, to match the renowned black Muslim visitor.27 Many other, mostly white, Union members had been involved in anti-apartheid campaigns since their adolescence.28 In other words, Malcolm X knew he would be ensured of a warm welcome.
The fuel for this “fire” was the recent rapid racial change in the city. Oxford was hardly witnessing the growth of a new Harlem, but with more than 1,000 immigrants from South Asia working in its car factories and bus system, the city had the fourth-fastest rate of increase in immigration in the country during the 1950s. The spark came that summer, when Abrahams and Ali joined demonstrations against the visit of the South African ambassador, who had been invited to speak to Oxford's conservative association.29 The university proctors rusticated them, suspending them until the fall term for refusing to move aside when asked.30 In the face of public criticism (from former Union leaders, mostly), the proctors reduced the sentence to gating, with the evening curfew to be lifted only for Union debates.31 On the eve of their gating, and after an alcohol-fueled “freedom party,” Ali and a friend reenacted—after a mere six-century hiatus—the tradition of burning an effigy of a proctor in the city center. A watching university bulldog (proctorial enforcer) admitted, “They've got a lot of guts.”32
By the time of his arrival, however, Oxford was hotter than Malcolm X had anticipated.33 On November 27, the university's Joint Action Committee against Racial Intolerance (JACARI)—its largest student organization, which had organized the anti-apartheid demonstrations—released a report in which it was revealed that in a recent survey, 62 percent of Oxford's landladies had said they would not accept an Asian or African student as a lodger.34 The problem for the university was that despite its declaration of nondiscrimination, the landladies were registered with the university's Delegacy of Lodgings. The national press picked up the story.35 And then Malcolm X turned up to speak. His presence made Oxford a little hotter still, attracting an unprecedented number of black students to the Union for the debate, and elevating a local story into one with international significance. The debate was carried by the BBC.36 The proctors kept a fearful eye on unrest within the university and on unwanted attention from without.
Oxford also provided Malcolm X with an entry point for connecting with the next generation of African and Islamic leaders. Because of recent increases in Commonwealth student funding, more than 1,000 overseas students were based in Oxford in 1964, part of a cohort of some 40,000 such students across Britain.37 During his travels in Africa and the Middle East that year, Malcolm X had jotted down the names and addresses of dozens of young African and Islamic students who were studying in Britain.38 From Oxford he traveled to the Universities of Manchester and Sheffield, and then to the Council of African Organizations in London (a network of Europe-based student anticolonial groups).39 He would return to England in February, to give the keynote address at the council, speak at the London School of Economics, and try to visit Paris, and he planned to visit England again in the summer.40 Thus in a sense, the trips to England were intended to be the third leg of his travels to the Middle East and Africa.
What was true in Oxford was true across the country. The U.S. civil rights movement was not simply transferred to a blank canvas with regard to domestic British anti-racist activism. The historically small black British community had a long history of organization, as, indeed, did white anti-immigration activists and pacifist/internationalist members of the British Labour Party.41 Black and white Britons had longstanding international connections, too, with both anticolonial movements and the U.S. black freedom struggle. Heirs of the British abolitionist tradition had welcomed African American visitors since the nineteenth century.42 During the 1930s, a left-leaning anticolonial transatlantic network, including such luminaries as Trinidadian intellectual C. L. R. James and future Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah, had emerged with London as its hub.43 As its foremost African American spokesman, the Communist sympathizer and brilliant actor Paul Robeson, put it, “I discovered Africa in London.” Although the American arm of that network collapsed during the early Cold War, London would remain an important site for black Atlantic intellectuals and anticolonial organizing. Hence Malcolm X's visits to the Council of African Organizations, and the attention he would devote to magazines that were based in London but oriented to the Caribbean and Africa.44
Indeed, a new wave of mass migration and the rise of nationalist and civil rights struggles during the mid-twentieth century reinvigorated the salience of the so-called black Atlantic world, and the strategic position of Britain within it.45 By the time of Malcolm X's visit, rapid non-white immigration into Britain—more than half a million people in the preceding decade, from the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia—meant that for the first time there were direct connections between African Americans and a sizable community of resident non-white Britons.46 As transnational scholarship reminds us, how these connections were made, and the very process of connecting, mattered. Some Caribbean-born British immigrants had lived in the U.S., notably Claudia Jones, a Communist exiled from her home in Harlem, who became one of London's most influential anti-racist organizers in the late 1950s.47 More generally, the new ease of air travel enabled African American leaders to make short trips across the ocean.48 In reverse, white students and both liberal and conservative politicians flocked to the United States to see civil rights protests firsthand.49 Some of the JACARI members who welcomed Malcolm X to Oxford had spent time with the Freedom Riders in the American South.50
For those who could not afford to make the journey, the revolutionary changes taking place in the media meant they did not have to. The classic years of civil rights protest coincided with the first generation of mass British and American television ownership.51 With the set-piece demonstrations of the U.S. civil rights movement staged for dramatic effect, it is no surprise that the mainstream British media followed the action like a soap opera. So, too, did the fast-expanding black British print press—not least because the editors of the most influential newspaper, the West Indian Gazette, and the most popular glossy magazine, Flamingo, had both come to London from the United States. In turn, the American press began to cover British race news in depth after anti-immigrant riots in Notting Hill, London, and Nottingham in 1958. By the time Malcolm X came to Oxford, then, news and ideas and people traveling between Britain and the United States were barely delayed by the Atlantic crossing.52 More important, though, is why the ocean was so regularly crossed in connection with the issue of black equality, and what difference the crossings made.
TRANSNATIONAL HISTORY MAY HAVE started out (at least in its ca. 1990s American incarnation) as something of a protean buzzword, but scholars have begun to pay closer attention to the ways in which such history should be written.53 In particular, proponents of entangled and comparative histories have taken their stand. At root, the debate involves calls by advocates of entangled history for studies that can “escape the weight of … pre-established national formatting,” and by comparativists for studies with global reach that can avoid becoming “merely speculative or feuilletonistic.”54 What is striking about the British-American transnational relationship over race, though, is that both approaches are applicable, compatible—and necessary.55
In the first place, for all the inspiration that black Britons and African Americans may have drawn from anticolonial movements, their own situations were much more analogous. Both black Britons and African Americans were minority non-white groups demanding equality in Western capitalist democracies that prided themselves on their liberal creeds. More analogous, though, does not mean neatly comparable. There were important differences between the two contexts. The U.S. had a domestic history of removing, enslaving, and subjugating its non-white population, but in the British imperial imagination, “coloured people” were subjects to nurture, even a source of pride. (This imagination, of course, ignored Britain's historic role in the slave trade, and was rudely exposed when immigrants from former colonies took up British citizenship in large numbers. The government swiftly passed an act restricting non-white immigration in 1962.)56 In the United States, African Americans had a highly developed institutional structure, while mass protest and litigation had won important victories before the civil rights movement.57 The British non-white population, by contrast, began to increase significantly only in the 1950s, with immigration from the Caribbean, South Asia, and Africa. As a result, people of color in Britain were lumped together (and self-identified) as black, whereas in the United States, Asian, Hispanic, and African American groups often asserted their differences.58 One Indian immigrant complained to a British interviewer, “When I was in U.S.A. I was not considered as a coloured man.”59
Yet for all the differences, many Americans and Britons came to perceive their racial situations as comparable. Malcolm X was struck by the common portrayals of African Americans and black Britons in the media. “Press calls us racists, imagery bad, crime stats fed, white communities actually high crime, false image, justify police state,” he wrote in his notebook, “leads to vandalism, hoodlumism, same in Britain, colored communities, divide and conquer.”60 On the British side, the title of a lead editorial in 1963 in the black London weekly the West Indies Observer described British racial discrimination as “Mr James Crow, Esq.”61 British sociologists of race tested their nation's development against the American example. Dr. Kenneth Little, founding father of the discipline in the UK, popularized the concept of a “British dilemma” (imperial creed of equal citizenship but discrimination in practice) akin to Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal's influential 1944 study An American Dilemma.62 Politicians and journalists—on the left and right—frequently spoke of the “American-style” situation that Britain found itself in, and assumed that the countries were on the same path. Commonwealth leaders, including Jamaican premier Norman Manley, drew the comparison between the British and U.S. situations, too.63
Those making the comparison had a compelling narrative to tell. Some of the landmark moments of racial strife in the two countries did seem to be uncannily similar. The anti-black riots in Nottingham and London in 1958 followed hot on the heels of mobs defending white schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, and white neighborhoods in Levittown, Pennsylvania. The outrage that followed the murder of Antiguan immigrant Kelso Cochrane in London in 1959 paralleled that surrounding Emmett Till's murder in Mississippi in 1955—in both cases the obvious perpetrators were not brought to justice. Southern U.S. politicians who played the “nigra” card had their counterparts in British anti-immigrant politicians who warned, “If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour.” The British Race Relations Act of 1965 followed the American Civil Rights Act of 1964. Striking, too, were the similar justifications for racial discrimination. In angry letters to the proctors, Oxford's landladies defended the housing color bar by unwittingly invoking the American shibboleths of homeowners' rights and anti-Communism. And above all, like U.S. segregationists, they raised the specter of black men's sexual promiscuity.64
It was because of these contemporary assumptions about comparability that the two stories became deeply entangled. British Black Power activists used Malcolm X's slogan “By any means necessary” even though they had no intention of pursuing an armed struggle.65 In everyday British language, some black neighborhoods were called Little Harlems, and the word “coloured” to describe non-white peoples was a U.S. import. Political decisions about civil rights and immigration legislation—particularly by Britons—were often made in the light of perceptions about the other side of the Atlantic. During an interview in 2010, Godfrey Hodgson, the London Times correspondent on racial conditions in the 1950s, chuckled when he recalled the “rush to bring inappropriate remedies across from America.”66 He had good reason to recall the rush. For example, when the prime minster appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury to head a committee on racial conditions, the prelate declared that he was “anxious to learn of similar problems in America first hand.” So when the Motown vocal group the Temptations came to London in 1970 to promote their new album, he was quick to invite them to Lambeth Palace—before blessing them ahead of their upcoming tour.67
Hodgson was right to recall the inappropriateness, too. The Race Relations Act of 1965, which was modeled on far-reaching U.S. federal and state legislation against de jure discrimination, made little impact on de facto employment and housing discrimination in Britain (this critique of the legislation's limitations was, in fact, already being made by many African American leaders).68 By the same token, U.S. protest techniques did not travel well to a different context.69 Because Britain did not have Jim Crow–style segregation, the classic tactics of the civil rights movement were not applicable.70 Black Power, with its explicit international vision, was a better fit for immigrants angered by immigration restrictions and frustrated by the moderate response of major black equality organizations. Its Islamist connections appealed to London's East End Bengali community, too. Even so, U.S. Black Power's calls for black community control, cultural nationalism, and armed self-defense were lost in translation because non-white Britons represented less than 3 percent of the population, half were from Asia with long-established cultural traditions, and virtually none owned guns.71 As for Oxford, Malcolm X's message would have been more directly relevant to the immigrant workers in the car plants than to his hosts in the Union. The privileged non-white Oxford students he networked with were anything but eager to turn on the power structure—they were expecting to return home to high-ranking leadership positions in postcolonial governments.
CONTEMPORARY COMMENTATORS INVARIABLY portrayed the transfer of ideas and tactics for protesting (or defending) racial hierarchies as one-way traffic from the United States across the Atlantic. In this line, British activism was merely a British version of the story proper. Atlanta-based civil rights journalist Calvin Trillin wrote of Britain in the New Yorker in 1965 that he felt he was “watching an old familiar play performed by an inexperienced road company.” Even a death threat sent by a “Deputy Wizard” of the British Klan, mocked Trillin, ended in impeccably polite British terms: “Faithfully yours.”72
In headline terms, it may have seemed that British activists took their cue from their counterparts in the United States. Many of the major British protest organizations of the 1960s were formed in response to American visitors.73 Trinidad-born Michael de Freitas changed his name to Michael X and created the Racial Adjustment Action Society—its acronym, RAAS, was a Jamaican obscenity.74 Despite the different contexts, tactics associated with American protest regularly turned up in Britain, too. The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 was matched in 1963 by a bus boycott in Bristol; it was led by local activist Paul Stephenson, who had recently visited the United States at the invitation of civil rights leaders. The student sit-ins in American restaurants had their counterparts in the unsurprisingly popular freedom drink-ins in British pubs. Operation Guinness in Lewisham was a particular hit.75 There was a London Black Panther group.76 And there were plenty on the American side, including Malcolm X on his lecture tour, who presumed that it was their job to teach. Even a Ku Klux Klan spokesman boasted to British reporters, “We have told them how to organise.”77 Such assumptions fit the American exceptionalist self-image during the early Cold War.78 As historian Mark Mazower noted, “Most American policy-makers regarded the USA as providing a model for the resolution of social and economic conflicts.”79 For large segments of the African American leadership, this outward focus also stemmed from a tradition of assuming global leadership and a postwar belief in their material and social progress.80
A closer look at a particular person in a particular place, though, immediately shows that Britons were rarely passive recipients of American ideas. In Oxford, Malcolm X was shocked to be lectured—at a distance of barely six feet—by a white conservative opponent. By his own admission, Tariq Ali then talked at Malcolm X, rather than vice versa, long into the night. Far from idolizing Malcolm X (Ali was anything but a devout Muslim and thought the Nation of Islam a “gigantic public relations swindle”), Ali tried to convince him that no religion could solve social problems, “while he consumed his tea and I sipped my brandy.”81 Moreover, when Britons did look abroad for inspiration, their gaze was often elsewhere. JACARI students demonstrated against apartheid.82 Across Britain, many mid-century immigrants had been involved in anticolonial struggles at home, continued to follow news from home, and often expected to return home.83 The West Indian Gazette's full title, West Indian Gazette and Afro-Asian Caribbean News, revealed the breadth of the preeminent black British newspaper's international vision.
Rather than import the American movement wholesale, then, activists in Britain often used the special relationship on race for their own purposes—as did their U.S. counterparts. In particular, both sets of activists sought to exploit the assumption that the two countries were on a common trajectory in terms of race relations. How they did so, though, and the extent to which they succeeded, often varied. In Britain, activists styled their campaigns as American in order to legitimize them. In the United States, activists used news from Britain to add weight to their arguments. Meanwhile, when African American leaders visited Britain, both the hosts and the guests hoped to boost their own prestige by association and to raise resources, though it would be the American visitors who took the money home.
When British activists used American civil rights or Black Power–style tactics, they were selective in their choices and used them at their own timing. The first British sit-ins began three years after their American counterparts, they were few and far between, and members of the Operation Guinness group met no opposition in the first ten or so pubs they visited. Reports are not clear on whether members of the group were eventually barred because of their color or because they had already drunk almost a dozen pints of beer by that stage.84 Meanwhile, Black Power groups used Malcolm X's image and words on their mastheads even though his slogans did not, in fact, easily translate to British contexts. The British Black Panther Party formed before the American Panthers had begun to establish international affiliates, and most likely without their knowledge.85
In other words, American styling was a strategic choice by British activists, a choice designed to strengthen their campaigns.86 British civil rights campaigners sought to ride the coattails of the American movement to legitimize their complaints. Sympathy for the U.S. civil rights movement was widespread across Britain. After the church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, for example, residents of Llanstephan, Wales, raised funds to replace the main stained-glass window.87 But British support for the U.S. civil rights movement was not matched by support for British civil rights campaigners. Indeed, British commentators routinely contrasted American horrors with British decency—the Welsh stained-glass artist sent to Alabama was “entirely dismayed by what I discovered” over there.88 Hence black British civil rights activists asserted connections with fellow activists in the U.S. Similarly, liberal British politicians and so-called race relations lobbyists openly borrowed ideas directly from their American counterparts not simply to develop their proposals, but to increase the likelihood of getting them accepted.89 During the Bristol bus boycott, Paul Stephenson took the comparison with the U.S. civil rights movement further, telling reporters, “People are saying that it is worse [here] than it is in the deep south of America,” because of restrictions on immigration and the British denial of discrimination.90 Such complaints found their way into the mainstream British press.91 (As for Michael de Freitas, a man on the make, by taking the surname X, he briefly gained outsized media interest.)
Most British Black Power activists, by contrast, stressed connections with the U.S. to gain legitimacy with black rather than white Britons. Black Power groups initially struggled to gain followers in the British context. The British Panthers numbered less than a dozen members in their first year.92 But by importing the Black Power aesthetic, they allied themselves with a powerful brand.93 Nonetheless, such American styling earned the small, unarmed cadre of British Black Power activists unwarranted attention from white authorities. Such attention was exacerbated by news of American riots, which triggered yet another wave of visits to the United States by politicians seeking to import legislation that would preempt riots in Britain (even though, evidently, it had failed to do so in the U.S.). Meanwhile, British anti-immigration campaigners used news of American violence and ghettos for their own propaganda. The British government passed a more restrictive immigration act in March 1968.94 Conservative MP Enoch Powell was not satisfied. The following month, after his first visit to the United States, he delivered his infamous anti-immigration “Rivers of Blood” speech, warning of the “horror on the other side of the Atlantic … coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”95 A yet more restrictive act was passed in 1971.96
For their part, African American leaders used news from Britain to undermine segregation in the U.S. Malcolm X publicly denounced American racism as “a cancer spreading all over the world” that was manifesting itself in Britain.97 His entries in his journal suggest that this assumption of American responsibility was, indeed, his viewpoint. But for others, such rhetoric was entirely tactical, used to pile pressure on southern segregationists. During the 1950s, virtually all African American press coverage of the black experience in Britain had actually been negative.98 This framing reflected anti-imperial sentiment, and seems to have been part of the broader Cold War rebuttal of the claim by overseas black radicals that discrimination against African Americans in the U.S. was akin to colonial-style oppression.99 The rise of the American civil rights movement—and particularly the massive resistance to it—marked an about-turn in reportage. “Race relations in England, in the past, have been on a higher plane of conviviality,” reported the influential African American newspaper the Chicago Defender after the anti-immigrant riots of 1958—thereby ignoring virtually all of its own past reports from the previous decade. “Nevertheless, America's brazen, vulgar display of racial hatred has assumed the virulence of a communicative disease which is infecting the mind and soul of the stolid Englishman.”100
Mainstream white American commentators, by contrast—to the exasperation of African American journalists—used news of British anti-immigration agitation to debunk U.S. exceptionalism in the matter of racist mob violence. “Radio station announcers,” a West Indian visitor to New York noted ruefully, would “interrupt a programme to splash—not without satisfaction—the news of Britain's race riots.”101 As for Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, orchestrator of the Little Rock crisis, he enjoyed telling British reporters to shove it. “What about that shindy in Nottingham?” he asked the Daily Express. “We have sympathy for you.”102 Hence the African American press fought back. The Afro-American warned Faubus not “to chortle too much over Notting Hill.” There were no troops there blocking children from going to school, and even the worst offenders received only four-year sentences from the courts.103 The Defender noted how few votes were cast for Britain's own Faubus figure, Sir Oswald Mosley, in an election in Notting Hill the following year. “Even a metropolitan dogcatcher would have done better. London, of course, is not Little Rock.”104 White supremacist groups in the American South disagreed, inviting Enoch Powell to lecture in Mississippi.
Meanwhile, the high-profile visits of African American leaders to Britain enhanced the prestige of both the hosts and the guests. The ambitious Eric Abrahams reveled in the comparisons made between him and Malcolm X.105 In turn, Malcolm X used his speech at one of Europe's most sacred institutions to bolster his demands to be heard in the United States—at rallies before leaving for England, he talked about his invitation to the Oxford Union to the exclusion of all other parts of his itinerary. Indeed, his speech at the Union, which focused on the Western media's misframing of the race question, revealed just how frustrated he had become at the American media's dismissal of him as a dangerous extremist.106 Similarly, Martin Luther King, by speaking at St. Paul's Cathedral, enhanced his status as an international religious statesman at a time when southern opponents were denouncing him as a Communist. He also met with the Lord Chancellor at the House of Lords.107
The self-promotional purpose of such visits by U.S. leaders is underscored by the time that both men devoted to publicity while in England. Malcolm X spent much of his first visit arranging for media events on his return—from the BBC to black British magazines.108 Benefiting from a Church of England public relations officer, King's two-day London visit in 1964 included seven media interviews.109 Speaking abroad also provided American leaders with a platform to espouse their philosophies to a wider audience. Malcolm X tried to go to Paris to connect with black French and Francophone anticolonial activists. When he was denied entry at the airport, he addressed them via a live telephone link.110 King's speechwriter, Clarence Jones, recalled that King and his colleagues “accepted the invitations to England to get their message out.”111 By preaching that “the doctrine of black superiority is just as dangerous as the doctrine of white superiority,” noted the New York Times, King also sought to counter the “activities of Malcolm X … who [was] also in London.”112 The black British press praised both men, fairly uncritically. Britain's white press, though, favored the nonviolent, reconciliatory approach of Martin Luther King to the confrontational black pride of Malcolm X, especially after the latter traveled to Birmingham and said of an anti-immigration MP, “I wouldn't wait for them to set up gas ovens.”113
Time in Britain allowed African American leaders to build up their international networks, too. Malcolm X visited the Council of African Organisations, and King met with a delegation of international students, while Stokely Carmichael, who had overseen the main U.S. student protest organization's adoption of Black Power in 1966, came to London in 1967 to participate in an international congress to explore “new forms of action” to challenge violent social systems. There was also the money question. For Malcolm X, who was in dire financial straits after leaving the Nation of Islam, the prospect of support must have been tantalizing. His letters reveal just how much he had celebrated every gift during his Middle Eastern and African tours. As a Protestant minister, though, King was better placed to harness support from British churches. “In the dark hours,” King wrote to one donor, “we will always remember the many people in England who encouraged our work … by their very tangible expressions by which our movement is continued.”114 British students supported their American counterparts financially, too. JACARI hosted a fundraising exhibition of photographs of student civil rights work in Mississippi. There was even talk of the Beatles playing a fundraising concert.115
EVEN AS THEY USED THE special relationship for their own purposes, activists in Britain and the United States were also changed by their interaction with each other. In particular, the perception of a shared trajectory with Europe heightened the salience in the U.S. of what would come to be known as Black Power, even at the earliest, optimistic stages of the nation's civil rights movement at the start of the 1960s. As is well known, it was good news of anticolonialist movements abroad, especially Ghanaian independence in 1957, that helped galvanize the mass nonviolent protest against segregation that erupted across the United States in 1960. But bad news of anti-immigrant campaigns in Britain, especially the riots of 1958, served as a bleak counterpoint, and strengthened the arguments of those, such as Malcolm X, who advocated self-defense and rejected integration from the outset.116 Malcolm X's expulsion from France, a country with a reputation for transcending the color line, rammed the foreboding home two years before the Black Power slogan first came to prominence in Mississippi. Or rather, Malcolm X rammed it home with characteristically punchy one-liners: “I have never been prevented from entering Mississippi,” he told reporters. “General de Gaulle has too much gall.”117 In turn, news of American inequality and segregationist violence underscored the fears of British immigrants in the early 1960s that politicians' promises of equal citizenship would prove illusory.118 “The term democracy, in its current usage in the West, is what meaning you give to it,” thundered the Spear, the organ of the London-based African World Congress, in 1962. “The American type of democracy is sensitive to … the colour variations of the human skin.”119
The fact that the relationship between Britain and the United States involved the travel of so many people as well as the exchange of news, though, meant that its transformative aspect was most pronounced in particular places and individual lives. Malcolm X's views of racism would be challenged by his time in England even as his presence in Oxford would affect the dynamic of student activism there. What is most striking, however, especially considering the assumptions that Britain and the U.S. were on a shared trajectory in terms of the place of black citizens, was just how unexpected the transformative aspects of this transnational relationship proved to be.
When Malcolm X came to Oxford, he—perhaps more than any other African American leader—already had a well-developed global vision of the causes of racial discrimination and the possibilities of anti-racist protest. But his time in England refined that vision. Before then, he had spoken of two categories of black people: those fighting colonial rule and those under quasi-colonial rule in the United States, with no mention of black Europeans. As he put it in speeches before his visit to England, “Only Americanism is more hypocritical than colonialism.”120 After spending time with black Britons and (via the telephone) Parisian activists, he began to speak in terms of “4 types of blacks in West, under Spanish, British, French or U.S. influence,” all facing common problems. By adding new categories to his list of the non-white oppressed, he sharpened his thinking about discrimination and anti-racist possibilities. There were “over 100 million Afros in West,” he noted while in Britain, “inside the Western Power Structure.”121
This observation hastened Malcolm X's shift from an anticolonial framework to a more nuanced international socialist position, dovetailing with lessons learned in the Middle East and Africa.122 From 1965, his speeches spoke optimistically of internal resistance within America and Europe working in harmony with the external resistance to the Western power structure.123 “During 1965,” he wrote in his notebook, “we shall see the longest, hottest and bloodiest summer yet witnessed, by … the Black Revolution.”124 “It's trouble for old John Bull,” he mused.125 Malcolm X looked forward to seeing that trouble in person on return visits.126 He did not get the chance. In February, one week after his return to the United States, he was assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam during a rally in Harlem. Indeed, it was because Malcolm X's visits to Europe came so late in his life that he did not have time to reflect on them publicly, in the way that he was able to after his trips to Africa and the Middle East.127 But that need not prevent historians from doing so.
Martin Luther King's outlook would be similarly challenged by his travels. King's globally focused Nobel lecture, written before he made his stop in London, did not even mention black Europeans—he only referred, optimistically, to the “black brothers of Africa and brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America, and the Caribbean.”128 His speechwriter recalled that the subject never came up.129 Yet after meeting British activists, King hastily edited—on hotel paper—the version of the speech he would deliver in London, denouncing the “segregation and discrimination that is emerging [and] that you have quite rightly deplored in others.”130 Travels abroad hastened King's transformation from an advocate of the American dream into a critic of unfettered capitalism and militarism.131 Stokely Carmichael had reached that point before he came to London in 1967. Indeed, he accepted the invitation precisely because he hoped to meet, and learn from, “Black Power formations [that] had begun to emerge in the African/Caribbean immigrant communities in Britain.”132 Back in 1958, the Chicago Defender had insisted: “London, of course, is not Little Rock.”133 Less than a decade later, Carmichael's rejection of American exceptionalism in the matter of racial discrimination and black protest had become commonplace. “We're talking now about the U.S.,” he told reporters when he was asked about urban discrimination, but “you can apply a little of it to London.”134
In turn, American visitors affected British activism—not least when Malcolm X came to Oxford. However, Malcolm X's contribution to the students' anti-racist campaign was anything but straightforward. Indeed, the authors of the JACARI report had actually feared that his visit—at the invitation of the Union rather than the JACARI leadership—would be counterproductive. JACARI's demonstrations against the South African ambassador earlier in the summer had gained a lot of publicity but achieved little. So the authors had tried a different tack: “Could this university be shamed?” Hence the idea of a scientifically rigorous study, in order “to make a splash.” The presence of Malcolm X, though, inadvertently bound up an ostensibly dispassionate survey with revolutionary politics and, to the authors' frustration, led some journalists to dismiss them as “trendy lefties” rather than engage with the problem of housing discrimination.135
Ultimately, though, the media attention that accompanied Malcolm X's visit enhanced the shame factor more than it undermined the survey's credentials. The very week of the debate, Oxford's Lodging House Delegacy met in something of a panic. The secretary of the delegacy wrote to other universities seeking urgent advice. Mrs. E. M. Talbert at the University of London, not picking up the tone of the request, replied, “I have always ‘got away with it’” by explaining that “almost everyone is barred one way or another—60% of [the] landladies won't take women … three won't allow lodgers with beards.” (“I sometimes wonder whether it is a bit hypocritical,” she confessed, “but it has worked up to now.”)136 In the end, the delegacy rejected JACARI's proposal to remove any landlady who was unwilling to promise to accept “coloured” students, but it agreed to issue nondiscrimination guidelines. In 1970, after continued complaints and protest, the university resolved its dilemma by relinquishing control of undergraduate residences.137
The tumult of 1964 spurred JACARI to form a national body, the Student Conference on Racial Equality (SCORE), to fan “similar action in other Universities.”138 In Oxford, organization around race equality issues continued, too.139 The most far-reaching legacy of the ferment in Oxford, however, was not related primarily to the issue of black equality. Rather, it was the undermining of the system of university discipline.140 Throughout 1964, JACARI leader Anthony Shaw had found himself at loggerheads with the proctors over the right to protest about apartheid.141 He was hampered by the fact that JACARI's “senior member” (a tutor designated to act as mentor) was working in cahoots with the proctors. Mrs. Mary Proudfoot, a lecturer in Caribbean history, professed sympathy for Shaw's views but warned him that confrontation “is not a suitable technique for a serious university group,” and threatened, “the end might be the dissolution of JACARI.” Shaw backed down, incandescent. Proudfoot wrote triumphantly to the senior proctor with misplaced condescension. “I think that he is just very young, very ernest [sic], and from a rather illiterate background.”142 When the South African ambassador came to town, though, JACARI members refused to be restrained. When the proctors singled out Ali and Abrahams for the worst punishment, the students demanded a change to the proctorial system.
Abrahams orchestrated the challenge in the media with aplomb.143 He quickly became the lightning rod for nationwide student demands for civil liberties. The quarter-million-strong National Union of Students condemned the proctors' claim to be “judge, jury and defending counsel.”144 And then JACARI released its survey, Malcolm X swung into town, and Abrahams gained more attention. The university set up a review committee. The outcome was a compromise: undergraduates won the right to defense, no longer in Latin, but the proctors still assumed that “citizens of Oxford have to be protected from abuse.”145 The fact that there were any concessions at all emboldened the students even as the token nature of those concessions exasperated them.146 A series of demonstrations during the next few years culminated in a mass sit-in—fueled by anti–Vietnam War militancy—at the proctors' offices in 1968.147 The proctors backed down. Student newspapers hailed the inspiration of recent sit-ins at the London School of Economics rather than those in the American South in 1960—an example, if one were needed, of how transatlantic tactics were appropriated and repackaged for domestic purposes. Nor did they remember the origin of the Oxford protests—the reaction to the arrest of a militant Jamaican president of the Union, a student who drew renown from the visit of America's most famous black radical.
The author would particularly like to thank Daniel Brockington, Nicholas Cole, Gareth Davies, John Davis, Kevin Gaines, Robin Kelley, David Killingray, Katy Schumaker, Joe Street, Ian Tyrrell, and the readers for the American Historical Review for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
Footnotes
↵1Union Society term cards, John Johnson Collection of Printed Ephemera, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [hereafter John Johnson Collection], Oxford University Societies, box U3.
↵2“This Is Malcolm X,” The Sun, December 3, 1964, 7.
↵3See http://vault.fbi.gov/malcolm-little-malcolm-x/, pts. 1–14.
↵4E-mail from Henry Brownrigg to author, September 10, 2010.
↵5“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of vice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech, 28th Republican National Convention, San Francisco, July 16, 1964.
↵6Lebert Bethune, “Malcolm X in Europe,” in John Henrik Clarke, ed., Malcolm X: The Man and His Times (New York, 1969), 226–234, here 232.
↵7The full audio and a partial video recording of the speech are widely available online.
↵8“Malcolm X a Speaker in Oxford Debate,” The Guardian, December 3, 1964, 8; “Malcolm X on the Sin of Moderation,” The Guardian, December 4, 1964, 24.
↵9Bethune, “Malcolm X in Europe,” 232. See also Tariq Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties (London, 2005), 104.
↵10Most studies of Malcolm X mention the speech only briefly (if at all) in terms of Malcolm X's oratorical skills. Even Manning Marable's widely praised recent biography gives the Oxford visit but a passing mention. Marable, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York, 2011), 391. Works that cite the debate as an example of Malcolm X's oratorical skills include Dennis D. Wainstock, Malcolm X, African American Revolutionary (Jefferson, N.C., 2009), 135; Eugene Victor Wolfenstein, The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution (London, 1989), 135; Louis A. DeCaro, Jr., On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X (New York, 1996), 252. Kevin K. Gaines, American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates and the Civil Rights Era (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2006), 202, briefly discusses the debate in the context of Malcolm X's views on extremism. Two recent articles on aspects of the context of Malcolm X's speech underscore the value of focusing on the visit in more depth. Graeme Abernethy, “‘Not Just an American Problem’: Malcolm X in Britain,” Atlantic Studies 7, no. 3 (2010): 285–307, explores the symbolism of speaking at one of the intellectual centers of the British Empire. Saladin M. Ambar, “Malcolm X at the Oxford Union,” Race & Class 53, no. 4 (April–June 2012): 24–38, places the debate in the context of racial controversies during British and American elections and discusses Malcolm X's evolving thought on nationalism and racialism. Works by contemporaries that discuss the debate include Bethune, “Malcolm X in Europe”; Ali, Street Fighting Years; and Jan Carew, Ghosts in Our Blood: With Malcolm X in Africa, England and the Caribbean (London, 1984), 76–80.
↵11On putting off replies to other invitations, see Malcolm X Collection: Papers, 1948–1965, Manuscripts, Archives and Rare Books Division, Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York Public Library, New York [hereafter MXC], Correspondence, Speaking Engagements, 1964–1965, box 3, folder 19. On his willingness to accept such invitations at less pressured times, see, for example, Malcolm X to Morton Bobowick, July 30, 1964, ibid. On the Oxford invitation, see Eric Abrahams to Malcolm X, November 27, 1964, International Correspondence, England 1964, box 3, folder 15 (and on his willingness to accept unusual invitations for money, see Elsa Franklin to Malcolm X, January 12, 1965, and Don Brown to Miss Marilyn Lennon, n.d. 1965, Radio and Television, 1961–1965, box 3, folder 20).
↵12On Malcolm X's schedule, see James Shabazz, Muslim Mosque Inc. press release, April 13, 1964, MXC, Muslim Mosque Incorporated, Press Releases and Schedule of Activities, 1964, box 13, folder 6. On missing his family, see Malcolm X to Betty Shabazz, August 4, 1964, Correspondence, Shabazz, Betty, 1960–1964, box 3, folder 2. See also Malcolm X to Betty Shabazz, July 26, 1964, ibid., where he asks her to “Kiss the babies for me.”
↵13On the organization in a shambles, see Malcolm X to Muhammad Taufik Oweida, November 30, 1964, and Malcolm X to Muhammad Sourour El-Sabban, November 30, 1964, MXC, Other Correspondents, 1962–1965, box 3, folder 4.
↵14Malcolm X to Betty Shabazz, August 4, 1964, and July 26, 1964. Malcolm X planned to be based in the U.S. for most of 1965 to rebuild his organization. Author interview with Peter Bailey, June 9, 2011.
↵15On other destinations in Britain, see Marika Sherwood, “Malcolm X in Manchester and Sheffield,” North West Labour History Journal 27 (December 2002): 29–34; Joe Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle on British Race Relations in the 1960s,” Journal of Black Studies 38, no. 6 (2008): 932–950; and Abernethy, “‘Not Just an American Problem.’”
↵16“London Programme for Dr Martin Luther King, 5–8 December 1964,” Bayard Rustin Papers (microfilm), Alphabetical Subject File, Martin Luther King, Nobel Peace Prize, 1964, reel 3, no. 0258. King was en route to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The following year, the novelist James Baldwin would speak at the Cambridge University Union, and in 1967, Black Power leader Stokely Carmichael would speak at a Congress on the Dialectics of Liberation in London.
↵17In both countries, many anti-racist activists were focused on forcing the passage of national legislation rather than pressuring international bodies. Tony Ballantyne calls for the “nation-state” not to be “cast aside entirely [in transnational/world history] but rather it is put firmly in its place, as one, albeit an often significant, structure that governs human action and cross-cultural engagement.” Ballantyne, “Putting the Nation in Its Place? World History and C. A. Bayly's The Birth of the Modern World,” in Ann Curthoys and Marilyn Lake, eds., Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective (Canberra, 2006), 23–43, here 32. In this case the nation was extremely significant, and indeed, one of the reasons that transnational connections were so strong was that activists sought to connect with those challenging a (supposedly) similar nation-state.
↵18For example, Gerald Horne's call for a transnational research agenda discusses links between African Americans and most parts of the world during the civil rights era but does not mention Britain and Europe. Horne, “Toward a Transnational Research Agenda for African American History in the 21st Century,” Journal of African American History 91, no. 3 (2006): 288–303. Notable exceptions, which have tended to focus on the impact of high-profile African American visitors on Britain, include Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle”; Brian Ward, “A King in Newcastle: Martin Luther King, Jr. and British Race Relations, 1967–1968,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 79, no. 3 (1995): 599–632; and Mike Sewell, “British Responses to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement,” in Anthony Badger and Brian Ward, eds., Martin Luther King and the Making of the Civil Rights Movement (Basingstoke, 1996), 194–212. Recent, mostly unpublished research on connections or comparisons between African Americans and black Britons heralds the emergence of a new field in the near future. See, for example, Joshua Bruce Guild, “You Can't Go Home Again: Migration, Citizenship, and Black Community in Postwar New York and London” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2007); Kennetta Perry, “Black Migrants, Citizenship and the Transnational Politics of Race in Postwar Britain” (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 2007); Rosalind Eleanor Wild, “‘Black Was the Colour of Our Fight’: Black Power in Britain, 1955–1976” (Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 2008); and Anne-Marie Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London, 1967–1972: A Diasporic Struggle Navigates the Black Atlantic,” Radical History Review 103 (Winter 2009): 17–35.
↵19Robin D. G. Kelley, “‘But a Local Phase of a World Problem’: Black History's Global Vision, 1883–1950,” Journal of American History 86, no. 3 (1999): 1045–1077, here 1045, 1051. Among numerous works on the African American diaspora, see Michael L. Conniff and Thomas J. Davis, Africans in the Americas: A History of the Black Diaspora (New York, 1994); Clare Corbould, Becoming African Americans: Black Public Life in Harlem, 1919–1939 (Cambridge, Mass., 2009); Winston James, Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia: Caribbean Radicalism in Early Twentieth-Century America (London, 1998); and Ronald Segal, The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black Experience outside Africa (New York, 1995). On antebellum connections, see Van Gosse, “‘As a Nation, the English Are Our Friends’: The Emergence of African American Politics in the British Atlantic World, 1772–1861,” American Historical Review 113, no. 4 (October 2008): 1003–1028.
↵20On calls for (or surveys of) the internationalizing of African American history in the modern era that downplay Europe, see Horne, “Toward a Transnational Research Agenda for African American History”; Kelley, “‘But a Local Phase of a World Problem’”; Earl Lewis, “To Turn as on a Pivot: Writing African Americans into a History of Overlapping Diasporas,” American Historical Review 100, no. 3 (June 1995): 765–787.
↵21See, for example, Winston James, “The Black Experience in Twentieth-Century Britain,” in Philip D. Morgan and Sean Hawkins, eds., Black Experience and the Empire (Oxford, 2004), 347–386. On connections between black Britons and the anti-apartheid movement, see the articles in Liberation Struggles, Exile and International Solidarity, Special Issue, Journal of Southern African Studies 35, no. 2 (2009); Elizabeth Williams, “We Shall Not Be Free until South Africa Is Free! The Anti-Apartheid Activity of Black Britons” (Ph.D. diss., Birkbeck College, 2009). In contrast to the historical literature, cultural studies scholarship has extensively explored the connection with the United States, notably Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (London, 1993). Generally, the historical literature on black Britain is less extensive than its American counterpart. For an overview, see Onyekachi Wambu, ed., Empire Windrush: Fifty Years of Writing about Black Britain (London, 1998). Two classic accounts are Edward Pilkington, Beyond the Mother Country: West Indians and the Notting Hill White Riots (London, 1988); and Dilip Hiro, Black British, White British (London, 1991).
↵22See, for example, Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton, N.J., 2000); Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights, 1919–1950 (New York, 2008); James H. Meriwether, Proudly We Can Be Africans: Black Americans and Africa, 1935–1961 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2002); Thomas J. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (New York, 2008); Michael L. Clemons and Charles E. Jones, “Global Solidarity: The Black Panther Party in the International Arena,” in Kathleen Cleaver and George Katsiaficas, Liberation, Imagination, and the Black Panther Party: A New Look at the Black Panthers and Their Legacy (New York, 2001), 20–39. The ubiquity of U.S. terms such as “Jim Crow” and “the civil rights movement” is revealing. See Gary Helm Darden, “The New Empire in the ‘New South’: Jim Crow in the Global Frontier of High Imperialism and Decolonization,” Southern Quarterly 46, no. 3 (2009): 8–25. On the development of transnational history as “America and the world,” see Patricia Clavin, “Defining Transnationalism,” Contemporary European History 14, no. 4 (2005): 421–439, here 424. It is somewhat ironic that this is as true of work on the “other America” as it is with the history of American policy, business, and popular culture.
↵23Ian Tyrrell, Transnational Nation: United States History in Global Perspective since 1789 (Basingstoke, 2007), 171. See also Clavin, “Defining Transnationalism,” 429. Scholars have also discussed in depth the Americanization of British culture. See, for example, Adrian Horn, Juke Box Britain: Americanisation and Youth Culture, 1945–60 (Manchester, 2009).
↵24E-mail to author from Eric Abrahams, July 30, 2010. See also Ali, Street Fighting Years, 101.
↵25Norman Manley was the first Jamaican president of the Union. In 1956, Rhodes Scholar Roy Dickson was elected president, and one Union member resigned in protest. Racial Unity Bulletin 5, no. 148 (April 1956).
↵26“W. Indian President of Union,” Oxford Mail, June 13, 1964, 5; “Oxford Union Election of West Indian,” London Times, June 11, 1964, 8. On his pan-Africanism, see Ellis Komey, “What Is a Rhodes Scholar?,” Flamingo, December 1962, 48.
↵27“Historic Term for Tariq Ali,” Oxford Mail, June 18, 1965, 7.
↵28E-mail to author from Anthony Shaw, September 13, 2010. Some had joined anti-apartheid organizations as teenagers. My thanks to Dr. John Davis, Oxford, for sharing this point from his interviews with British 1968 activists. On the role of students in challenging racial inequality, see Daniel Oakman, “Student Sojourners: Museums and the Transnational Lives of International Students,” National Identities 12, no. 4 (2010): 397–412; Jason C. Parker, “‘Made-in-America Revolutions’? The ‘Black University’ and the American Role in the Decolonization of the Black Atlantic,” Journal of American History 96, no. 3 (2009): 727–750. On the importance of the transient movement of people across borders, see T. Faist, “Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of Citizenship and Culture,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23, no. 2 (2000): 189–222.
↵29“Crowd Riots as S. Africa Envoy Leaves Hall,” London Times, June 18, 1964, 14. For broader international connections between those sympathetic to, or supportive of, racial hierarchies, see Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality (Melbourne, 2008); Bill Schwarz, The White Man's World (New York, 2011).
↵30“Oxford to ‘Gate’ Next Union President,” Daily Telegraph, June 20, 1964, 9. Six undergraduates in total were rusticated; Ali and Abrahams, as foreign students, did not have a home in England to go to.
↵31Osbert Lancaster, “Pocket Cartoon,” Daily Express, June 20, 1964, 1; “MPs Hit at Oxford Ban on Politics,” Daily Herald, June 24, 1964, 9. Some of the public outcry was due to concern for the forthcoming term's debates, rather than for Abrahams. “Union Debates ‘Standstill’ Fear,” Daily Telegraph, June 20, 1964, 9. “Gating” meant being restricted to the college premises each evening.
↵32“Really,” clipping from Cherwell, October 14, 1964.
↵33There were further demonstrations about apartheid, too. Ali and Abrahams watched from just far enough away to comply with proctorial demands. “Tories Smuggle Guest into Meeting,” clipping from Cherwell, November 25, 1964.
↵34Abrahams and Ali were both members. On membership, see “JACARI Support,” Oxford Mail, October 15, 1963, 4. On demonstrations, see “S.A. Arms Protest by Six Oxford Students,” Oxford Mail, February 23, 1962, 1; “March Banned Protest Continues,” Cherwell, February 2, 1962, 3; “Protest March against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, Sunday, February 4, 1962,” flyer, Joint Action Committee against Racial Intolerance Files, 1961–64, PR 3/2/313, University Archives, Duke Humfrey's Library, University of Oxford [hereafter JACARI Files]. On the survey, see “62% of Landladies Are Prejudiced,” Oxford Isis, November 25, 1964, 1. For the full report, see JACARI, Survey on Oxford Lodgings (Oxford, 1964); or for a concise version, see Robert Serpell and Clive Sneddon, “Colour Prejudice and Oxford Landladies,” Race 6, no. 4 (1965): 322–333.
↵35“Oxford Claims Prejudice by Landladies,” The Guardian, November 26, 1964, 5; “Integration and the Student,” submitted by National Union of Students to Government Committee on Integration under chairmanship of Mr Maurice Foley, n.d., 10, Sivanandan Collection, Ethnicity and Migration Collections, University of Warwick Library, folder 01/04/04/01/04/02/01–14.
↵36Two pundits in the studio refuted Malcolm X's “wildly exaggerated” picture of the U.S. “Millions of Britons See Malcolm X in T.V. Broadcast of Debate at Oxford,” The Militant, December 14, 1964, 2.
↵37Delegacy of Lodging Houses, Oxford University Archives [hereafter DLH], Correspondence with the Accommodation Officers of Other Universities, 1924–68, 1. Various Universities with Respect to Accommodation for Overseas Students, 1963–4, LHD/C/7/1 [hereafter Overseas Students File]; “City to Tackle Big Problem,” clipping from Oxford Mail, June 3, 1960. Increased funding was part of the attempt to forge a commonwealth in the wake of the end of empire.
↵38See notes in Travel Diary, July–Nov. 1964, MXC, Diaries, box 9, folder 6.
↵39Malcolm X's visits to the Universities of Manchester and Sheffield on subsequent days fueled existing local controversies, too. “Malcolm X Row,” Yorkshire Post, December 2, 1964, 5; “Malcolm X to Meet Colour Row Students,” clipping from The Sun, December 2, 1964.
↵40Kojo Amoo-Gottfried to Malcolm X, December 22, 1964, MXC, box 3, folder 15. See Magnet: The Voice of the Afro-Asian Caribbean Peoples, February 27–March 12, 1965, 1.
↵41David Killingray, “‘To Do Something for the Race’: Harold Moody and the League of Coloured Peoples,” in Bill Schwarz, ed., West Indian Intellectuals in Britain (Manchester, 2003), 51–70; S. Lawrence to W. H. Cornish, March 18, 1953, Public Record Office, Kew, UK [hereafter PRO], Home Office Records, HO 344/106. See also Winston James, “The Black Experience in Twentieth-Century Britain”; Imanuel Geiss, The Pan-African Movement, trans. Ann Keep (London, 1974); Hakim Adi, West Africans in Britain, 1900–1960: Nationalism, Pan-Africanism and Communism (London, 1998); Ron Ramdin, The Making of the Black Working Class in Britain (Aldershot, 1987); and Schwarz, West Indian Intellectuals in Britain. Labour MP Fenner Brockway (who introduced a racial discrimination bill—to no avail—virtually every year from 1955) could trace his heritage back to Victorian Nonconformity. Anti-immigration activists stood in the tradition of Oswald Mosley's interwar British Union of Fascists—indeed, Mosley remained one of the leading advocates of immigration restriction during the 1960s.
↵42Frederick Douglass, James Weldon Johnson, Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells, and Ralph Bunche all made their mark in Britain. The Jubilee Singers caused a sensation in the mid-nineteenth century. Support for the anti-lynching campaign was particularly strong, especially in Wales. On earlier connections, see Gosse, “‘As a Nation, the English Are Our Friends.’” On the interconnected history of British and Anglo-American imperial thought during the later nineteenth century, see Paul Kramer, “Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between the British and United States Empires, 1880–1910,” Journal of American History 88, no. 4 (2002): 1315–1353.
↵43The list of young leaders who were resident in Britain and attended the fifth Pan-African Conference in Manchester in 1945, presided over by W. E. B. Du Bois, reads like a Who's Who of future giants of national independence movements. See A. Sivanandan, “From Resistance to Rebellion: Asian and Afro-Caribbean Struggles in Britain,” Race and Class 23, no. 2–3 (October 1981): 111–152; Penny M. Von Eschen, Race against Empire: Black Americans and Anticolonialism, 1937–1957 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1997); and Susan D. Pennybacker, From Scottsboro to Munich: Race and Political Culture in 1930s Britain (Princeton, N.J., 2012).
↵44On the collapse, see Von Eschen, Race against Empire, 118–120. Robeson, though, remained a fixture on the BBC.
↵45For calls to consider the relevance of Atlantic history beyond the usual early-nineteenth-century end date, see Jack P. Greene and Philip D. Morgan, Atlantic History: A Critical Appraisal (New York, 2009), 21; and Donna Gabaccia, “A Long Atlantic in a Wider World,” Atlantic Studies 1, no. 1 (2004): 1–27. On the black Atlantic, see Gilroy, The Black Atlantic. For this essay, though, “racial” would be a more appropriate adjective than “black,” since white politicians, journalists, and social scientists were influenced by developments in race relations around the Atlantic. Due to high-speed communications and the reach of the British Empire, the modern racial Atlantic connected continents rather than coastlines, and was directly linked to South Asia, too (though as Greene and Morgan argue, the salience of the Atlantic need not be set in opposition to other framings).
↵46The estimated number of Commonwealth immigrants for 1952–1962 (from the start of mass immigration to the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Act) was 485,300, including 272,450 from the Caribbean. The United States had a long history of Caribbean immigration, too, although the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 restricted such immigration, and inadvertently hastened emigration from the Caribbean to Britain. American race leaders during the 1960s often had their own direct links to the Caribbean. Stokely Carmichael, for example, was born in Trinidad.
↵47On the influence of Claudia Jones on British activism, and the effect on her of moving to London, see Carole Boyce Davies, Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones (Durham, N.C., 2008); Claudia Jones, “The Caribbean Community in Britain,” Freedomways 4, no. 3 (Summer 1964): 341–357. Other influential Caribbean-born immigrants who had lived in the United States included Amy Ashwood Garvey, whose Association for the Advancement of Coloured People spearheaded the first response to the Notting Hill riot (her late husband, “Back to Africa” leader Marcus Garvey, who was deported from America, also ended up in London, from 1935 until his death in 1940), and Kelso Cochrane, whose murder (and the fact that the killers were not brought to justice) sparked an important stage in black British organizing. Police report, forwarded by Gvnr Leeward Islands to Secretary of State, September 21, 1959, from Police, Antigua, June 9, 1959, PRO, Central Office Records, CO 1031/2541. Paul Robeson and his wife, Eslanda, were also mainstays of Britain's black cultural and political scene for much of this period.
↵48For example, JACARI also lined up U.S. student leaders James Forman and Bob Moses. Trinity Term 1964 and Hilary Term 1966 term cards, John Johnson Collection, box J5.
↵49Numerous British visitors recall the transformative impact of seeing the U.S. movement firsthand. Recollections by Jonathan Steele, Lady Carla Carlisle, and Anthony King, “Movement and Memory,” Oxford Centre for Research in US History (OxCRUSH) conference, 2004. The presence of British visitors occasionally influenced local U.S. race struggles. The arrest of a British student, Constance Lever, in Monroe, North Carolina, sparked a riot. Lever, “Monroe Doctrine,” The Spectator, September 15, 1961, 348. Bristol activist Paul Stephenson—by virtue of being a foreigner—was the first black visitor at an all-white hotel in Virginia. Author interview with Paul Stephenson, June 16, 2011.
↵50Author interview with former JACARI president Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, May 18, 2011. See also Mary Proudfoot to Anthony Shaw, May 7, 1964, JACARI Files.
↵51In 1947, fewer than 15,000 Britons had a television license. Within a decade, 4.5 million did (and twice that number had a radio license). Asa Briggs and Peter Burke, A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet (Cambridge, 2005), 191–195.
↵52On the changing nature, and influence, of the modern Atlantic crossing, see Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra and Erik Seeman, eds., The Atlantic in Global History, 1500–2000 (Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2006); Daniel T. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, Mass., 2000).
↵53On protean use, see David Thelen, “The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History,” The Nation and Beyond, Special Issue, Journal of American History 86, no. 3 (December 1999): 965–975, here 968; Ian Tyrrell, “Reflections on the Transnational Turn in United States History: Theory and Practice,” Journal of Global History 4, no. 3 (2009): 453–474.
↵54Jürgen Kocka, “Comparison and Beyond,” History and Theory 42, no. 1 (2003): 39–44, here 44; Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, “Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity,” History and Theory 45 (February 2006): 30–50, here 46. Kocka argues that “Analytically, the comparative approach is indispensable for asking and answering causal questions” (40). For an earlier defense of comparison, see George M. Fredrickson, “From Exceptionalism to Variability: Recent Developments in Cross-National Comparative History,” Journal of American History 82, no. 2 (1995): 587–604, here 590. See also Deborah Cohen and Maura O'Connor, “Comparative History, Cross-National History, Transnational History: Definitions,” in Cohen and O'Connor, eds., Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective (London, 2004), ix–xxiv; C. A. Bayly, Sven Beckert, Matthew Connelly, Isabel Hofmeyr, Wendy Kozol, and Patricia Seed, “AHR Conversation: On Transnational History,” American Historical Review 111, no. 5 (December 2006): 1441–1464; the articles in “AHR Forum: Entangled Empires in the Atlantic World,” American Historical Review 112, no. 3 (June 2007): 710–799; Kiran Klaus Patel, “‘Transnations’ among ‘Transnations’? The Debate on Transnational History in the United States and Germany,” Center for European Studies Working Paper Series, no. 159 (2008), https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/#/publications/docs/pdfs/CES_159.pdf.
↵55The call to combine comparison with connection has a long history. Indeed, Marc Bloch argued that comparison worked best in countries that were connected, contemporary, and “exercising a constant mutual influence.” Bloch, “A Contribution towards a Comparative History of European Societies,” in Bloch, Land and Work in Mediaeval Europe: Selected Papers, trans. J. E. Anderson (Berkeley, Calif., 1967), 44–81, here 47. See also Patel, “‘Transnations’ among ‘Transnations’?”; and Tyrell, “Reflections on the Transnational Turn in United States History,” 18.
↵56The Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed under a Conservative government and upheld by the Labour government of 1964. Controversially, it did not apply to (white) Irish immigrants. On U.S. immigration, see Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, N.J., 2004). On U.S. immigration policy and civil rights, see Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Immigration Policy and Affirmative Action in America (New York, 2002).
↵57See, for example, Adam Fairclough, Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890–2000 (London, 2002); Robert J. Norrell, The House I Live In: Race in the American Century (New York, 2005).
↵58On the U.S., see Stephen Tuck, We Ain't What We Ought To Be: The Black Freedom Struggle from Emancipation to Obama (Cambridge, Mass., 2010). On Britain, see Karen Fog Olwig, Caribbean Journeys: An Ethnography of Migration and Home in Three Family Networks (Durham, N.C., 2007).
↵59W. W. Daniel, Racial Discrimination in England: Based on the P.E.P. Report (London, 1968), 48.
↵60Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8.
↵61“Editorially Speaking: Mr James Crow, Esq.,” West Indies Observer 1, no. 16 (March 23, 1963): 4.
↵62K. L. Little, Negroes in Britain: A Study of Racial Relations in English Society (London, 1947). See also Clarence Senior, “Race Relations and Labor Supply in Great Britain,” Social Problems 4, no. 4 (1957): 302–312.
↵63“Coloured Audience Shouts Down M.P.,” The Guardian, September 8, 1958.
↵64Miss M. Eagle to Secretary of the Delegacy of Lodgings, Mrs. Lord to Secretary, and Anonymous to Secretary, November 26, 1964, DLH, Overseas Students File. Abrahams and Ali were pictured in the local Oxford press sipping champagne with scantily clad young white female aristocrats at the Union Ball. “I was assured [that] six topless girls [would come],” Abrahams told reporters, tackling the issue head on. “I am very disappointed.” Photograph and caption, Oxford Mail, December 5, 1964, 5. See also “Love in a Cold Climate,” Spear, November 1963, 15. On U.S. homeowners' rights, see Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, N.J., 2005). On gender and American segregation, see Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896–1920 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1996).
↵65See, for example, Black Power Newsletter: Voice of the Universal Coloured Peoples' Association, n.d., 4, Institute of Race Relations, London [hereafter IRR], folder 01/04/03/02/044, and numerous other black power pamphlets in adjacent files. British MPs debated whether Malcolm X should be allowed into the country. “Mr. Malcolm Little,” HC Deb 18 February 1965, vol. 706, c264W, 81 and 82, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1965/feb/18/mr-malcolm-little.
↵66Author interview with Godfrey Hodgson, May 20, 2010.
↵67“The Archbishop of Canterbury Talks with the Temptations,” Chicago Defender, February 3, 1970, 11; “The Archbishop of Canterbury Receives Motown's Temptations,” Philadelphia Tribune, February 3, 1970, 18. See also Mark Bonham Carter, “Measures against Discrimination: The North American Scene,” Race 9, no. 1 (1967): 1–26, here 5; Anthony Lester, Justice in the American South (London, 1964).
↵68Keith Hindell, “The Genesis of the Race Relations Bill,” Political Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1965): 390–405. A British Caribbean Association survey in 1967 found that virtually all employment complaints by its members fell outside the board's remit. British Caribbean Association Newsletter, no. 10 (February 1967): 5, IRR, folder 01/04/03/02/063. On the impact of inadequate government remedies in the U.S. on the radicalization of black politics in reaction to the inadequacy of government remedies, see Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland (Princeton, N.J., 2003); Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty.
↵69For a discussion of different contexts of citizens' expectations of the U.S. and British states, see Victoria de Grazia, Irresistible Empire: America's Advance through 20th-Century Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 2005), 342.
↵70For example, the black church in Britain, unlike that in the United States, was not a mobilizing center for black politics. Cf. Aldon D. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change (New York, 1984); and Harry Goulbourne, West Indian Political Leadership in Britain (Warwick, 1988), 6.
↵71There were few black-only neighborhoods in Britain, too. For discussions of Black Power's transferability, see Wild, “‘Black Was the Colour of Our Fight’”; Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London”; and Leila Kamali, “The Sweet Part and the Sad Part: Black Power and the Memory of Africa in African American and Black British literature,” Atlantic Studies 6, no. 2 (2009) 207–221.
↵72Calvin Trillin, “A Reporter at Large: Color in the Mother Country,” New Yorker, December 4, 1965, 115–165. The limited historical literature on the subject has also tended to focus on the impact of the U.S. on Britain, although without the patronizing tone. See Sherwood, “Malcolm X in Manchester and Sheffield”; Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle”; Sewell, “British Responses to Martin Luther King”; and Ward, “A King in Newcastle.” Cultural studies analyses have tended to focus primarily on American influences on Britain, too. See, for example, Stuart Hall, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order (London, 1978).
↵73Martin Luther King met with activists ahead of the formation of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination (CARD). Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., The Politics of the Powerless: A Study of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination (London, 1972), 19–21. Stokely Carmichael met with leaders of the newly formed United Coloured People's Association. For the UCPA's founding statement, see clipping from Aframerican News Service, January 3, 1968, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers (microfilm) [hereafter SNCC Papers], Subgroup B: New York Office, 1960–1969, Series II: International Affairs Commission, 1964–1969, 19, reel 51. See also Obi Egbuna, Destroy This Temple: The Voice of Black Power in Britain (London, 1971), 18. There were numerous other U.S. visitors, including Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin. The first major modern protest organization for new immigrants, the Standing Conference of Organisations Concerned with West Indians in Britain, was founded in 1959 following a visit by Norman Manley. Standing Conference Newsletter, vol. 1, ed. Claude Ramsey, Bulletin 21, April 1962, Modern Records Centre, University Library, University of Warwick, Trades Union Congress, 1960–70, Race Relations Predominantly 1960–70, MSS.292B/805.91/1, Commonwealth Workers in Great Britain (Mainly Coloured), 1960–4.
↵74See John L. Williams, Michael X: A Life in Black and White (London, 2008).
↵75Author interview with Paul Stephenson. John Ross, “Operation Guinness,” Flamingo, February 1965, 9–11; letter to the editor, Flamingo, April 1965, 2. See also “West Indians Stage an American Style Sit-In,” Chicago Defender, July 9, 1963, 4; “Strikers Protest Firing,” Chicago Defender, July 16, 1963, 16; “Shabby Protest,” Chicago Defender, June 22, 1963, 14; “Watch to Be Kept on Colour Bar Premises,” Irish Times, April 9, 1965, 10. The March on Washington of 1963 prompted a solidarity march in London. Banners proclaimed, “Your Fight Is Our Fight.” “UK Supporters Visit US Embassy,” West Indies Observer, June 15, 1963, 1. The London protest was but one of many such demonstrations at U.S. embassies.
↵76There were also Black Eagles. Clipping from Black Eagles, n.d., IRR, folder 01/04/04/01/04/01/01–05. See also Wild, “‘Black Was the Colour of Our Fight’”; R. E. R. Bunce and Paul Field, “Obi B. Egbuna, C. L. R. James and the Birth of Black Power in Britain: Black Radicalism in Britain, 1967–72,” Twentieth Century British History 22, no. 3 (2011): 391–414; and Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London.”
↵77“The Lunatic Fringe,” Flamingo, September 1961, 41; W. J. Weatherby, “A Guest of the Ku-Klux-Klan,” The Guardian, December 3, 1960, 6.
↵78See Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights.
↵79Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (New York, 1999), 313.
↵80See Richard Iton, In Search of the Black Fantastic: Politics and Popular Culture in the Post–Civil Rights Era (New York, 2008).
↵81Ali, Street Fighting Years, 103, 105.
↵82In March 1964, for example, JACARI sponsored a fundraising Freedom Concert by Pete Seeger “to aid the causes of civil rights in America and the Anti-Apartheid movement.” Frank Parker to Senior Proctor, March 4, 1964, JACARI Files.
↵83The founding chairman of CARD, David Pitt, had cut his political teeth as founding president of the West Indian National Party, and first came to Britain to lobby for independence. See also West Indian Gazette, September 1962, 2.
↵84The Bristol bus boycott occurred eight years after its counterpart in Montgomery, and the issue was the employment color bar rather than passenger segregation.
↵85See Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London.” Also, British Black Power included South Asians. Editorial reply to letters in Flamingo, December 1963, 1; Daniel, Racial Discrimination in England, 48.
↵86Indeed, the West Indies Observer, which coined the phrase “Mr James Crow, Esq.,” actually focused on Caribbean news.
↵87A plaque with the inscription “Donated by the people of Wales” is still positioned beneath the stained-glass window with an imposing black messiah on a cross. Bill Patterson, “Alabama Window,” Flamingo, December 1964, 9–12.
↵88The public support for African Americans but not black Britons echoed an observation made by the African American journalist Roi Ottley a decade before. See Ottley, No Green Pastures (London, 1952), 8. Patterson, “Alabama Window,” 11.
↵89The chairman of the new Race Relations Board, Mark Bonham Carter, went to the U.S. in 1967 to learn “lessons [from the] American experience,” the main lesson being “the necessity for a positive policy on the part of the central government.” The revised British Race Relations Act of 1968 duly included more enforcement powers. Carter, “Measures Against Discrimination,” 5. For details of the legislation, see www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-027.pdf.
↵90“Busmen Heckle Marchers,” Bristol Evening Post, May 2, 1963, 12. On complaints that racism was worse in Britain, see Inder Jit, “Britain's Coloured Outlaws,” Hindustan Times, September 7, 1951, 7; Edward Scobie, “Black Englishman,” Flamingo, November 1962, 32; letters to the editor, The Guardian, December 8, 1960, 10.
↵91W. J. Weatherby, “Alma Mater,” The Guardian, March 18, 1963, 7; Peter Searle, “Bristol—After the Bus Dispute,” IRR Newsletter, July 1963, 13–16; “A President Decides,” West Indies Observer, May 18, 1963, 1. See also Poppy Cannon White, “Another Birmingham,” New York Amsterdam News, May 27, 1965, 19.
↵92Egbuna, Destroy This Temple, 21.
↵93See, for example, Black Ram, December 15, 1968, 1, IRR, folder 01/04/03/02/046.
↵94The act restricted entry to those born in Britain, or who had a parent or grandparent born in Britain.
↵95See Andrew Roth, Enoch Powell: Tory Tribune (London, 1971).
↵96This act restricted entry to those with a work permit relating to a specific job.
↵97See Malcolm X, personal notebook, Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8. “The Fight against Racism from South Africa to Australia to the U.S.A.,” interview with the Johannesburg Sunday Express, February 12, 1965, in Malcolm X, The Final Speeches: February 1965 (1992; repr., New York, 2010), 68–77, here 76.
↵98See, for example, Langston Hughes, “Scholar Finds England No Racial Bed of Roses,” Philadelphia Tribune, May 17, 1952, 9; “Negroes in Britain,” Chicago Defender, May 17, 1952, 2; “Britons Strike against West Indian Employees,” Cleveland Call and Post, January 10, 1953, 1; “Promotion of Negro Resented,” Norfolk Journal and Guide, January 10, 1953, 7; George Fisher, “Pastures Not Getting Any Greener in England,” Chicago Defender, June 31, 1953, 4; “British Unions Show True Colors,” Baltimore Afro-American, December 4, 1954, 3; Oliver Harrington, “Black Flood Spurs British Jim Crow,” Pittsburgh Courier, December 11, 1954, 16; Edward Scobie, “Unmask Hypocrisy of Britain's No Color Bar,” Chicago Defender, March 19, 1955, 4; “British Bus Drivers Strike over Hiring of West Indian,” Atlanta Daily World, March 8, 1955, 2; “West Indians Find England No Paradise,” Chicago Defender, July 16, 1955, 12; “KKK Reported to Be Organizing in London,” Cleveland Call and Post, June 1, 1957. Such negative reporting continued a longer tradition. Roi Ottley wrote, “The English, who regard themselves as above the turbulence of racialism, actually are the most cruelly prejudiced people abroad—a profound fact because of the many black millions who come under the British flag”; No Green Pastures, 8.
↵99At the Congress of Black Writers and Artists, convened in Paris in September 1956, Aimé Césaire made the provocative assertion that American blacks were subjected to colonial-style oppression. African American delegates angrily disagreed, including James Baldwin, who insisted that there was something exceptional about the condition of black people. See Brent Hayes Edwards, “Introduction: Césaire in 1956,” Social Text 28, no. 2 103 (2010): 115–125, and the translation of Césaire's analysis that follows; and James Baldwin's report on the First Congress of Negro Writers and Artists, “Princes and Powers” (1957), reprinted in Baldwin, Collected Essays (New York, 1998), 143–169.
↵100The Defender called it the “Little Rock anti-negro epidemic.” “The London Riots,” Chicago Defender, September 11, 1958, 11.
↵101See News Chronicle, September 9, 1958, 1, clippings file, Modern Records Centre, Warwick; “Jump on It,” clipping from London Observer, September 14, 1958; Weatherby, “Alma Mater,” 7. The African American Pittsburgh Courier reckoned that the “amazing alacrity in picking up on all the gory, gruesome tidbits that could be extracted from the recent series of ‘race riots’ in England” represented an attempt by “some white Americans to expiate their own sins.” “Don't Laugh Too Soon,” Pittsburgh Courier, September 20, 1958, 6.
↵102Fenner Brockway, “Racial Discrimination,” Labour Monthly 39, no. 2 (1957): 61–64; Pilkington, Beyond the Mother Country, 135. For broader discussions of southern segregationists' interaction with global racial politics, see Alfred O. Hero, Jr., The Southerner and World Affairs (Baton Rouge, La., 1965); and Thomas Noer, “Segregationists and the World: The Foreign Policy of White Resistance,” in Brenda Gayle Plummer, ed., Window on Freedom: Race, Civil Rights, and Foreign Affairs, 1945–1988 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2003), 141–162.
↵103Don Iddon, “Dear Governor Faubus,” Afro-American, September 27, 1958, 1; “Don't Laugh Too Soon.”
↵104“Negro Question in Britain,” Chicago Defender, October 27, 1959, 10.
↵105“Oxford Union Election of West Indian,” London Times, June 11, 1964, 8; “Ceylon Leader Cheered,” clipping from Oxford Mail, October 16, 1964.
↵106See the FBI records on the rally in New York, http://vault.fbi.gov/malcolm-little-malcolm-x/malcolm-little-malcolm-x-hq-file-13-of-27/view. His subsequent visits to Sheffield and Manchester were arranged only once the Union date had been set. “Malcolm X to Visit Sheffield,” clipping from Sheffield Telegraph, December 2, 1964.
↵107Full itinerary available in “London Programme for Dr Martin Luther King, 5–8 December 1964.”
↵108These included the popular glossy African magazine Flamingo and a much-trumpeted new black British newspaper, Magnet. On building up his media contacts, see Lillian Lang to Malcolm X, December 15, 1964, MXC, box 3, folder 15.
↵109“London Programme for Dr Martin Luther King,” Washington Post, December 7, 1964, 1; “Dr. King Preaches Negro Restraint,” New York Times, December 7, 1964, 1.
↵110“Transcripts and articles about Malcolm X's cancelled speaking engagement in France as a result of being rejected by French authorities shortly before his assassination,” Carlos Moore Collection, Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, Series: Intellectual Works/Published Interview, 1964–1965, box 6.
↵111Author interview with Clarence Jones, January 18, 2011. CARD was duly fashioned on King's nonviolent, pro-integration model.
↵112“Dr. King Preaches Negro Restraint.”
↵113See Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle.”
↵114Christian Action of London gave $561.25. Payment Order, January 5, 1962, Records of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1954–1970 (microfilm), Part 2: Records of the Executive Director and Treasurer, reel 14, box 51:12, frame no. 0359. See also Wyatt Tee Walker to Canon Collins, January 24, 1962, ibid.
↵115Dinky Romilly to Joan Baez, July 9, 1965, SNCC Papers, Subgroup B: New York Office, 1960–1969, Series I: Fund Raising, 1960–1968, Administrative Files, 1960–1968, 11. Beatles, July 9–Sept. 24, 1965, reel 45. Information on volunteer support from author interview with Doris Derby, October 20, 2010. On solidarity support for the SNCC, see “News from Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,” March 2, 1961. My thanks to Peter Ling for providing me with a copy of this press release.
↵116On Black Power's salience during the early civil rights movement, see Timothy B. Tyson, Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1999). On angry reactions in the Caribbean and India to British anti-immigrant violence, see, for example, Telegram to Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Garnett Gordon), From the West Indies (from the Rt. Hon. Lord Hailes), September 25, 1959, “Racial Disturbance: Notting Hill Activities,” PRO, HO 325/9; “Draft report to cabinet, BFM Samuel, Sec. Working Party to report on the social and economic problems arising from the growing influx into the United Kingdom of coloured workers from other Commonwealth countries,” December 1, 1959, and telegram to CRO, Delhi, August 16, 1958, PRO, Dominions Office Records, DO 35/7990. On British awareness of international criticism, see Labour Party statement, “Racial Discrimination,” 1958, 1, Labour Party Collection, Nuffield College, Oxford.
↵117“Aid to Malcolm X by B.B.C. Assailed,” New York Times, February 14, 1965, 24. Malcolm X sent a telegram to the U.S. secretary of state to demand an investigation. Telegram to Dean Rusk, February 18, 1965, MXC, box 3, folder 4.
↵118See Donald Hines, Journey to an Illusion: The West Indian in Britain (London, 1966).
↵119Clipping from Spear, December 29, 1962.
↵120Miscellaneous Speech Notes, n.d. (pre-1964), “African-Asian Unity Bazaar,” reel 10, MXC, box 10, folder 1.
↵121See Malcolm X to Miss Sandra Devoto, December 15, 1964, MXC, box 3, folder 4; Ali, Street Fighting Years. Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8. See “There's a Worldwide Revolution Going On,” speech at Audubon Ballroom, Harlem, to OAAU rally, February 15, 1965, in Malcolm X, The Final Speeches, 120–161, here 123. (He also recycled his Hamlet joke in speeches to students in the United States.)
↵122Transcript of telephone conversation with Lebert Bethune and a gathering in Paris, February 6, 1965, Carlos Moore Collection, box 6. His evolving idea of a black diaspora in Europe probably owed something to his Garveyite heritage, too. See Ted Vincent, “The Garveyite Parents of Malcolm X,” The Black Scholar 20, no. 2 (March/April 1989): 10–13.
↵123See Malcolm X, “Educate Our People in the Science of Politics,” Detroit, Mich., February 14, 1965, in Malcolm X, The Final Speeches, 81–119, here 86.
↵124Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8.
↵125“There's a Worldwide Revolution Going On,” 138.
↵126See, for example, “Malcolm X Off to Smethwick,” London Times, February 11, 1965, 7.
↵127Nor were the trips to England mentioned in his autobiography.
↵128Nobel Lecture by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Recipient of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Norway, December 11, 1964 (New York, 1964).
↵129Author interview with Clarence Jones.
↵130“Rough Notes,” Bayard Rustin Papers, reel 3, no. 0258.
↵131On King's emerging human rights vision, see Thomas F. Jackson, From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Economic Justice (Philadelphia, 2006).
↵132Stokely Carmichael with Ekwueme Michael Thelwell, Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) (New York, 2003), 572.
↵133“Negro Question in Britain.”
↵134Stokely Carmichael, Stokely Speaks: From Black Power to Pan-Africanism (New York, 1971), 78–91. Also, Black Panther Miscellany: Stokely Carmichael in London, 1967, dir. Peter Davis (DVD, Villonfilms, 1967), in possession of author.
↵135Conversation with, and e-mail from, Clive Sneddon, June 11, 2010.
↵136“Minutes of the Meeting on 27 November 1964,” DLH, Minutes and Meeting Papers, 1868–1970, Minutes and Papers of the Delegates, 1960–70, LHD/M/2/8; Mrs EM Talbert to Miss Davies, February 4, 1965, DLH, Overseas Students File.
↵137For example, non-white participants at a student United Nations forum were denied lodging a few months after the delegacy's statement, provoking protests. “Minutes of the Meeting on 11 June 1965,” DLH, LHD/M/2/8.
↵138SCORE ran successful campaigns in Leeds and Sussex; SCORE flyer, n.d., IRR, folder 01/04/04/01/04/02/01–14; clipping from New Independent, February 2–15, 1967, 4, ibid., 01/04/03/02/110.
↵139Hannan Rose to Junior Proctor, June 10, 1964, JACARI Files; SCORE flyers, IRR, folder 01/04/04/01/04/02/01–14. Demonstrations continued, too. “Student Demonstration in Bid to Save Gypsy Homes,” Cherwell, February 15, 1967, 1. In 1968, students were among the three dozen protesters arrested for sitting down at the entrance of a hair salon that excluded black customers. “39 held in Oxford Sit-Down,” London Times, June 8 1968, 2. JACARI remains engaged in community work around racial equality to this day, with members teaching English to immigrant children.
↵140The issues of black equality and student rights were also—and profoundly—intertwined during the protests on historically black campuses in the later 1960s.
↵141See, for example, A. F. Shaw to Proctors, n.d.; Senior Proctor to Shaw, May 25, 1964; Shaw to Proctors, June 2, 1964; and Senior Proctor to Shaw, June 6, 1964, all JACARI Files.
↵142Mary Proudfoot to A. Shaw, June 7, 1964; Proudfoot to Senior Proctor, June 16, 1964, and June 18, 1964, all JACARI Files.
↵143Letter to Cherwell, October 7, 1964, 2; “Proctors at It Again,” Cherwell, October 28, 1964, 4.
↵144“Curb Proctors' Powers, Say Students,” The Guardian, November 24, 1964, 7.
↵145Hannan Rose, “A Tactical Retreat,” ISIS, October 27, 1965, 4.
↵146“Students achieve nothing by talking to the authorities over wine and cheese.” “LSE-Style Protesters Plan Sit-in,” clipping from Cherwell, May 24, 1967; “Cherwell Ban: Students Hand in Ultimatum,” Daily Express, October 18, 1967, 4.
↵147“Students on Parade,” Sketch, October 21, 1967, 7; “A Sitdown at Oxford; Protesting Students Win Concessions at Oxford,” New York Times, June 4, 1968, 1.
 |
| Malcolm X at Oxford University in England on Dec. 3, 1964. |
The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association (AHA). The AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States since 1895 -- the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge.
BY SALADIN AMBAR AND STEPHEN TUCK
DECEMBER 3RD 2014
Fifty years ago today, a most unlikely figure was called to speak at the Oxford Union Debating Society: Mr. Malcolm X. The Union, with its historic chamber modeled on the House of Commons, was the political training ground for the scions of the British establishment. Malcolm X, by contrast, had become a global icon of black militancy, with a reputation as a dangerous Black Muslim. The visit seemed something of an awkward pairing. Malcolm X encountered a hotel receptionist who tried to make him write his name in full in the guest book (she had never heard of him), sat through a bow tie silver service dinner ahead of the debate, and had to listen to a conservative debating opponent accuse him of being a racist on a par with the Prime Minister of South Africa. A closer look at the event, though, reveals the pairing of Malcolm X and the Oxford Union to be a good fit — and reveals much about the issues of race and rights then, and now.
From the perspective of the Oxford Union, a controversial speaker was an entirely good thing. The BBC covered Malcolm X’s costs and broadcast the debate. In late 1964, though, Malcolm X also spoke to student concerns about race equality. For many years, the British media’s (sympathetic) coverage of anti-racist protests in the American South and South Africa gave the impression that racial discrimination was chiefly to be found elsewhere. A bitter election which turned on anti-immigration sentiment in late 1964 in Smethwick, in the English midlands, with its infamous slogan, “If you want a n***** for you neighbour, vote Labour,” exposed the virulence of the race issue in Britain, too. Students followed this news abroad and at home. Some visited “racial hotspots” in person. Others joined demonstrations in solidarity. Still, on the surface, such issues seemed a world away from Oxford’s dreaming spires.
But some students in Oxford were also grappling with the question of race in their own institution. The Union President, Eric Antony Abrahams, was a Jamaican Rhodes Scholar, who had vowed to his sister in his first week that he would “fill the Union chamber with blacks.” Abrahams was part of a growing cohort of students from newly independent nations who studied in Britain, many of whom called for changes in curriculum and representation. Three days before Malcolm X arrived, Oxford students released a report showing that more than half of University landladies in the city refused to accept students of color. The University had an official policy of non-discrimination, but the fact that many landladies turned down black applicants in practice had been a running sore for years. The report, and Malcolm X’s visit, brought the matter to public attention. Student activism ultimately forced a change in practice, part of a nationwide series of protests against the unofficial color-bar in many British lodgings. At a time when Ferguson is rightly at the forefront of the news, events in Oxford in 1964 remind us that atrocities elsewhere should serve as a prompt to address, rather than a reason to ignore, questions of rights and representation nearer to home.
For Malcolm X, coming to Oxford was an exciting challenge. He loved pitting his wits against the brightest and the best. As chance would have it, as Prisoner 22843 in the Norfolk Penal Colony in Massachusetts, he may well have debated against a visiting team from Oxford. More germane, though, was Malcolm’s desire in what turned out to be the final year of his life to place the black freedom struggle in America within the global context of human rights. He had spent the better part of 1964 in the Middle East and Africa. In each stop along his dizzying itinerary of states, he attempted to build support for international opposition to racial discrimination in America. Malcolm’s visits to Europe in late 1964 were no different. But it was Oxford that afforded him the opportunity to broadcast his views before his widest single audience yet. Citing the recent murders of civil rights activists in Mississippi, Malcolm X told his audience: “In that country, where I am from, still our lives are not worth two cents.”
At a time when cities across the United States have recently braced themselves against the threat of rebellion in the aftermath of the acquittal of Michael Brown’s killer, it is hard not to conclude that for many African Americans, Malcolm’s words at Oxford continue to haunt the nation. Indeed, by placing the civil rights movement in broad relief internationally, Malcolm sought to link the fate of African Americans with West Indians, Pakistanis, West Africans, Indians, and others, seeking their own justice in the capitals and banlieus of Europe. Emphasizing the independence of this new emergent world both within and outside of the confines of Europe, Malcolm hoped that the “time of revolution” his audience was living in would in part be defined by a broader sense of what it meant to be human. There could no longer be distinctions between “black” and “white” deaths — despite his condemnation of the media for continuing to indulge such distinctions.
Saladin Ambar is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. His most recent book, Malcolm X at Oxford Union: Racial Politics in a Global Era (2014), examines Malcolm X's participation in the 1964 Oxford Union debate and the politics of national identity in both the United States and United Kingdom. Stephen Tuck is a Professor of Modern History at Pembroke College, Oxford, and the director of the Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH). He writes further on the subject of this blog in the American Historical Review article “Malcolm X's Visit to Oxford University: U.S. Civil Rights, Black Britain, and the Special Relationship on Race” and in his most recent book The Night Malcolm X Spoke at the Oxford Union: A Transatlantic Story of Antiracist Protest (Berkley, 2014).
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/12/malcolm-x-oxford-union-debate-history/#sthash.zD8uqaPP.dpuf
AHR Forum: Transnational Lives in the Twentieth Century
Malcolm X's Visit to Oxford University: U.S. Civil Rights, Black Britain, and the Special Relationship on Race
Stephen Tuck
Stephen Tuck is a University Lecturer in U.S. History at Oxford University and the Director of the Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities. His most recent book is We Ain't What We Ought to Be: The Black Freedom Struggle from Emancipation to Obama (Harvard University Press, 2010; supporting website www.weaintwhatweoughttobe.com). He is currently working on projects exploring the relationship between the rise of Jim Crow and the so-called secular age, the connections between the United States and Europe over civil rights, and the effect of national location upon American historical writing.
ON DECEMBER 3, 1964, A MOST unlikely figure was invited to speak at the University of Oxford Union's end-of-term “Queen and Country” debate: Mr. Malcolm X. The Oxford Union (as distinct from the university's representative student union) was the most prestigious student debating organization in the United Kingdom, regularly welcoming heads of state and stars of screen.1 It was also the student arm of the British establishment—the training ground for the politically ambitious offspring of Britain's better classes. Malcolm X, by contrast, personified revolution and danger. As The Sun, the most widely read British tabloid, explained to readers in a large-font caption under a photograph of Malcolm X: “He wants a separate Negro state in which coloured people could live undisturbed. And many Americans believe he would use violence to get it.”2 Certainly the FBI did. Its file on Malcolm X, opened in 1953, expanded by the week as he toured Africa during the second half of 1964, giving a series of belligerent speeches and meeting with the leaders of newly independent nations to seek their support in calling for the UN to intervene in U.S. race relations.3
The peculiarity of his presence at the Oxford Union was not lost on Malcolm X. Indeed, his entire trip to Oxford was a study in contrasts. He was met at the rail station by the Union secretary, Henry Brownrigg, who found himself tongue-tied in the presence of a black revolutionary. In an awkward silence, Brownrigg took him to Oxford's preeminent hotel, the Randolph, a Victorian Gothic building with a quaint old-fashioned ambience. But Malcolm X seemed to interpret the choice of a hotel somewhat in need of internal refurbishment as a racist insult, a view reinforced by the receptionist's insistence that he sign his surname in full in the hotel guest book.4 The motion that he was to support in the debate, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” was a quotation from, of all people, Barry Goldwater, the outspoken conservative Republican nominee for president in 1964 who had opposed the recent passage of the Civil Rights Act.5 Even the dress code at the silver service dinner before the debate did not suit him. By tradition, male speakers wore bow ties, which was also part of the distinctive dress code of the Nation of Islam. But having left the religious movement acrimoniously earlier in the year (and now living under a death threat as a result), Malcolm X was the only speaker or committee member to wear a straight tie instead. (The only other person to wear a straight tie was the steward.)
Malcolm X's friend, the black arts poet and filmmaker Lebert Bethune, who was in London in late 1964, could not resist the chance “to see the sacrosanct image of Oxford shattered by the fist of revolutionary logic. So I took a train to Oxford just to be there for the blow.”6 That blow landed most heavily against Humphrey Berkeley MP, Malcolm X's conservative debating opponent. Berkeley charged Malcolm X with racism, and mocked him, too, asking, “why not Malcolm Z?” Malcolm X returned Berkeley's insult: “The speaker that preceded me is one of the best excuses that I know to prove our point,” and threw back his argument: “He is right. X is not my real name.” That had been taken by Berkeley's forefathers, he said, who had raped and pillaged their way through Africa. “I just put X up there to keep from wearing his name.” The students laughed when Malcolm X feigned ignorance of Shakespeare and then quoted extensively from Hamlet. They listened attentively to his assault on the American media, and even when he blamed President Lyndon Johnson for the recent murder of white missionaries in the Congo.7 He lost the vote, but he won plenty of admirers.8 Bethune judged it “one of the most stirring speeches I have ever heard delivered by Malcolm X.”9
Although Malcolm X's speech at Oxford has been widely acclaimed, the visit itself generally occupies at most a curious footnote in the civil rights literature.10 Historians interested in his growing international vision have understandably been drawn to his travels through the Middle East and Africa over his appearance one evening at a fusty old English university. But given the lengths to which he went in order to make the trip, it was clearly important to him. He accepted the invitation even though he was too busy in late 1964 to respond to similar invitations from leading American universities; he agreed to speak for no fee even though his finances were in a parlous state; and he accommodated Oxford's schedule even though the debate could hardly have come at a more inconvenient time.11 Having been abroad throughout the second half of 1964, he was eager to be home. “I miss you and the children very much,” he wrote to his wife, Betty, in August, “but it looks like another month at least may pass before I see you.”12 In fact, it would be another three. He returned home on November 24. By that time, Betty was heavily pregnant (the baby was born while he was in England), his mother was seriously ill, and the Nation of Islam was seeking to evict his family. Meanwhile, his new organization, Muslim Mosque Inc., was in a complete shambles in his absence.13 Yet he still felt, as he put it to one of his closest colleagues, Charles 37X Kenyatta, that “the long-run gains [of a trip to England] outweigh the risks.”14
The importance that Malcolm X attached to visiting Oxford, and the gains that he hoped to make, point to a little-known British-American dimension of the civil rights years. His talk at Oxford was the first stop in a short tour of four English cities, to be followed by a return trip in February 1965.15 His visit was but one of many by high-profile U.S. civil rights activists to Britain. Just three days after the Oxford debate, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr., preached to an overflowing congregation at St. Paul's Cathedral.16 In turn, such visits represented but one aspect of a much broader transfer of ideas, news, and people back and forth between Britain and America, intimately interlinked with the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia—a close relationship over the issue of black equality that served as a counterpart to the so-called special relationship between the two governments.
What distinguished this particular transnational connection from those between the United States or Britain and countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean was a widely held perception during the 1960s that the two countries were on a shared trajectory with regard to race matters. The fact that both progressive and conservative activists in both Britain and the U.S. made use of, and were shaped by, this supposedly special relationship over race speaks to debates around the nature of Americanization, transnational history, the civil rights movement, and Atlantic history. In particular, the British-American relationship on race highlights the many different purposes to which the American story could be put, the compatibility of comparative and histoire croisée approaches, the early salience of what would come to be known as Black Power ideology in Britain and the United States, and the persistent influence of Atlantic connections even in a global age.
The impact of this other special relationship can be obscured by the power of national narratives, and overshadowed by the well-known international links between Western civil rights campaigns and anticolonial nationalist movements.17 But when the travels of a particular person are followed to a particular place, the connections quickly become apparent. Set in the context of wider British, American, and global connections related to civil rights, immigration, and citizenship, Malcolm X's travels to England provide an especially apposite journey to follow. The very fact that he was invited to Oxford highlights the asymmetrical nature of the relationship and the appeal of Black Power, yet his encounter with what turned out to be a vibrant Oxford movement concerned with civil rights demonstrates the need to de-center the United States in the study of the modern global anti-racist struggle. While in England, Malcolm X would come to view the two countries as directly comparable in terms of racial conditions, reflecting a common presumption that was misguided in many ways, yet led to the stories of protest in Britain and the United States becoming deeply entangled. That he and his Oxford hosts would seek to use the visit for their own purposes points to the multiple ways in which British and American activists used the transnational relationship to strengthen their domestic campaigns. And finally, what turned out to be the considerable consequences of his time in Oxford reveal the transformative, yet often unexpected, impact of these transatlantic connections—not just on the course of British activism, but even on such a celebrated global figure as Malcolm X.
JUST AS HISTORIANS HAVE TENDED to overlook the course and consequences of Malcolm X's trip to Oxford, they have devoted little attention to the broader issue of British-American links during the civil rights era.18 This lacuna in the literature stands in stark contrast to the extensive historical scholarship on antebellum British-American connections over slavery, and persists despite the fact that black studies scholars have been in the vanguard of the transnational turn. As the historian of African American and global black history Robin D. G. Kelley observed, “black studies … were diasporic from their inception.” Precisely because of this diasporic framework, however, the first African American historians “always began in Africa” rather than Europe.19 There is an emerging interest in the international context of both the British and particularly the U.S. struggles over racial equality in the mid-twentieth century.20 But historians of black Britain have mostly looked to the important connections with the British Commonwealth.21 For their part, scholars of the U.S. civil rights movement have focused on the Cold War context and links with postcolonial nations or the Communist Bloc—and the United States has tended to remain at the center of the analysis in the so-called American century.22
A closer look at Malcolm X's travels to England, however, shows that the British-American relationship over race was something far more complicated, and far more significant, than a mere adjunct to, or spillover from, the U.S. civil rights movement. To be sure, the relationship was imbalanced, as indeed was the special relationship between the two governments. After all, the mid-twentieth century was, as transnational historian Ian Tyrrell aptly put it, the “high noon of American hegemony.”23 By 1964, Malcolm X had become the global icon of black militancy. That was why he was invited to Oxford. But it was a two-way relationship nonetheless, one that was distinct from the bilateral relationships between Western and postcolonial countries in terms of both its development and its impact. Moreover, because of the Cold War and British Commonwealth frameworks, and the strategic location of Britain and the U.S. in their respective hemispheres, the two countries were thoroughfares for activists, news, and ideas from every continent. In other words, America was not the starting point of this exchange, nor Britain the final destination.
Indeed, the reason that Malcolm X wrote to accept the invitation “without hesitation” was his recognition that Oxford activists were already “on fire” against racial discrimination.24 In 1964, the Union had become a flashpoint of British and Commonwealth anti-racist protest politics. The organization's president that semester, Eric Abrahams, was—most unusually—a Jamaican.25 Highly intelligent (a Rhodes Scholar studying law), politically savvy, an ardent pan-Africanist, and a fine orator, Abrahams was something of a miniature version of Malcolm X.26 He had even recently returned from a lecture tour in the Middle East. Moreover, the Union treasurer was a Pakistani student, Tariq Ali, an outspoken left-wing activist. When introducing the debate, Abrahams joked that Ali was Oxford's very own red Muslim, to match the renowned black Muslim visitor.27 Many other, mostly white, Union members had been involved in anti-apartheid campaigns since their adolescence.28 In other words, Malcolm X knew he would be ensured of a warm welcome.
The fuel for this “fire” was the recent rapid racial change in the city. Oxford was hardly witnessing the growth of a new Harlem, but with more than 1,000 immigrants from South Asia working in its car factories and bus system, the city had the fourth-fastest rate of increase in immigration in the country during the 1950s. The spark came that summer, when Abrahams and Ali joined demonstrations against the visit of the South African ambassador, who had been invited to speak to Oxford's conservative association.29 The university proctors rusticated them, suspending them until the fall term for refusing to move aside when asked.30 In the face of public criticism (from former Union leaders, mostly), the proctors reduced the sentence to gating, with the evening curfew to be lifted only for Union debates.31 On the eve of their gating, and after an alcohol-fueled “freedom party,” Ali and a friend reenacted—after a mere six-century hiatus—the tradition of burning an effigy of a proctor in the city center. A watching university bulldog (proctorial enforcer) admitted, “They've got a lot of guts.”32
By the time of his arrival, however, Oxford was hotter than Malcolm X had anticipated.33 On November 27, the university's Joint Action Committee against Racial Intolerance (JACARI)—its largest student organization, which had organized the anti-apartheid demonstrations—released a report in which it was revealed that in a recent survey, 62 percent of Oxford's landladies had said they would not accept an Asian or African student as a lodger.34 The problem for the university was that despite its declaration of nondiscrimination, the landladies were registered with the university's Delegacy of Lodgings. The national press picked up the story.35 And then Malcolm X turned up to speak. His presence made Oxford a little hotter still, attracting an unprecedented number of black students to the Union for the debate, and elevating a local story into one with international significance. The debate was carried by the BBC.36 The proctors kept a fearful eye on unrest within the university and on unwanted attention from without.
Oxford also provided Malcolm X with an entry point for connecting with the next generation of African and Islamic leaders. Because of recent increases in Commonwealth student funding, more than 1,000 overseas students were based in Oxford in 1964, part of a cohort of some 40,000 such students across Britain.37 During his travels in Africa and the Middle East that year, Malcolm X had jotted down the names and addresses of dozens of young African and Islamic students who were studying in Britain.38 From Oxford he traveled to the Universities of Manchester and Sheffield, and then to the Council of African Organizations in London (a network of Europe-based student anticolonial groups).39 He would return to England in February, to give the keynote address at the council, speak at the London School of Economics, and try to visit Paris, and he planned to visit England again in the summer.40 Thus in a sense, the trips to England were intended to be the third leg of his travels to the Middle East and Africa.
What was true in Oxford was true across the country. The U.S. civil rights movement was not simply transferred to a blank canvas with regard to domestic British anti-racist activism. The historically small black British community had a long history of organization, as, indeed, did white anti-immigration activists and pacifist/internationalist members of the British Labour Party.41 Black and white Britons had longstanding international connections, too, with both anticolonial movements and the U.S. black freedom struggle. Heirs of the British abolitionist tradition had welcomed African American visitors since the nineteenth century.42 During the 1930s, a left-leaning anticolonial transatlantic network, including such luminaries as Trinidadian intellectual C. L. R. James and future Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah, had emerged with London as its hub.43 As its foremost African American spokesman, the Communist sympathizer and brilliant actor Paul Robeson, put it, “I discovered Africa in London.” Although the American arm of that network collapsed during the early Cold War, London would remain an important site for black Atlantic intellectuals and anticolonial organizing. Hence Malcolm X's visits to the Council of African Organizations, and the attention he would devote to magazines that were based in London but oriented to the Caribbean and Africa.44
Indeed, a new wave of mass migration and the rise of nationalist and civil rights struggles during the mid-twentieth century reinvigorated the salience of the so-called black Atlantic world, and the strategic position of Britain within it.45 By the time of Malcolm X's visit, rapid non-white immigration into Britain—more than half a million people in the preceding decade, from the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia—meant that for the first time there were direct connections between African Americans and a sizable community of resident non-white Britons.46 As transnational scholarship reminds us, how these connections were made, and the very process of connecting, mattered. Some Caribbean-born British immigrants had lived in the U.S., notably Claudia Jones, a Communist exiled from her home in Harlem, who became one of London's most influential anti-racist organizers in the late 1950s.47 More generally, the new ease of air travel enabled African American leaders to make short trips across the ocean.48 In reverse, white students and both liberal and conservative politicians flocked to the United States to see civil rights protests firsthand.49 Some of the JACARI members who welcomed Malcolm X to Oxford had spent time with the Freedom Riders in the American South.50
For those who could not afford to make the journey, the revolutionary changes taking place in the media meant they did not have to. The classic years of civil rights protest coincided with the first generation of mass British and American television ownership.51 With the set-piece demonstrations of the U.S. civil rights movement staged for dramatic effect, it is no surprise that the mainstream British media followed the action like a soap opera. So, too, did the fast-expanding black British print press—not least because the editors of the most influential newspaper, the West Indian Gazette, and the most popular glossy magazine, Flamingo, had both come to London from the United States. In turn, the American press began to cover British race news in depth after anti-immigrant riots in Notting Hill, London, and Nottingham in 1958. By the time Malcolm X came to Oxford, then, news and ideas and people traveling between Britain and the United States were barely delayed by the Atlantic crossing.52 More important, though, is why the ocean was so regularly crossed in connection with the issue of black equality, and what difference the crossings made.
TRANSNATIONAL HISTORY MAY HAVE started out (at least in its ca. 1990s American incarnation) as something of a protean buzzword, but scholars have begun to pay closer attention to the ways in which such history should be written.53 In particular, proponents of entangled and comparative histories have taken their stand. At root, the debate involves calls by advocates of entangled history for studies that can “escape the weight of … pre-established national formatting,” and by comparativists for studies with global reach that can avoid becoming “merely speculative or feuilletonistic.”54 What is striking about the British-American transnational relationship over race, though, is that both approaches are applicable, compatible—and necessary.55
In the first place, for all the inspiration that black Britons and African Americans may have drawn from anticolonial movements, their own situations were much more analogous. Both black Britons and African Americans were minority non-white groups demanding equality in Western capitalist democracies that prided themselves on their liberal creeds. More analogous, though, does not mean neatly comparable. There were important differences between the two contexts. The U.S. had a domestic history of removing, enslaving, and subjugating its non-white population, but in the British imperial imagination, “coloured people” were subjects to nurture, even a source of pride. (This imagination, of course, ignored Britain's historic role in the slave trade, and was rudely exposed when immigrants from former colonies took up British citizenship in large numbers. The government swiftly passed an act restricting non-white immigration in 1962.)56 In the United States, African Americans had a highly developed institutional structure, while mass protest and litigation had won important victories before the civil rights movement.57 The British non-white population, by contrast, began to increase significantly only in the 1950s, with immigration from the Caribbean, South Asia, and Africa. As a result, people of color in Britain were lumped together (and self-identified) as black, whereas in the United States, Asian, Hispanic, and African American groups often asserted their differences.58 One Indian immigrant complained to a British interviewer, “When I was in U.S.A. I was not considered as a coloured man.”59
Yet for all the differences, many Americans and Britons came to perceive their racial situations as comparable. Malcolm X was struck by the common portrayals of African Americans and black Britons in the media. “Press calls us racists, imagery bad, crime stats fed, white communities actually high crime, false image, justify police state,” he wrote in his notebook, “leads to vandalism, hoodlumism, same in Britain, colored communities, divide and conquer.”60 On the British side, the title of a lead editorial in 1963 in the black London weekly the West Indies Observer described British racial discrimination as “Mr James Crow, Esq.”61 British sociologists of race tested their nation's development against the American example. Dr. Kenneth Little, founding father of the discipline in the UK, popularized the concept of a “British dilemma” (imperial creed of equal citizenship but discrimination in practice) akin to Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal's influential 1944 study An American Dilemma.62 Politicians and journalists—on the left and right—frequently spoke of the “American-style” situation that Britain found itself in, and assumed that the countries were on the same path. Commonwealth leaders, including Jamaican premier Norman Manley, drew the comparison between the British and U.S. situations, too.63
Those making the comparison had a compelling narrative to tell. Some of the landmark moments of racial strife in the two countries did seem to be uncannily similar. The anti-black riots in Nottingham and London in 1958 followed hot on the heels of mobs defending white schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, and white neighborhoods in Levittown, Pennsylvania. The outrage that followed the murder of Antiguan immigrant Kelso Cochrane in London in 1959 paralleled that surrounding Emmett Till's murder in Mississippi in 1955—in both cases the obvious perpetrators were not brought to justice. Southern U.S. politicians who played the “nigra” card had their counterparts in British anti-immigrant politicians who warned, “If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour.” The British Race Relations Act of 1965 followed the American Civil Rights Act of 1964. Striking, too, were the similar justifications for racial discrimination. In angry letters to the proctors, Oxford's landladies defended the housing color bar by unwittingly invoking the American shibboleths of homeowners' rights and anti-Communism. And above all, like U.S. segregationists, they raised the specter of black men's sexual promiscuity.64
It was because of these contemporary assumptions about comparability that the two stories became deeply entangled. British Black Power activists used Malcolm X's slogan “By any means necessary” even though they had no intention of pursuing an armed struggle.65 In everyday British language, some black neighborhoods were called Little Harlems, and the word “coloured” to describe non-white peoples was a U.S. import. Political decisions about civil rights and immigration legislation—particularly by Britons—were often made in the light of perceptions about the other side of the Atlantic. During an interview in 2010, Godfrey Hodgson, the London Times correspondent on racial conditions in the 1950s, chuckled when he recalled the “rush to bring inappropriate remedies across from America.”66 He had good reason to recall the rush. For example, when the prime minster appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury to head a committee on racial conditions, the prelate declared that he was “anxious to learn of similar problems in America first hand.” So when the Motown vocal group the Temptations came to London in 1970 to promote their new album, he was quick to invite them to Lambeth Palace—before blessing them ahead of their upcoming tour.67
Hodgson was right to recall the inappropriateness, too. The Race Relations Act of 1965, which was modeled on far-reaching U.S. federal and state legislation against de jure discrimination, made little impact on de facto employment and housing discrimination in Britain (this critique of the legislation's limitations was, in fact, already being made by many African American leaders).68 By the same token, U.S. protest techniques did not travel well to a different context.69 Because Britain did not have Jim Crow–style segregation, the classic tactics of the civil rights movement were not applicable.70 Black Power, with its explicit international vision, was a better fit for immigrants angered by immigration restrictions and frustrated by the moderate response of major black equality organizations. Its Islamist connections appealed to London's East End Bengali community, too. Even so, U.S. Black Power's calls for black community control, cultural nationalism, and armed self-defense were lost in translation because non-white Britons represented less than 3 percent of the population, half were from Asia with long-established cultural traditions, and virtually none owned guns.71 As for Oxford, Malcolm X's message would have been more directly relevant to the immigrant workers in the car plants than to his hosts in the Union. The privileged non-white Oxford students he networked with were anything but eager to turn on the power structure—they were expecting to return home to high-ranking leadership positions in postcolonial governments.
CONTEMPORARY COMMENTATORS INVARIABLY portrayed the transfer of ideas and tactics for protesting (or defending) racial hierarchies as one-way traffic from the United States across the Atlantic. In this line, British activism was merely a British version of the story proper. Atlanta-based civil rights journalist Calvin Trillin wrote of Britain in the New Yorker in 1965 that he felt he was “watching an old familiar play performed by an inexperienced road company.” Even a death threat sent by a “Deputy Wizard” of the British Klan, mocked Trillin, ended in impeccably polite British terms: “Faithfully yours.”72
In headline terms, it may have seemed that British activists took their cue from their counterparts in the United States. Many of the major British protest organizations of the 1960s were formed in response to American visitors.73 Trinidad-born Michael de Freitas changed his name to Michael X and created the Racial Adjustment Action Society—its acronym, RAAS, was a Jamaican obscenity.74 Despite the different contexts, tactics associated with American protest regularly turned up in Britain, too. The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 was matched in 1963 by a bus boycott in Bristol; it was led by local activist Paul Stephenson, who had recently visited the United States at the invitation of civil rights leaders. The student sit-ins in American restaurants had their counterparts in the unsurprisingly popular freedom drink-ins in British pubs. Operation Guinness in Lewisham was a particular hit.75 There was a London Black Panther group.76 And there were plenty on the American side, including Malcolm X on his lecture tour, who presumed that it was their job to teach. Even a Ku Klux Klan spokesman boasted to British reporters, “We have told them how to organise.”77 Such assumptions fit the American exceptionalist self-image during the early Cold War.78 As historian Mark Mazower noted, “Most American policy-makers regarded the USA as providing a model for the resolution of social and economic conflicts.”79 For large segments of the African American leadership, this outward focus also stemmed from a tradition of assuming global leadership and a postwar belief in their material and social progress.80
A closer look at a particular person in a particular place, though, immediately shows that Britons were rarely passive recipients of American ideas. In Oxford, Malcolm X was shocked to be lectured—at a distance of barely six feet—by a white conservative opponent. By his own admission, Tariq Ali then talked at Malcolm X, rather than vice versa, long into the night. Far from idolizing Malcolm X (Ali was anything but a devout Muslim and thought the Nation of Islam a “gigantic public relations swindle”), Ali tried to convince him that no religion could solve social problems, “while he consumed his tea and I sipped my brandy.”81 Moreover, when Britons did look abroad for inspiration, their gaze was often elsewhere. JACARI students demonstrated against apartheid.82 Across Britain, many mid-century immigrants had been involved in anticolonial struggles at home, continued to follow news from home, and often expected to return home.83 The West Indian Gazette's full title, West Indian Gazette and Afro-Asian Caribbean News, revealed the breadth of the preeminent black British newspaper's international vision.
Rather than import the American movement wholesale, then, activists in Britain often used the special relationship on race for their own purposes—as did their U.S. counterparts. In particular, both sets of activists sought to exploit the assumption that the two countries were on a common trajectory in terms of race relations. How they did so, though, and the extent to which they succeeded, often varied. In Britain, activists styled their campaigns as American in order to legitimize them. In the United States, activists used news from Britain to add weight to their arguments. Meanwhile, when African American leaders visited Britain, both the hosts and the guests hoped to boost their own prestige by association and to raise resources, though it would be the American visitors who took the money home.
When British activists used American civil rights or Black Power–style tactics, they were selective in their choices and used them at their own timing. The first British sit-ins began three years after their American counterparts, they were few and far between, and members of the Operation Guinness group met no opposition in the first ten or so pubs they visited. Reports are not clear on whether members of the group were eventually barred because of their color or because they had already drunk almost a dozen pints of beer by that stage.84 Meanwhile, Black Power groups used Malcolm X's image and words on their mastheads even though his slogans did not, in fact, easily translate to British contexts. The British Black Panther Party formed before the American Panthers had begun to establish international affiliates, and most likely without their knowledge.85
In other words, American styling was a strategic choice by British activists, a choice designed to strengthen their campaigns.86 British civil rights campaigners sought to ride the coattails of the American movement to legitimize their complaints. Sympathy for the U.S. civil rights movement was widespread across Britain. After the church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, for example, residents of Llanstephan, Wales, raised funds to replace the main stained-glass window.87 But British support for the U.S. civil rights movement was not matched by support for British civil rights campaigners. Indeed, British commentators routinely contrasted American horrors with British decency—the Welsh stained-glass artist sent to Alabama was “entirely dismayed by what I discovered” over there.88 Hence black British civil rights activists asserted connections with fellow activists in the U.S. Similarly, liberal British politicians and so-called race relations lobbyists openly borrowed ideas directly from their American counterparts not simply to develop their proposals, but to increase the likelihood of getting them accepted.89 During the Bristol bus boycott, Paul Stephenson took the comparison with the U.S. civil rights movement further, telling reporters, “People are saying that it is worse [here] than it is in the deep south of America,” because of restrictions on immigration and the British denial of discrimination.90 Such complaints found their way into the mainstream British press.91 (As for Michael de Freitas, a man on the make, by taking the surname X, he briefly gained outsized media interest.)
Most British Black Power activists, by contrast, stressed connections with the U.S. to gain legitimacy with black rather than white Britons. Black Power groups initially struggled to gain followers in the British context. The British Panthers numbered less than a dozen members in their first year.92 But by importing the Black Power aesthetic, they allied themselves with a powerful brand.93 Nonetheless, such American styling earned the small, unarmed cadre of British Black Power activists unwarranted attention from white authorities. Such attention was exacerbated by news of American riots, which triggered yet another wave of visits to the United States by politicians seeking to import legislation that would preempt riots in Britain (even though, evidently, it had failed to do so in the U.S.). Meanwhile, British anti-immigration campaigners used news of American violence and ghettos for their own propaganda. The British government passed a more restrictive immigration act in March 1968.94 Conservative MP Enoch Powell was not satisfied. The following month, after his first visit to the United States, he delivered his infamous anti-immigration “Rivers of Blood” speech, warning of the “horror on the other side of the Atlantic … coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”95 A yet more restrictive act was passed in 1971.96
For their part, African American leaders used news from Britain to undermine segregation in the U.S. Malcolm X publicly denounced American racism as “a cancer spreading all over the world” that was manifesting itself in Britain.97 His entries in his journal suggest that this assumption of American responsibility was, indeed, his viewpoint. But for others, such rhetoric was entirely tactical, used to pile pressure on southern segregationists. During the 1950s, virtually all African American press coverage of the black experience in Britain had actually been negative.98 This framing reflected anti-imperial sentiment, and seems to have been part of the broader Cold War rebuttal of the claim by overseas black radicals that discrimination against African Americans in the U.S. was akin to colonial-style oppression.99 The rise of the American civil rights movement—and particularly the massive resistance to it—marked an about-turn in reportage. “Race relations in England, in the past, have been on a higher plane of conviviality,” reported the influential African American newspaper the Chicago Defender after the anti-immigrant riots of 1958—thereby ignoring virtually all of its own past reports from the previous decade. “Nevertheless, America's brazen, vulgar display of racial hatred has assumed the virulence of a communicative disease which is infecting the mind and soul of the stolid Englishman.”100
Mainstream white American commentators, by contrast—to the exasperation of African American journalists—used news of British anti-immigration agitation to debunk U.S. exceptionalism in the matter of racist mob violence. “Radio station announcers,” a West Indian visitor to New York noted ruefully, would “interrupt a programme to splash—not without satisfaction—the news of Britain's race riots.”101 As for Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, orchestrator of the Little Rock crisis, he enjoyed telling British reporters to shove it. “What about that shindy in Nottingham?” he asked the Daily Express. “We have sympathy for you.”102 Hence the African American press fought back. The Afro-American warned Faubus not “to chortle too much over Notting Hill.” There were no troops there blocking children from going to school, and even the worst offenders received only four-year sentences from the courts.103 The Defender noted how few votes were cast for Britain's own Faubus figure, Sir Oswald Mosley, in an election in Notting Hill the following year. “Even a metropolitan dogcatcher would have done better. London, of course, is not Little Rock.”104 White supremacist groups in the American South disagreed, inviting Enoch Powell to lecture in Mississippi.
Meanwhile, the high-profile visits of African American leaders to Britain enhanced the prestige of both the hosts and the guests. The ambitious Eric Abrahams reveled in the comparisons made between him and Malcolm X.105 In turn, Malcolm X used his speech at one of Europe's most sacred institutions to bolster his demands to be heard in the United States—at rallies before leaving for England, he talked about his invitation to the Oxford Union to the exclusion of all other parts of his itinerary. Indeed, his speech at the Union, which focused on the Western media's misframing of the race question, revealed just how frustrated he had become at the American media's dismissal of him as a dangerous extremist.106 Similarly, Martin Luther King, by speaking at St. Paul's Cathedral, enhanced his status as an international religious statesman at a time when southern opponents were denouncing him as a Communist. He also met with the Lord Chancellor at the House of Lords.107
The self-promotional purpose of such visits by U.S. leaders is underscored by the time that both men devoted to publicity while in England. Malcolm X spent much of his first visit arranging for media events on his return—from the BBC to black British magazines.108 Benefiting from a Church of England public relations officer, King's two-day London visit in 1964 included seven media interviews.109 Speaking abroad also provided American leaders with a platform to espouse their philosophies to a wider audience. Malcolm X tried to go to Paris to connect with black French and Francophone anticolonial activists. When he was denied entry at the airport, he addressed them via a live telephone link.110 King's speechwriter, Clarence Jones, recalled that King and his colleagues “accepted the invitations to England to get their message out.”111 By preaching that “the doctrine of black superiority is just as dangerous as the doctrine of white superiority,” noted the New York Times, King also sought to counter the “activities of Malcolm X … who [was] also in London.”112 The black British press praised both men, fairly uncritically. Britain's white press, though, favored the nonviolent, reconciliatory approach of Martin Luther King to the confrontational black pride of Malcolm X, especially after the latter traveled to Birmingham and said of an anti-immigration MP, “I wouldn't wait for them to set up gas ovens.”113
Time in Britain allowed African American leaders to build up their international networks, too. Malcolm X visited the Council of African Organisations, and King met with a delegation of international students, while Stokely Carmichael, who had overseen the main U.S. student protest organization's adoption of Black Power in 1966, came to London in 1967 to participate in an international congress to explore “new forms of action” to challenge violent social systems. There was also the money question. For Malcolm X, who was in dire financial straits after leaving the Nation of Islam, the prospect of support must have been tantalizing. His letters reveal just how much he had celebrated every gift during his Middle Eastern and African tours. As a Protestant minister, though, King was better placed to harness support from British churches. “In the dark hours,” King wrote to one donor, “we will always remember the many people in England who encouraged our work … by their very tangible expressions by which our movement is continued.”114 British students supported their American counterparts financially, too. JACARI hosted a fundraising exhibition of photographs of student civil rights work in Mississippi. There was even talk of the Beatles playing a fundraising concert.115
EVEN AS THEY USED THE special relationship for their own purposes, activists in Britain and the United States were also changed by their interaction with each other. In particular, the perception of a shared trajectory with Europe heightened the salience in the U.S. of what would come to be known as Black Power, even at the earliest, optimistic stages of the nation's civil rights movement at the start of the 1960s. As is well known, it was good news of anticolonialist movements abroad, especially Ghanaian independence in 1957, that helped galvanize the mass nonviolent protest against segregation that erupted across the United States in 1960. But bad news of anti-immigrant campaigns in Britain, especially the riots of 1958, served as a bleak counterpoint, and strengthened the arguments of those, such as Malcolm X, who advocated self-defense and rejected integration from the outset.116 Malcolm X's expulsion from France, a country with a reputation for transcending the color line, rammed the foreboding home two years before the Black Power slogan first came to prominence in Mississippi. Or rather, Malcolm X rammed it home with characteristically punchy one-liners: “I have never been prevented from entering Mississippi,” he told reporters. “General de Gaulle has too much gall.”117 In turn, news of American inequality and segregationist violence underscored the fears of British immigrants in the early 1960s that politicians' promises of equal citizenship would prove illusory.118 “The term democracy, in its current usage in the West, is what meaning you give to it,” thundered the Spear, the organ of the London-based African World Congress, in 1962. “The American type of democracy is sensitive to … the colour variations of the human skin.”119
The fact that the relationship between Britain and the United States involved the travel of so many people as well as the exchange of news, though, meant that its transformative aspect was most pronounced in particular places and individual lives. Malcolm X's views of racism would be challenged by his time in England even as his presence in Oxford would affect the dynamic of student activism there. What is most striking, however, especially considering the assumptions that Britain and the U.S. were on a shared trajectory in terms of the place of black citizens, was just how unexpected the transformative aspects of this transnational relationship proved to be.
When Malcolm X came to Oxford, he—perhaps more than any other African American leader—already had a well-developed global vision of the causes of racial discrimination and the possibilities of anti-racist protest. But his time in England refined that vision. Before then, he had spoken of two categories of black people: those fighting colonial rule and those under quasi-colonial rule in the United States, with no mention of black Europeans. As he put it in speeches before his visit to England, “Only Americanism is more hypocritical than colonialism.”120 After spending time with black Britons and (via the telephone) Parisian activists, he began to speak in terms of “4 types of blacks in West, under Spanish, British, French or U.S. influence,” all facing common problems. By adding new categories to his list of the non-white oppressed, he sharpened his thinking about discrimination and anti-racist possibilities. There were “over 100 million Afros in West,” he noted while in Britain, “inside the Western Power Structure.”121
This observation hastened Malcolm X's shift from an anticolonial framework to a more nuanced international socialist position, dovetailing with lessons learned in the Middle East and Africa.122 From 1965, his speeches spoke optimistically of internal resistance within America and Europe working in harmony with the external resistance to the Western power structure.123 “During 1965,” he wrote in his notebook, “we shall see the longest, hottest and bloodiest summer yet witnessed, by … the Black Revolution.”124 “It's trouble for old John Bull,” he mused.125 Malcolm X looked forward to seeing that trouble in person on return visits.126 He did not get the chance. In February, one week after his return to the United States, he was assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam during a rally in Harlem. Indeed, it was because Malcolm X's visits to Europe came so late in his life that he did not have time to reflect on them publicly, in the way that he was able to after his trips to Africa and the Middle East.127 But that need not prevent historians from doing so.
Martin Luther King's outlook would be similarly challenged by his travels. King's globally focused Nobel lecture, written before he made his stop in London, did not even mention black Europeans—he only referred, optimistically, to the “black brothers of Africa and brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America, and the Caribbean.”128 His speechwriter recalled that the subject never came up.129 Yet after meeting British activists, King hastily edited—on hotel paper—the version of the speech he would deliver in London, denouncing the “segregation and discrimination that is emerging [and] that you have quite rightly deplored in others.”130 Travels abroad hastened King's transformation from an advocate of the American dream into a critic of unfettered capitalism and militarism.131 Stokely Carmichael had reached that point before he came to London in 1967. Indeed, he accepted the invitation precisely because he hoped to meet, and learn from, “Black Power formations [that] had begun to emerge in the African/Caribbean immigrant communities in Britain.”132 Back in 1958, the Chicago Defender had insisted: “London, of course, is not Little Rock.”133 Less than a decade later, Carmichael's rejection of American exceptionalism in the matter of racial discrimination and black protest had become commonplace. “We're talking now about the U.S.,” he told reporters when he was asked about urban discrimination, but “you can apply a little of it to London.”134
In turn, American visitors affected British activism—not least when Malcolm X came to Oxford. However, Malcolm X's contribution to the students' anti-racist campaign was anything but straightforward. Indeed, the authors of the JACARI report had actually feared that his visit—at the invitation of the Union rather than the JACARI leadership—would be counterproductive. JACARI's demonstrations against the South African ambassador earlier in the summer had gained a lot of publicity but achieved little. So the authors had tried a different tack: “Could this university be shamed?” Hence the idea of a scientifically rigorous study, in order “to make a splash.” The presence of Malcolm X, though, inadvertently bound up an ostensibly dispassionate survey with revolutionary politics and, to the authors' frustration, led some journalists to dismiss them as “trendy lefties” rather than engage with the problem of housing discrimination.135
Ultimately, though, the media attention that accompanied Malcolm X's visit enhanced the shame factor more than it undermined the survey's credentials. The very week of the debate, Oxford's Lodging House Delegacy met in something of a panic. The secretary of the delegacy wrote to other universities seeking urgent advice. Mrs. E. M. Talbert at the University of London, not picking up the tone of the request, replied, “I have always ‘got away with it’” by explaining that “almost everyone is barred one way or another—60% of [the] landladies won't take women … three won't allow lodgers with beards.” (“I sometimes wonder whether it is a bit hypocritical,” she confessed, “but it has worked up to now.”)136 In the end, the delegacy rejected JACARI's proposal to remove any landlady who was unwilling to promise to accept “coloured” students, but it agreed to issue nondiscrimination guidelines. In 1970, after continued complaints and protest, the university resolved its dilemma by relinquishing control of undergraduate residences.137
The tumult of 1964 spurred JACARI to form a national body, the Student Conference on Racial Equality (SCORE), to fan “similar action in other Universities.”138 In Oxford, organization around race equality issues continued, too.139 The most far-reaching legacy of the ferment in Oxford, however, was not related primarily to the issue of black equality. Rather, it was the undermining of the system of university discipline.140 Throughout 1964, JACARI leader Anthony Shaw had found himself at loggerheads with the proctors over the right to protest about apartheid.141 He was hampered by the fact that JACARI's “senior member” (a tutor designated to act as mentor) was working in cahoots with the proctors. Mrs. Mary Proudfoot, a lecturer in Caribbean history, professed sympathy for Shaw's views but warned him that confrontation “is not a suitable technique for a serious university group,” and threatened, “the end might be the dissolution of JACARI.” Shaw backed down, incandescent. Proudfoot wrote triumphantly to the senior proctor with misplaced condescension. “I think that he is just very young, very ernest [sic], and from a rather illiterate background.”142 When the South African ambassador came to town, though, JACARI members refused to be restrained. When the proctors singled out Ali and Abrahams for the worst punishment, the students demanded a change to the proctorial system.
Abrahams orchestrated the challenge in the media with aplomb.143 He quickly became the lightning rod for nationwide student demands for civil liberties. The quarter-million-strong National Union of Students condemned the proctors' claim to be “judge, jury and defending counsel.”144 And then JACARI released its survey, Malcolm X swung into town, and Abrahams gained more attention. The university set up a review committee. The outcome was a compromise: undergraduates won the right to defense, no longer in Latin, but the proctors still assumed that “citizens of Oxford have to be protected from abuse.”145 The fact that there were any concessions at all emboldened the students even as the token nature of those concessions exasperated them.146 A series of demonstrations during the next few years culminated in a mass sit-in—fueled by anti–Vietnam War militancy—at the proctors' offices in 1968.147 The proctors backed down. Student newspapers hailed the inspiration of recent sit-ins at the London School of Economics rather than those in the American South in 1960—an example, if one were needed, of how transatlantic tactics were appropriated and repackaged for domestic purposes. Nor did they remember the origin of the Oxford protests—the reaction to the arrest of a militant Jamaican president of the Union, a student who drew renown from the visit of America's most famous black radical.
The author would particularly like to thank Daniel Brockington, Nicholas Cole, Gareth Davies, John Davis, Kevin Gaines, Robin Kelley, David Killingray, Katy Schumaker, Joe Street, Ian Tyrrell, and the readers for the American Historical Review for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
Footnotes
↵1Union Society term cards, John Johnson Collection of Printed Ephemera, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford [hereafter John Johnson Collection], Oxford University Societies, box U3.
↵2“This Is Malcolm X,” The Sun, December 3, 1964, 7.
↵3See http://vault.fbi.gov/malcolm-little-malcolm-x/, pts. 1–14.
↵4E-mail from Henry Brownrigg to author, September 10, 2010.
↵5“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of vice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech, 28th Republican National Convention, San Francisco, July 16, 1964.
↵6Lebert Bethune, “Malcolm X in Europe,” in John Henrik Clarke, ed., Malcolm X: The Man and His Times (New York, 1969), 226–234, here 232.
↵7The full audio and a partial video recording of the speech are widely available online.
↵8“Malcolm X a Speaker in Oxford Debate,” The Guardian, December 3, 1964, 8; “Malcolm X on the Sin of Moderation,” The Guardian, December 4, 1964, 24.
↵9Bethune, “Malcolm X in Europe,” 232. See also Tariq Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties (London, 2005), 104.
↵10Most studies of Malcolm X mention the speech only briefly (if at all) in terms of Malcolm X's oratorical skills. Even Manning Marable's widely praised recent biography gives the Oxford visit but a passing mention. Marable, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York, 2011), 391. Works that cite the debate as an example of Malcolm X's oratorical skills include Dennis D. Wainstock, Malcolm X, African American Revolutionary (Jefferson, N.C., 2009), 135; Eugene Victor Wolfenstein, The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution (London, 1989), 135; Louis A. DeCaro, Jr., On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X (New York, 1996), 252. Kevin K. Gaines, American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates and the Civil Rights Era (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2006), 202, briefly discusses the debate in the context of Malcolm X's views on extremism. Two recent articles on aspects of the context of Malcolm X's speech underscore the value of focusing on the visit in more depth. Graeme Abernethy, “‘Not Just an American Problem’: Malcolm X in Britain,” Atlantic Studies 7, no. 3 (2010): 285–307, explores the symbolism of speaking at one of the intellectual centers of the British Empire. Saladin M. Ambar, “Malcolm X at the Oxford Union,” Race & Class 53, no. 4 (April–June 2012): 24–38, places the debate in the context of racial controversies during British and American elections and discusses Malcolm X's evolving thought on nationalism and racialism. Works by contemporaries that discuss the debate include Bethune, “Malcolm X in Europe”; Ali, Street Fighting Years; and Jan Carew, Ghosts in Our Blood: With Malcolm X in Africa, England and the Caribbean (London, 1984), 76–80.
↵11On putting off replies to other invitations, see Malcolm X Collection: Papers, 1948–1965, Manuscripts, Archives and Rare Books Division, Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York Public Library, New York [hereafter MXC], Correspondence, Speaking Engagements, 1964–1965, box 3, folder 19. On his willingness to accept such invitations at less pressured times, see, for example, Malcolm X to Morton Bobowick, July 30, 1964, ibid. On the Oxford invitation, see Eric Abrahams to Malcolm X, November 27, 1964, International Correspondence, England 1964, box 3, folder 15 (and on his willingness to accept unusual invitations for money, see Elsa Franklin to Malcolm X, January 12, 1965, and Don Brown to Miss Marilyn Lennon, n.d. 1965, Radio and Television, 1961–1965, box 3, folder 20).
↵12On Malcolm X's schedule, see James Shabazz, Muslim Mosque Inc. press release, April 13, 1964, MXC, Muslim Mosque Incorporated, Press Releases and Schedule of Activities, 1964, box 13, folder 6. On missing his family, see Malcolm X to Betty Shabazz, August 4, 1964, Correspondence, Shabazz, Betty, 1960–1964, box 3, folder 2. See also Malcolm X to Betty Shabazz, July 26, 1964, ibid., where he asks her to “Kiss the babies for me.”
↵13On the organization in a shambles, see Malcolm X to Muhammad Taufik Oweida, November 30, 1964, and Malcolm X to Muhammad Sourour El-Sabban, November 30, 1964, MXC, Other Correspondents, 1962–1965, box 3, folder 4.
↵14Malcolm X to Betty Shabazz, August 4, 1964, and July 26, 1964. Malcolm X planned to be based in the U.S. for most of 1965 to rebuild his organization. Author interview with Peter Bailey, June 9, 2011.
↵15On other destinations in Britain, see Marika Sherwood, “Malcolm X in Manchester and Sheffield,” North West Labour History Journal 27 (December 2002): 29–34; Joe Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle on British Race Relations in the 1960s,” Journal of Black Studies 38, no. 6 (2008): 932–950; and Abernethy, “‘Not Just an American Problem.’”
↵16“London Programme for Dr Martin Luther King, 5–8 December 1964,” Bayard Rustin Papers (microfilm), Alphabetical Subject File, Martin Luther King, Nobel Peace Prize, 1964, reel 3, no. 0258. King was en route to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The following year, the novelist James Baldwin would speak at the Cambridge University Union, and in 1967, Black Power leader Stokely Carmichael would speak at a Congress on the Dialectics of Liberation in London.
↵17In both countries, many anti-racist activists were focused on forcing the passage of national legislation rather than pressuring international bodies. Tony Ballantyne calls for the “nation-state” not to be “cast aside entirely [in transnational/world history] but rather it is put firmly in its place, as one, albeit an often significant, structure that governs human action and cross-cultural engagement.” Ballantyne, “Putting the Nation in Its Place? World History and C. A. Bayly's The Birth of the Modern World,” in Ann Curthoys and Marilyn Lake, eds., Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective (Canberra, 2006), 23–43, here 32. In this case the nation was extremely significant, and indeed, one of the reasons that transnational connections were so strong was that activists sought to connect with those challenging a (supposedly) similar nation-state.
↵18For example, Gerald Horne's call for a transnational research agenda discusses links between African Americans and most parts of the world during the civil rights era but does not mention Britain and Europe. Horne, “Toward a Transnational Research Agenda for African American History in the 21st Century,” Journal of African American History 91, no. 3 (2006): 288–303. Notable exceptions, which have tended to focus on the impact of high-profile African American visitors on Britain, include Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle”; Brian Ward, “A King in Newcastle: Martin Luther King, Jr. and British Race Relations, 1967–1968,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 79, no. 3 (1995): 599–632; and Mike Sewell, “British Responses to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement,” in Anthony Badger and Brian Ward, eds., Martin Luther King and the Making of the Civil Rights Movement (Basingstoke, 1996), 194–212. Recent, mostly unpublished research on connections or comparisons between African Americans and black Britons heralds the emergence of a new field in the near future. See, for example, Joshua Bruce Guild, “You Can't Go Home Again: Migration, Citizenship, and Black Community in Postwar New York and London” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2007); Kennetta Perry, “Black Migrants, Citizenship and the Transnational Politics of Race in Postwar Britain” (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 2007); Rosalind Eleanor Wild, “‘Black Was the Colour of Our Fight’: Black Power in Britain, 1955–1976” (Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 2008); and Anne-Marie Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London, 1967–1972: A Diasporic Struggle Navigates the Black Atlantic,” Radical History Review 103 (Winter 2009): 17–35.
↵19Robin D. G. Kelley, “‘But a Local Phase of a World Problem’: Black History's Global Vision, 1883–1950,” Journal of American History 86, no. 3 (1999): 1045–1077, here 1045, 1051. Among numerous works on the African American diaspora, see Michael L. Conniff and Thomas J. Davis, Africans in the Americas: A History of the Black Diaspora (New York, 1994); Clare Corbould, Becoming African Americans: Black Public Life in Harlem, 1919–1939 (Cambridge, Mass., 2009); Winston James, Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia: Caribbean Radicalism in Early Twentieth-Century America (London, 1998); and Ronald Segal, The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black Experience outside Africa (New York, 1995). On antebellum connections, see Van Gosse, “‘As a Nation, the English Are Our Friends’: The Emergence of African American Politics in the British Atlantic World, 1772–1861,” American Historical Review 113, no. 4 (October 2008): 1003–1028.
↵20On calls for (or surveys of) the internationalizing of African American history in the modern era that downplay Europe, see Horne, “Toward a Transnational Research Agenda for African American History”; Kelley, “‘But a Local Phase of a World Problem’”; Earl Lewis, “To Turn as on a Pivot: Writing African Americans into a History of Overlapping Diasporas,” American Historical Review 100, no. 3 (June 1995): 765–787.
↵21See, for example, Winston James, “The Black Experience in Twentieth-Century Britain,” in Philip D. Morgan and Sean Hawkins, eds., Black Experience and the Empire (Oxford, 2004), 347–386. On connections between black Britons and the anti-apartheid movement, see the articles in Liberation Struggles, Exile and International Solidarity, Special Issue, Journal of Southern African Studies 35, no. 2 (2009); Elizabeth Williams, “We Shall Not Be Free until South Africa Is Free! The Anti-Apartheid Activity of Black Britons” (Ph.D. diss., Birkbeck College, 2009). In contrast to the historical literature, cultural studies scholarship has extensively explored the connection with the United States, notably Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (London, 1993). Generally, the historical literature on black Britain is less extensive than its American counterpart. For an overview, see Onyekachi Wambu, ed., Empire Windrush: Fifty Years of Writing about Black Britain (London, 1998). Two classic accounts are Edward Pilkington, Beyond the Mother Country: West Indians and the Notting Hill White Riots (London, 1988); and Dilip Hiro, Black British, White British (London, 1991).
↵22See, for example, Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton, N.J., 2000); Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights, 1919–1950 (New York, 2008); James H. Meriwether, Proudly We Can Be Africans: Black Americans and Africa, 1935–1961 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2002); Thomas J. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (New York, 2008); Michael L. Clemons and Charles E. Jones, “Global Solidarity: The Black Panther Party in the International Arena,” in Kathleen Cleaver and George Katsiaficas, Liberation, Imagination, and the Black Panther Party: A New Look at the Black Panthers and Their Legacy (New York, 2001), 20–39. The ubiquity of U.S. terms such as “Jim Crow” and “the civil rights movement” is revealing. See Gary Helm Darden, “The New Empire in the ‘New South’: Jim Crow in the Global Frontier of High Imperialism and Decolonization,” Southern Quarterly 46, no. 3 (2009): 8–25. On the development of transnational history as “America and the world,” see Patricia Clavin, “Defining Transnationalism,” Contemporary European History 14, no. 4 (2005): 421–439, here 424. It is somewhat ironic that this is as true of work on the “other America” as it is with the history of American policy, business, and popular culture.
↵23Ian Tyrrell, Transnational Nation: United States History in Global Perspective since 1789 (Basingstoke, 2007), 171. See also Clavin, “Defining Transnationalism,” 429. Scholars have also discussed in depth the Americanization of British culture. See, for example, Adrian Horn, Juke Box Britain: Americanisation and Youth Culture, 1945–60 (Manchester, 2009).
↵24E-mail to author from Eric Abrahams, July 30, 2010. See also Ali, Street Fighting Years, 101.
↵25Norman Manley was the first Jamaican president of the Union. In 1956, Rhodes Scholar Roy Dickson was elected president, and one Union member resigned in protest. Racial Unity Bulletin 5, no. 148 (April 1956).
↵26“W. Indian President of Union,” Oxford Mail, June 13, 1964, 5; “Oxford Union Election of West Indian,” London Times, June 11, 1964, 8. On his pan-Africanism, see Ellis Komey, “What Is a Rhodes Scholar?,” Flamingo, December 1962, 48.
↵27“Historic Term for Tariq Ali,” Oxford Mail, June 18, 1965, 7.
↵28E-mail to author from Anthony Shaw, September 13, 2010. Some had joined anti-apartheid organizations as teenagers. My thanks to Dr. John Davis, Oxford, for sharing this point from his interviews with British 1968 activists. On the role of students in challenging racial inequality, see Daniel Oakman, “Student Sojourners: Museums and the Transnational Lives of International Students,” National Identities 12, no. 4 (2010): 397–412; Jason C. Parker, “‘Made-in-America Revolutions’? The ‘Black University’ and the American Role in the Decolonization of the Black Atlantic,” Journal of American History 96, no. 3 (2009): 727–750. On the importance of the transient movement of people across borders, see T. Faist, “Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of Citizenship and Culture,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23, no. 2 (2000): 189–222.
↵29“Crowd Riots as S. Africa Envoy Leaves Hall,” London Times, June 18, 1964, 14. For broader international connections between those sympathetic to, or supportive of, racial hierarchies, see Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality (Melbourne, 2008); Bill Schwarz, The White Man's World (New York, 2011).
↵30“Oxford to ‘Gate’ Next Union President,” Daily Telegraph, June 20, 1964, 9. Six undergraduates in total were rusticated; Ali and Abrahams, as foreign students, did not have a home in England to go to.
↵31Osbert Lancaster, “Pocket Cartoon,” Daily Express, June 20, 1964, 1; “MPs Hit at Oxford Ban on Politics,” Daily Herald, June 24, 1964, 9. Some of the public outcry was due to concern for the forthcoming term's debates, rather than for Abrahams. “Union Debates ‘Standstill’ Fear,” Daily Telegraph, June 20, 1964, 9. “Gating” meant being restricted to the college premises each evening.
↵32“Really,” clipping from Cherwell, October 14, 1964.
↵33There were further demonstrations about apartheid, too. Ali and Abrahams watched from just far enough away to comply with proctorial demands. “Tories Smuggle Guest into Meeting,” clipping from Cherwell, November 25, 1964.
↵34Abrahams and Ali were both members. On membership, see “JACARI Support,” Oxford Mail, October 15, 1963, 4. On demonstrations, see “S.A. Arms Protest by Six Oxford Students,” Oxford Mail, February 23, 1962, 1; “March Banned Protest Continues,” Cherwell, February 2, 1962, 3; “Protest March against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, Sunday, February 4, 1962,” flyer, Joint Action Committee against Racial Intolerance Files, 1961–64, PR 3/2/313, University Archives, Duke Humfrey's Library, University of Oxford [hereafter JACARI Files]. On the survey, see “62% of Landladies Are Prejudiced,” Oxford Isis, November 25, 1964, 1. For the full report, see JACARI, Survey on Oxford Lodgings (Oxford, 1964); or for a concise version, see Robert Serpell and Clive Sneddon, “Colour Prejudice and Oxford Landladies,” Race 6, no. 4 (1965): 322–333.
↵35“Oxford Claims Prejudice by Landladies,” The Guardian, November 26, 1964, 5; “Integration and the Student,” submitted by National Union of Students to Government Committee on Integration under chairmanship of Mr Maurice Foley, n.d., 10, Sivanandan Collection, Ethnicity and Migration Collections, University of Warwick Library, folder 01/04/04/01/04/02/01–14.
↵36Two pundits in the studio refuted Malcolm X's “wildly exaggerated” picture of the U.S. “Millions of Britons See Malcolm X in T.V. Broadcast of Debate at Oxford,” The Militant, December 14, 1964, 2.
↵37Delegacy of Lodging Houses, Oxford University Archives [hereafter DLH], Correspondence with the Accommodation Officers of Other Universities, 1924–68, 1. Various Universities with Respect to Accommodation for Overseas Students, 1963–4, LHD/C/7/1 [hereafter Overseas Students File]; “City to Tackle Big Problem,” clipping from Oxford Mail, June 3, 1960. Increased funding was part of the attempt to forge a commonwealth in the wake of the end of empire.
↵38See notes in Travel Diary, July–Nov. 1964, MXC, Diaries, box 9, folder 6.
↵39Malcolm X's visits to the Universities of Manchester and Sheffield on subsequent days fueled existing local controversies, too. “Malcolm X Row,” Yorkshire Post, December 2, 1964, 5; “Malcolm X to Meet Colour Row Students,” clipping from The Sun, December 2, 1964.
↵40Kojo Amoo-Gottfried to Malcolm X, December 22, 1964, MXC, box 3, folder 15. See Magnet: The Voice of the Afro-Asian Caribbean Peoples, February 27–March 12, 1965, 1.
↵41David Killingray, “‘To Do Something for the Race’: Harold Moody and the League of Coloured Peoples,” in Bill Schwarz, ed., West Indian Intellectuals in Britain (Manchester, 2003), 51–70; S. Lawrence to W. H. Cornish, March 18, 1953, Public Record Office, Kew, UK [hereafter PRO], Home Office Records, HO 344/106. See also Winston James, “The Black Experience in Twentieth-Century Britain”; Imanuel Geiss, The Pan-African Movement, trans. Ann Keep (London, 1974); Hakim Adi, West Africans in Britain, 1900–1960: Nationalism, Pan-Africanism and Communism (London, 1998); Ron Ramdin, The Making of the Black Working Class in Britain (Aldershot, 1987); and Schwarz, West Indian Intellectuals in Britain. Labour MP Fenner Brockway (who introduced a racial discrimination bill—to no avail—virtually every year from 1955) could trace his heritage back to Victorian Nonconformity. Anti-immigration activists stood in the tradition of Oswald Mosley's interwar British Union of Fascists—indeed, Mosley remained one of the leading advocates of immigration restriction during the 1960s.
↵42Frederick Douglass, James Weldon Johnson, Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells, and Ralph Bunche all made their mark in Britain. The Jubilee Singers caused a sensation in the mid-nineteenth century. Support for the anti-lynching campaign was particularly strong, especially in Wales. On earlier connections, see Gosse, “‘As a Nation, the English Are Our Friends.’” On the interconnected history of British and Anglo-American imperial thought during the later nineteenth century, see Paul Kramer, “Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between the British and United States Empires, 1880–1910,” Journal of American History 88, no. 4 (2002): 1315–1353.
↵43The list of young leaders who were resident in Britain and attended the fifth Pan-African Conference in Manchester in 1945, presided over by W. E. B. Du Bois, reads like a Who's Who of future giants of national independence movements. See A. Sivanandan, “From Resistance to Rebellion: Asian and Afro-Caribbean Struggles in Britain,” Race and Class 23, no. 2–3 (October 1981): 111–152; Penny M. Von Eschen, Race against Empire: Black Americans and Anticolonialism, 1937–1957 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1997); and Susan D. Pennybacker, From Scottsboro to Munich: Race and Political Culture in 1930s Britain (Princeton, N.J., 2012).
↵44On the collapse, see Von Eschen, Race against Empire, 118–120. Robeson, though, remained a fixture on the BBC.
↵45For calls to consider the relevance of Atlantic history beyond the usual early-nineteenth-century end date, see Jack P. Greene and Philip D. Morgan, Atlantic History: A Critical Appraisal (New York, 2009), 21; and Donna Gabaccia, “A Long Atlantic in a Wider World,” Atlantic Studies 1, no. 1 (2004): 1–27. On the black Atlantic, see Gilroy, The Black Atlantic. For this essay, though, “racial” would be a more appropriate adjective than “black,” since white politicians, journalists, and social scientists were influenced by developments in race relations around the Atlantic. Due to high-speed communications and the reach of the British Empire, the modern racial Atlantic connected continents rather than coastlines, and was directly linked to South Asia, too (though as Greene and Morgan argue, the salience of the Atlantic need not be set in opposition to other framings).
↵46The estimated number of Commonwealth immigrants for 1952–1962 (from the start of mass immigration to the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Act) was 485,300, including 272,450 from the Caribbean. The United States had a long history of Caribbean immigration, too, although the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 restricted such immigration, and inadvertently hastened emigration from the Caribbean to Britain. American race leaders during the 1960s often had their own direct links to the Caribbean. Stokely Carmichael, for example, was born in Trinidad.
↵47On the influence of Claudia Jones on British activism, and the effect on her of moving to London, see Carole Boyce Davies, Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones (Durham, N.C., 2008); Claudia Jones, “The Caribbean Community in Britain,” Freedomways 4, no. 3 (Summer 1964): 341–357. Other influential Caribbean-born immigrants who had lived in the United States included Amy Ashwood Garvey, whose Association for the Advancement of Coloured People spearheaded the first response to the Notting Hill riot (her late husband, “Back to Africa” leader Marcus Garvey, who was deported from America, also ended up in London, from 1935 until his death in 1940), and Kelso Cochrane, whose murder (and the fact that the killers were not brought to justice) sparked an important stage in black British organizing. Police report, forwarded by Gvnr Leeward Islands to Secretary of State, September 21, 1959, from Police, Antigua, June 9, 1959, PRO, Central Office Records, CO 1031/2541. Paul Robeson and his wife, Eslanda, were also mainstays of Britain's black cultural and political scene for much of this period.
↵48For example, JACARI also lined up U.S. student leaders James Forman and Bob Moses. Trinity Term 1964 and Hilary Term 1966 term cards, John Johnson Collection, box J5.
↵49Numerous British visitors recall the transformative impact of seeing the U.S. movement firsthand. Recollections by Jonathan Steele, Lady Carla Carlisle, and Anthony King, “Movement and Memory,” Oxford Centre for Research in US History (OxCRUSH) conference, 2004. The presence of British visitors occasionally influenced local U.S. race struggles. The arrest of a British student, Constance Lever, in Monroe, North Carolina, sparked a riot. Lever, “Monroe Doctrine,” The Spectator, September 15, 1961, 348. Bristol activist Paul Stephenson—by virtue of being a foreigner—was the first black visitor at an all-white hotel in Virginia. Author interview with Paul Stephenson, June 16, 2011.
↵50Author interview with former JACARI president Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, May 18, 2011. See also Mary Proudfoot to Anthony Shaw, May 7, 1964, JACARI Files.
↵51In 1947, fewer than 15,000 Britons had a television license. Within a decade, 4.5 million did (and twice that number had a radio license). Asa Briggs and Peter Burke, A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet (Cambridge, 2005), 191–195.
↵52On the changing nature, and influence, of the modern Atlantic crossing, see Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra and Erik Seeman, eds., The Atlantic in Global History, 1500–2000 (Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2006); Daniel T. Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, Mass., 2000).
↵53On protean use, see David Thelen, “The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History,” The Nation and Beyond, Special Issue, Journal of American History 86, no. 3 (December 1999): 965–975, here 968; Ian Tyrrell, “Reflections on the Transnational Turn in United States History: Theory and Practice,” Journal of Global History 4, no. 3 (2009): 453–474.
↵54Jürgen Kocka, “Comparison and Beyond,” History and Theory 42, no. 1 (2003): 39–44, here 44; Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, “Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity,” History and Theory 45 (February 2006): 30–50, here 46. Kocka argues that “Analytically, the comparative approach is indispensable for asking and answering causal questions” (40). For an earlier defense of comparison, see George M. Fredrickson, “From Exceptionalism to Variability: Recent Developments in Cross-National Comparative History,” Journal of American History 82, no. 2 (1995): 587–604, here 590. See also Deborah Cohen and Maura O'Connor, “Comparative History, Cross-National History, Transnational History: Definitions,” in Cohen and O'Connor, eds., Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective (London, 2004), ix–xxiv; C. A. Bayly, Sven Beckert, Matthew Connelly, Isabel Hofmeyr, Wendy Kozol, and Patricia Seed, “AHR Conversation: On Transnational History,” American Historical Review 111, no. 5 (December 2006): 1441–1464; the articles in “AHR Forum: Entangled Empires in the Atlantic World,” American Historical Review 112, no. 3 (June 2007): 710–799; Kiran Klaus Patel, “‘Transnations’ among ‘Transnations’? The Debate on Transnational History in the United States and Germany,” Center for European Studies Working Paper Series, no. 159 (2008), https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/#/publications/docs/pdfs/CES_159.pdf.
↵55The call to combine comparison with connection has a long history. Indeed, Marc Bloch argued that comparison worked best in countries that were connected, contemporary, and “exercising a constant mutual influence.” Bloch, “A Contribution towards a Comparative History of European Societies,” in Bloch, Land and Work in Mediaeval Europe: Selected Papers, trans. J. E. Anderson (Berkeley, Calif., 1967), 44–81, here 47. See also Patel, “‘Transnations’ among ‘Transnations’?”; and Tyrell, “Reflections on the Transnational Turn in United States History,” 18.
↵56The Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed under a Conservative government and upheld by the Labour government of 1964. Controversially, it did not apply to (white) Irish immigrants. On U.S. immigration, see Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, N.J., 2004). On U.S. immigration policy and civil rights, see Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Immigration Policy and Affirmative Action in America (New York, 2002).
↵57See, for example, Adam Fairclough, Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890–2000 (London, 2002); Robert J. Norrell, The House I Live In: Race in the American Century (New York, 2005).
↵58On the U.S., see Stephen Tuck, We Ain't What We Ought To Be: The Black Freedom Struggle from Emancipation to Obama (Cambridge, Mass., 2010). On Britain, see Karen Fog Olwig, Caribbean Journeys: An Ethnography of Migration and Home in Three Family Networks (Durham, N.C., 2007).
↵59W. W. Daniel, Racial Discrimination in England: Based on the P.E.P. Report (London, 1968), 48.
↵60Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8.
↵61“Editorially Speaking: Mr James Crow, Esq.,” West Indies Observer 1, no. 16 (March 23, 1963): 4.
↵62K. L. Little, Negroes in Britain: A Study of Racial Relations in English Society (London, 1947). See also Clarence Senior, “Race Relations and Labor Supply in Great Britain,” Social Problems 4, no. 4 (1957): 302–312.
↵63“Coloured Audience Shouts Down M.P.,” The Guardian, September 8, 1958.
↵64Miss M. Eagle to Secretary of the Delegacy of Lodgings, Mrs. Lord to Secretary, and Anonymous to Secretary, November 26, 1964, DLH, Overseas Students File. Abrahams and Ali were pictured in the local Oxford press sipping champagne with scantily clad young white female aristocrats at the Union Ball. “I was assured [that] six topless girls [would come],” Abrahams told reporters, tackling the issue head on. “I am very disappointed.” Photograph and caption, Oxford Mail, December 5, 1964, 5. See also “Love in a Cold Climate,” Spear, November 1963, 15. On U.S. homeowners' rights, see Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, N.J., 2005). On gender and American segregation, see Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896–1920 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1996).
↵65See, for example, Black Power Newsletter: Voice of the Universal Coloured Peoples' Association, n.d., 4, Institute of Race Relations, London [hereafter IRR], folder 01/04/03/02/044, and numerous other black power pamphlets in adjacent files. British MPs debated whether Malcolm X should be allowed into the country. “Mr. Malcolm Little,” HC Deb 18 February 1965, vol. 706, c264W, 81 and 82, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1965/feb/18/mr-malcolm-little.
↵66Author interview with Godfrey Hodgson, May 20, 2010.
↵67“The Archbishop of Canterbury Talks with the Temptations,” Chicago Defender, February 3, 1970, 11; “The Archbishop of Canterbury Receives Motown's Temptations,” Philadelphia Tribune, February 3, 1970, 18. See also Mark Bonham Carter, “Measures against Discrimination: The North American Scene,” Race 9, no. 1 (1967): 1–26, here 5; Anthony Lester, Justice in the American South (London, 1964).
↵68Keith Hindell, “The Genesis of the Race Relations Bill,” Political Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1965): 390–405. A British Caribbean Association survey in 1967 found that virtually all employment complaints by its members fell outside the board's remit. British Caribbean Association Newsletter, no. 10 (February 1967): 5, IRR, folder 01/04/03/02/063. On the impact of inadequate government remedies in the U.S. on the radicalization of black politics in reaction to the inadequacy of government remedies, see Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland (Princeton, N.J., 2003); Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty.
↵69For a discussion of different contexts of citizens' expectations of the U.S. and British states, see Victoria de Grazia, Irresistible Empire: America's Advance through 20th-Century Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 2005), 342.
↵70For example, the black church in Britain, unlike that in the United States, was not a mobilizing center for black politics. Cf. Aldon D. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change (New York, 1984); and Harry Goulbourne, West Indian Political Leadership in Britain (Warwick, 1988), 6.
↵71There were few black-only neighborhoods in Britain, too. For discussions of Black Power's transferability, see Wild, “‘Black Was the Colour of Our Fight’”; Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London”; and Leila Kamali, “The Sweet Part and the Sad Part: Black Power and the Memory of Africa in African American and Black British literature,” Atlantic Studies 6, no. 2 (2009) 207–221.
↵72Calvin Trillin, “A Reporter at Large: Color in the Mother Country,” New Yorker, December 4, 1965, 115–165. The limited historical literature on the subject has also tended to focus on the impact of the U.S. on Britain, although without the patronizing tone. See Sherwood, “Malcolm X in Manchester and Sheffield”; Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle”; Sewell, “British Responses to Martin Luther King”; and Ward, “A King in Newcastle.” Cultural studies analyses have tended to focus primarily on American influences on Britain, too. See, for example, Stuart Hall, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order (London, 1978).
↵73Martin Luther King met with activists ahead of the formation of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination (CARD). Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., The Politics of the Powerless: A Study of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination (London, 1972), 19–21. Stokely Carmichael met with leaders of the newly formed United Coloured People's Association. For the UCPA's founding statement, see clipping from Aframerican News Service, January 3, 1968, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers (microfilm) [hereafter SNCC Papers], Subgroup B: New York Office, 1960–1969, Series II: International Affairs Commission, 1964–1969, 19, reel 51. See also Obi Egbuna, Destroy This Temple: The Voice of Black Power in Britain (London, 1971), 18. There were numerous other U.S. visitors, including Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin. The first major modern protest organization for new immigrants, the Standing Conference of Organisations Concerned with West Indians in Britain, was founded in 1959 following a visit by Norman Manley. Standing Conference Newsletter, vol. 1, ed. Claude Ramsey, Bulletin 21, April 1962, Modern Records Centre, University Library, University of Warwick, Trades Union Congress, 1960–70, Race Relations Predominantly 1960–70, MSS.292B/805.91/1, Commonwealth Workers in Great Britain (Mainly Coloured), 1960–4.
↵74See John L. Williams, Michael X: A Life in Black and White (London, 2008).
↵75Author interview with Paul Stephenson. John Ross, “Operation Guinness,” Flamingo, February 1965, 9–11; letter to the editor, Flamingo, April 1965, 2. See also “West Indians Stage an American Style Sit-In,” Chicago Defender, July 9, 1963, 4; “Strikers Protest Firing,” Chicago Defender, July 16, 1963, 16; “Shabby Protest,” Chicago Defender, June 22, 1963, 14; “Watch to Be Kept on Colour Bar Premises,” Irish Times, April 9, 1965, 10. The March on Washington of 1963 prompted a solidarity march in London. Banners proclaimed, “Your Fight Is Our Fight.” “UK Supporters Visit US Embassy,” West Indies Observer, June 15, 1963, 1. The London protest was but one of many such demonstrations at U.S. embassies.
↵76There were also Black Eagles. Clipping from Black Eagles, n.d., IRR, folder 01/04/04/01/04/01/01–05. See also Wild, “‘Black Was the Colour of Our Fight’”; R. E. R. Bunce and Paul Field, “Obi B. Egbuna, C. L. R. James and the Birth of Black Power in Britain: Black Radicalism in Britain, 1967–72,” Twentieth Century British History 22, no. 3 (2011): 391–414; and Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London.”
↵77“The Lunatic Fringe,” Flamingo, September 1961, 41; W. J. Weatherby, “A Guest of the Ku-Klux-Klan,” The Guardian, December 3, 1960, 6.
↵78See Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights.
↵79Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (New York, 1999), 313.
↵80See Richard Iton, In Search of the Black Fantastic: Politics and Popular Culture in the Post–Civil Rights Era (New York, 2008).
↵81Ali, Street Fighting Years, 103, 105.
↵82In March 1964, for example, JACARI sponsored a fundraising Freedom Concert by Pete Seeger “to aid the causes of civil rights in America and the Anti-Apartheid movement.” Frank Parker to Senior Proctor, March 4, 1964, JACARI Files.
↵83The founding chairman of CARD, David Pitt, had cut his political teeth as founding president of the West Indian National Party, and first came to Britain to lobby for independence. See also West Indian Gazette, September 1962, 2.
↵84The Bristol bus boycott occurred eight years after its counterpart in Montgomery, and the issue was the employment color bar rather than passenger segregation.
↵85See Angelo, “The Black Panthers in London.” Also, British Black Power included South Asians. Editorial reply to letters in Flamingo, December 1963, 1; Daniel, Racial Discrimination in England, 48.
↵86Indeed, the West Indies Observer, which coined the phrase “Mr James Crow, Esq.,” actually focused on Caribbean news.
↵87A plaque with the inscription “Donated by the people of Wales” is still positioned beneath the stained-glass window with an imposing black messiah on a cross. Bill Patterson, “Alabama Window,” Flamingo, December 1964, 9–12.
↵88The public support for African Americans but not black Britons echoed an observation made by the African American journalist Roi Ottley a decade before. See Ottley, No Green Pastures (London, 1952), 8. Patterson, “Alabama Window,” 11.
↵89The chairman of the new Race Relations Board, Mark Bonham Carter, went to the U.S. in 1967 to learn “lessons [from the] American experience,” the main lesson being “the necessity for a positive policy on the part of the central government.” The revised British Race Relations Act of 1968 duly included more enforcement powers. Carter, “Measures Against Discrimination,” 5. For details of the legislation, see www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-027.pdf.
↵90“Busmen Heckle Marchers,” Bristol Evening Post, May 2, 1963, 12. On complaints that racism was worse in Britain, see Inder Jit, “Britain's Coloured Outlaws,” Hindustan Times, September 7, 1951, 7; Edward Scobie, “Black Englishman,” Flamingo, November 1962, 32; letters to the editor, The Guardian, December 8, 1960, 10.
↵91W. J. Weatherby, “Alma Mater,” The Guardian, March 18, 1963, 7; Peter Searle, “Bristol—After the Bus Dispute,” IRR Newsletter, July 1963, 13–16; “A President Decides,” West Indies Observer, May 18, 1963, 1. See also Poppy Cannon White, “Another Birmingham,” New York Amsterdam News, May 27, 1965, 19.
↵92Egbuna, Destroy This Temple, 21.
↵93See, for example, Black Ram, December 15, 1968, 1, IRR, folder 01/04/03/02/046.
↵94The act restricted entry to those born in Britain, or who had a parent or grandparent born in Britain.
↵95See Andrew Roth, Enoch Powell: Tory Tribune (London, 1971).
↵96This act restricted entry to those with a work permit relating to a specific job.
↵97See Malcolm X, personal notebook, Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8. “The Fight against Racism from South Africa to Australia to the U.S.A.,” interview with the Johannesburg Sunday Express, February 12, 1965, in Malcolm X, The Final Speeches: February 1965 (1992; repr., New York, 2010), 68–77, here 76.
↵98See, for example, Langston Hughes, “Scholar Finds England No Racial Bed of Roses,” Philadelphia Tribune, May 17, 1952, 9; “Negroes in Britain,” Chicago Defender, May 17, 1952, 2; “Britons Strike against West Indian Employees,” Cleveland Call and Post, January 10, 1953, 1; “Promotion of Negro Resented,” Norfolk Journal and Guide, January 10, 1953, 7; George Fisher, “Pastures Not Getting Any Greener in England,” Chicago Defender, June 31, 1953, 4; “British Unions Show True Colors,” Baltimore Afro-American, December 4, 1954, 3; Oliver Harrington, “Black Flood Spurs British Jim Crow,” Pittsburgh Courier, December 11, 1954, 16; Edward Scobie, “Unmask Hypocrisy of Britain's No Color Bar,” Chicago Defender, March 19, 1955, 4; “British Bus Drivers Strike over Hiring of West Indian,” Atlanta Daily World, March 8, 1955, 2; “West Indians Find England No Paradise,” Chicago Defender, July 16, 1955, 12; “KKK Reported to Be Organizing in London,” Cleveland Call and Post, June 1, 1957. Such negative reporting continued a longer tradition. Roi Ottley wrote, “The English, who regard themselves as above the turbulence of racialism, actually are the most cruelly prejudiced people abroad—a profound fact because of the many black millions who come under the British flag”; No Green Pastures, 8.
↵99At the Congress of Black Writers and Artists, convened in Paris in September 1956, Aimé Césaire made the provocative assertion that American blacks were subjected to colonial-style oppression. African American delegates angrily disagreed, including James Baldwin, who insisted that there was something exceptional about the condition of black people. See Brent Hayes Edwards, “Introduction: Césaire in 1956,” Social Text 28, no. 2 103 (2010): 115–125, and the translation of Césaire's analysis that follows; and James Baldwin's report on the First Congress of Negro Writers and Artists, “Princes and Powers” (1957), reprinted in Baldwin, Collected Essays (New York, 1998), 143–169.
↵100The Defender called it the “Little Rock anti-negro epidemic.” “The London Riots,” Chicago Defender, September 11, 1958, 11.
↵101See News Chronicle, September 9, 1958, 1, clippings file, Modern Records Centre, Warwick; “Jump on It,” clipping from London Observer, September 14, 1958; Weatherby, “Alma Mater,” 7. The African American Pittsburgh Courier reckoned that the “amazing alacrity in picking up on all the gory, gruesome tidbits that could be extracted from the recent series of ‘race riots’ in England” represented an attempt by “some white Americans to expiate their own sins.” “Don't Laugh Too Soon,” Pittsburgh Courier, September 20, 1958, 6.
↵102Fenner Brockway, “Racial Discrimination,” Labour Monthly 39, no. 2 (1957): 61–64; Pilkington, Beyond the Mother Country, 135. For broader discussions of southern segregationists' interaction with global racial politics, see Alfred O. Hero, Jr., The Southerner and World Affairs (Baton Rouge, La., 1965); and Thomas Noer, “Segregationists and the World: The Foreign Policy of White Resistance,” in Brenda Gayle Plummer, ed., Window on Freedom: Race, Civil Rights, and Foreign Affairs, 1945–1988 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2003), 141–162.
↵103Don Iddon, “Dear Governor Faubus,” Afro-American, September 27, 1958, 1; “Don't Laugh Too Soon.”
↵104“Negro Question in Britain,” Chicago Defender, October 27, 1959, 10.
↵105“Oxford Union Election of West Indian,” London Times, June 11, 1964, 8; “Ceylon Leader Cheered,” clipping from Oxford Mail, October 16, 1964.
↵106See the FBI records on the rally in New York, http://vault.fbi.gov/malcolm-little-malcolm-x/malcolm-little-malcolm-x-hq-file-13-of-27/view. His subsequent visits to Sheffield and Manchester were arranged only once the Union date had been set. “Malcolm X to Visit Sheffield,” clipping from Sheffield Telegraph, December 2, 1964.
↵107Full itinerary available in “London Programme for Dr Martin Luther King, 5–8 December 1964.”
↵108These included the popular glossy African magazine Flamingo and a much-trumpeted new black British newspaper, Magnet. On building up his media contacts, see Lillian Lang to Malcolm X, December 15, 1964, MXC, box 3, folder 15.
↵109“London Programme for Dr Martin Luther King,” Washington Post, December 7, 1964, 1; “Dr. King Preaches Negro Restraint,” New York Times, December 7, 1964, 1.
↵110“Transcripts and articles about Malcolm X's cancelled speaking engagement in France as a result of being rejected by French authorities shortly before his assassination,” Carlos Moore Collection, Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, Series: Intellectual Works/Published Interview, 1964–1965, box 6.
↵111Author interview with Clarence Jones, January 18, 2011. CARD was duly fashioned on King's nonviolent, pro-integration model.
↵112“Dr. King Preaches Negro Restraint.”
↵113See Street, “Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle.”
↵114Christian Action of London gave $561.25. Payment Order, January 5, 1962, Records of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1954–1970 (microfilm), Part 2: Records of the Executive Director and Treasurer, reel 14, box 51:12, frame no. 0359. See also Wyatt Tee Walker to Canon Collins, January 24, 1962, ibid.
↵115Dinky Romilly to Joan Baez, July 9, 1965, SNCC Papers, Subgroup B: New York Office, 1960–1969, Series I: Fund Raising, 1960–1968, Administrative Files, 1960–1968, 11. Beatles, July 9–Sept. 24, 1965, reel 45. Information on volunteer support from author interview with Doris Derby, October 20, 2010. On solidarity support for the SNCC, see “News from Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,” March 2, 1961. My thanks to Peter Ling for providing me with a copy of this press release.
↵116On Black Power's salience during the early civil rights movement, see Timothy B. Tyson, Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1999). On angry reactions in the Caribbean and India to British anti-immigrant violence, see, for example, Telegram to Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Garnett Gordon), From the West Indies (from the Rt. Hon. Lord Hailes), September 25, 1959, “Racial Disturbance: Notting Hill Activities,” PRO, HO 325/9; “Draft report to cabinet, BFM Samuel, Sec. Working Party to report on the social and economic problems arising from the growing influx into the United Kingdom of coloured workers from other Commonwealth countries,” December 1, 1959, and telegram to CRO, Delhi, August 16, 1958, PRO, Dominions Office Records, DO 35/7990. On British awareness of international criticism, see Labour Party statement, “Racial Discrimination,” 1958, 1, Labour Party Collection, Nuffield College, Oxford.
↵117“Aid to Malcolm X by B.B.C. Assailed,” New York Times, February 14, 1965, 24. Malcolm X sent a telegram to the U.S. secretary of state to demand an investigation. Telegram to Dean Rusk, February 18, 1965, MXC, box 3, folder 4.
↵118See Donald Hines, Journey to an Illusion: The West Indian in Britain (London, 1966).
↵119Clipping from Spear, December 29, 1962.
↵120Miscellaneous Speech Notes, n.d. (pre-1964), “African-Asian Unity Bazaar,” reel 10, MXC, box 10, folder 1.
↵121See Malcolm X to Miss Sandra Devoto, December 15, 1964, MXC, box 3, folder 4; Ali, Street Fighting Years. Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8. See “There's a Worldwide Revolution Going On,” speech at Audubon Ballroom, Harlem, to OAAU rally, February 15, 1965, in Malcolm X, The Final Speeches, 120–161, here 123. (He also recycled his Hamlet joke in speeches to students in the United States.)
↵122Transcript of telephone conversation with Lebert Bethune and a gathering in Paris, February 6, 1965, Carlos Moore Collection, box 6. His evolving idea of a black diaspora in Europe probably owed something to his Garveyite heritage, too. See Ted Vincent, “The Garveyite Parents of Malcolm X,” The Black Scholar 20, no. 2 (March/April 1989): 10–13.
↵123See Malcolm X, “Educate Our People in the Science of Politics,” Detroit, Mich., February 14, 1965, in Malcolm X, The Final Speeches, 81–119, here 86.
↵124Notes, Outlines for Speeches, 1964–1965, MXC, box 9, folder 8.
↵125“There's a Worldwide Revolution Going On,” 138.
↵126See, for example, “Malcolm X Off to Smethwick,” London Times, February 11, 1965, 7.
↵127Nor were the trips to England mentioned in his autobiography.
↵128Nobel Lecture by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Recipient of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, Norway, December 11, 1964 (New York, 1964).
↵129Author interview with Clarence Jones.
↵130“Rough Notes,” Bayard Rustin Papers, reel 3, no. 0258.
↵131On King's emerging human rights vision, see Thomas F. Jackson, From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Economic Justice (Philadelphia, 2006).
↵132Stokely Carmichael with Ekwueme Michael Thelwell, Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) (New York, 2003), 572.
↵133“Negro Question in Britain.”
↵134Stokely Carmichael, Stokely Speaks: From Black Power to Pan-Africanism (New York, 1971), 78–91. Also, Black Panther Miscellany: Stokely Carmichael in London, 1967, dir. Peter Davis (DVD, Villonfilms, 1967), in possession of author.
↵135Conversation with, and e-mail from, Clive Sneddon, June 11, 2010.
↵136“Minutes of the Meeting on 27 November 1964,” DLH, Minutes and Meeting Papers, 1868–1970, Minutes and Papers of the Delegates, 1960–70, LHD/M/2/8; Mrs EM Talbert to Miss Davies, February 4, 1965, DLH, Overseas Students File.
↵137For example, non-white participants at a student United Nations forum were denied lodging a few months after the delegacy's statement, provoking protests. “Minutes of the Meeting on 11 June 1965,” DLH, LHD/M/2/8.
↵138SCORE ran successful campaigns in Leeds and Sussex; SCORE flyer, n.d., IRR, folder 01/04/04/01/04/02/01–14; clipping from New Independent, February 2–15, 1967, 4, ibid., 01/04/03/02/110.
↵139Hannan Rose to Junior Proctor, June 10, 1964, JACARI Files; SCORE flyers, IRR, folder 01/04/04/01/04/02/01–14. Demonstrations continued, too. “Student Demonstration in Bid to Save Gypsy Homes,” Cherwell, February 15, 1967, 1. In 1968, students were among the three dozen protesters arrested for sitting down at the entrance of a hair salon that excluded black customers. “39 held in Oxford Sit-Down,” London Times, June 8 1968, 2. JACARI remains engaged in community work around racial equality to this day, with members teaching English to immigrant children.
↵140The issues of black equality and student rights were also—and profoundly—intertwined during the protests on historically black campuses in the later 1960s.
↵141See, for example, A. F. Shaw to Proctors, n.d.; Senior Proctor to Shaw, May 25, 1964; Shaw to Proctors, June 2, 1964; and Senior Proctor to Shaw, June 6, 1964, all JACARI Files.
↵142Mary Proudfoot to A. Shaw, June 7, 1964; Proudfoot to Senior Proctor, June 16, 1964, and June 18, 1964, all JACARI Files.
↵143Letter to Cherwell, October 7, 1964, 2; “Proctors at It Again,” Cherwell, October 28, 1964, 4.
↵144“Curb Proctors' Powers, Say Students,” The Guardian, November 24, 1964, 7.
↵145Hannan Rose, “A Tactical Retreat,” ISIS, October 27, 1965, 4.
↵146“Students achieve nothing by talking to the authorities over wine and cheese.” “LSE-Style Protesters Plan Sit-in,” clipping from Cherwell, May 24, 1967; “Cherwell Ban: Students Hand in Ultimatum,” Daily Express, October 18, 1967, 4.
↵147“Students on Parade,” Sketch, October 21, 1967, 7; “A Sitdown at Oxford; Protesting Students Win Concessions at Oxford,” New York Times, June 4, 1968, 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment