The Notting Hill Riots and Rosalind Da Costa in Nottingh Hill

The Notting Hill Riots and British National Identit. Mr Tim Helbing, at Indiana University

In late August and early September of 1958, Britain experienced some of the worst racial violence the country had ever known. For at least a week, the Notting Dale and Notting Hill sections of London were the scene of nightly clashes between whites and West Indian blacks who had settled in the area. The riots shocked the dominant white community in Great Britain that had long considered itself to be above the kind of racial conflict that was playing out in the American South and in the Commonwealth states of Rhodesia and South Africa at the same time.

The riots began during the evening of the last Saturday in August of 1958. It started when a crowd of white men attacked a white Swedish woman who was married to a West Indian as she was walking to her home in Notting Hill. They were incensed at the idea of a white woman living with and married to a black man. The police escorted her into her home after she had been pelted with stones, glass and wood, and struck in the back with an iron bar. Though there had been fierce riots the weekend before in Nottingham, where whites and West Indian blacks fought each other in the streets, after being sparked off following a bar brawl over a white woman talking to a black man, it was t he incident on that Saturday night in Notting Hill that was the catalyst which started daily rioting throughout west London, with the sections Notting Hill and Notting Dale experiencing the worst of the racial violence on the following Monday. Mobs of angry whites roamed the streets, sometimes numbering in the hundreds[1]. They chased down and beat any vulnerable blacks they could find, broke the windows of shops which sold to blacks, and fought with the police who were trying to restore order.

[2]The local labour MP, George Rogers, toured the area during the day and appealed in vain for calm:

Most West Indians stayed indoors or stayed away from the area while the riots occurred, but some fought back, threatening the white crowds with knives or razors, and were arrested along with whites.[5] By the following weekend, events had returned to a relative calm in Notting Hill, but shock waves were still echoing throughout the nation and would be felt for some time to come. Why did these riots occur? A number of forces were at work in Britain at the time that fundamentally changed the meaning of what an 'Englishman' or 'Briton' from what it had been earlier in the century. Great Britain was in transition from Imperial power to Nation-state, and from an almost totally white culture to a more multi ethnic one. The national identities of the peoples of the island were in transition as well[6]. The riots in Notting Hill and Nottingham were symptoms of the pressures changing British society and the identities of the subjects. They represented the attempts of the British working classes and working poor to respond to the forces reshaping their society which were beyond their control. The overall national identity (or that projected to the outside world) of Great Britain prior to the Second World War was one of a great imperial power, but that identity was mostly left over from the previous century. The Royal Navy had been the dominant power of the world's oceans since the late 18^th century and by the late 19^th century the tiny island nation had ruled an empire on which 'the sun never set', stretching around the world. The British people could take pride in the fact that the industrial revolution had started here and Britain had been one of the first nations to abolish the slave trade but most of these facts had changed or were no longer relevant by the time the riots occurred in 1958.

By the early 1920s and 30s, the British were starting to divest themselves of the Empire and forming what they called the 'Commonwealth'. The Empire and Commonwealth were composed of a patchwork of protectorates, puppet rulers, Dominion states, current and former colonies. Egypt, ruled since the mid 1800s, first through a puppet king and later directly, gained independence in 1922. The Dominion states, the self governing white settler states like Canada and Australia that had the British monarch as head of state, officially gained complete control over their domestic and foreign affairs in the 1931 statute of Westminster, which merely confirmed what had been fact since the early 1920s[7]. India, the 'crown jewel' of the Empire had achieved limited self-government in 1935, and complete independence in 1947. The Second World War interrupted the divestiture temporarily, but afterwards it moved forward with stunning rapidity.

By the 50s, several colonies in Africa and Asia such as Sudan, Gold Coast, and Burma had joined the Commonwealth as independent nations, and the other colonies were moving towards independence[8]. The national identities of the British peoples were still adjusting to the numerous shocks and depletions they had received in rapid succession over the past half-century. Britain had become a much weaker power, devastated first by a war that killed a generation of men, then by a depression on a scale not seen again this century. The fatal blow to the British Empire, which had been mortally ill for half a century, was the Second World War. Without the material, financial, and later, military support of the United States, Britain could have fallen to Nazi Germany. Had Hitler been unwilling to accept British neutrality this certainly would have been the case. By the late 40s and early 50s, the British, along with the rest of the NATO Allies, depended upon the United States to help defend Western Europe from potential invasion by the Soviet Union. Around the same time the British economy had recovered from the problems of war and depression and the country was at full employment. The resulting labour shortage was acute enough that the government began encouraging immigration from Europe to fill the vacancies left by decades of war and emigration of natives to Dominion nations and the US[9].

By 1951 the supply of European immigrants was drying up, and the government and British employers were forced to consider non-European sources of labour. [10] Most members of the government were opposed to the idea but others, mostly in the Colonial Office, viewed the need for labourers to be too acute to worry about where they came from or what they looked like. The decision was made to consider the idea of bringing over West Indians, but for now to encourage immigration from Europe instead. By the mid 50s the supply of immigrants arriving from the Commonwealth to Britain on their own was outstripped by the demand for labour, and Britain was forced to actively recruit non-European labourers to fill the slots instead of passively accepting the inflow. At the same time the West Indies, which were still colonies of the British Empire, were suffering from overpopulation and severe unemployment. Their economies were based predominately upon agricultural exports, especially sugar, and were dependent upon the Mother Country as both a market for most of their exports and to supply most of their imports. The Second World War completely interrupted trade, and in the following years the price of sugar had fallen dramatically. [11] Consequently, the Indies remained depressed economically at a time when British industry desperately needed all the workers it could find. These were two major factors in a chain of events that led to the immigration of large numbers of non-whites to Great Britain from the Commonwealth nations. This had started with former servicemen from the West Indies stationed in Britain during the war returned to the Mother Country looking for work.

On June 22, 1948, the freighter, Empire Windrush, docked in England with 492 Jamaican immigrants aboard,[12] marking the beginning of the migration of thousands of non-whites from the Imperial colonies and Commonwealth states to Great Britain. An estimated 125,000 West Indians immigrated to Britain between 1951 and 1958.[13] The vast majority of the early immigrants were men, many were war veterans who had served as ground crew and mechanics in the RAF, and had highly marketable skills in a tight labour market. Only in the late 50s did women and children begin immigrating in large numbers to Britain. While small numbers of black people had been in the coastal areas for centuries, they were mostly sailors or ex-sailors,[14] m ost Britons further inland prior to the war, had little exposure to anyone who wasn't white or from the same culture as themselves, and their introduction to the newcomers was a shock for the most part. It was also a shock for the West Indians, who had been brought up and educated in the colonial system to look favorably upon Great Britain as the 'Mother Country'. Most of their exposure to British whites was from college educated middle and upper class expatriates[15], the colonial administrators, the business and the plantation owners. When they came to Britain, they found the reality was very different from the ideal they had been brought up with. Edward Pilkington in his book Beyond the Mother Country has an excellent description of the colorblind ideals that the West Indian immigrants brought with them to Britain:

By 1958 Britain was experiencing a mild recession. The unemployment rate in the general population was at 2%, with the rate among West Indian immigrants placed at 8%. Britain had been at full employment for a decade, and when people started losing their jobs, prejudice and expressions of racism became more blatant. The old charges that the black immigrants were accused of stealing jobs from whites and also coming to Britain so they could receive more generous welfare benefits than could be had in the West Indies were renewed. The government's view on race relations inside the country was officially 'colourblind', it tried to pretend discrimination didn't exist[21], and there was no legal recourse for blacks to challenge discrimination based upon race until the Race Relations Act of 1965 attempted to deal with the issue[22]. Unions were especially hostile to black workers, because union workers feared employers would replace them with immigrants working for lower wages. They also suspected that the employers would use the immigrants as strikebreakers and try to destroy the power of the unions. Furthermore, union leaders accused blacks of being hostile to unions because so few joined them, not acknowledging the irony of expecting blacks to support an institution they had not been invited to join and which was openly hostile towards them? [23] Besides the employment problem, black immigrants faced difficulties getting housing. Throughout the 40s and 50s, Britain overall and London especially, suffered from a severe housing shortage. The war had destroyed thousands of buildings in London, and damaged 10 times that number. The demand for housing skyrocketed as servicemen were demobilized and evacuees returned. The postwar boom in marriages and births further exacerbated the problem, and by 1951 it was estimated that London had half a million more households than houses.[24]

By the mid 50s, solving the housing crisis was a national priority with government and industry building housing as fast as they could, and a new ring of suburbs began to surround London. But this new housing came at a cost to the older sections of the city: Thousands of families became owner-occupiers for the first time, including skilled working-class people with steady jobs. But for those left behind in the inner cities, the situation rapidly deteriorated. Rented accommodation was in short supply and public investment in old housing stock squeezed, which left bomb-damaged and dilapidated inner-city areas degenerated at an alarming rate. Indeed, more slums were created during the 50s through despair and neglect, than were knocked down.[25] Most of the new construction did not add to available rental properties, and many landlords refused to rent rooms to blacks, either saying straight out that they wouldn't rent to a 'nig' or saying that the room had already been rented. Again, as there were no laws prohibiting racial discrimination in Britain in the 50s, notices advertising rentals often read 'No coloureds, no dogs, Irish not required'.[26] Blacks were forced into poor neighbourhoods, and some landlords quickly discovered they could charge black renters far more than whites. After all, where would they go? Often several immigrants would share a room in order to cover the high rents charged by the landlords. The first West Indian renters were quite a shock to the white residents of the neighbourhoods they moved to. Brought up during the Imperial period, most believed that their 'black brothers' were inferior to whites, and that they had to be affectionate and tolerant of their poor relations.[27] But the West Indians did not play their part, refusing to act inferior which caused resentment and confusion among whites. For the most part the black immigrants were confident, worked hard, and weren't afraid to speak their minds.

As more blacks arrived and moved to the neighbourhoods they were allowed to live in, the uneasiness of the white natives in these areas increased. Not only did these newcomers not look like the native British, they also had strange habits and spoke English with an exotic accent. They talked loudly amongst themselves, sat outside barefoot, dressed in loud colors, and listened to music at high volume. All of these factors contributed to the feelings of unease and resentment by the poor whites who were their neighbours[28]. The fact that blacks moved into already overcrowded poor/working class areas of London caused resentment simply by their presence[29]. Because they got the apartment or room at a rate higher than a single white could afford, they were resented for denying the opportunity for a white to move into the rental. Before and after the riots, stories circulated in the neighbourhoods about old ladies driven 'frantic by the noise' of West Indian families living next to them, or disturbed by smells from blacks who didn't know how to use a water closet. More ominous rumors concerning the alleged large numbers of switchblades West Indians had bought over with which they were going to 'do' the marketplace that weekend.[30] J.P.W. Mallalieu, a reporter for the New Statesman, investigated these claims shortly after the riots:

Len was the most extreme of the three youths in his political beliefs. He openly admired the Soviet Union and horrified his peers when he stated, “Them Royals, I’d like to murder them.”[35] The more radical political groups on both the left and the right were openly racist, calling for forced deportation of black immigrants and to 'Keep Britain White'.[36] These groups attracted young poor and working class whites, who were suffering from the effects of the recession and blamed blacks for their woes.[37] It was convenient for whites suffering the effects of the transition from Empire to Nation-state to blame their woes on newcomers who were alien to them. Another cause of resentment from whites was the fact that some of the black immigrants dated and married white women. The fear of racial mixing seemed to be a common theme in complaints by whites. Blacks were viewed as animals just waiting to get alone with white women and ravish them. They were accused of being pimps, using white women as prostitutes.[38] The fear of black men interacting with white women was a common justification for denying employment, housing, and for physical violence against blacks.[39] Blacks would be fired for socializing with white female employees, they would be denied rentals for fear of them turning the property into a brothel full of white women they pimped, or they would be harassed or even physically attacked for dating a white woman. [40]

This was nothing new in Great Britain; indeed, the government felt the fears of white Britons over black immigrants as early as the end of the Second World War. Despite the clear wishes of over fifty percent of the West Indian servicemen to stay in Britain, the government made and carried out plans to ship them home after the war.[41] The freighter Empire Windrush's impending arrival with immigrants from Jamaica in 1948 caused a panic in the government at the time. There was a fierce exchange between the various government ministries over who had responsibility for the problem and what to do about it. The Colonial Office said that it was the Ministry of Labour’s responsibility as the immigrants had already departed from the colonies:

The government was divided on the issue as most didn't want the West Indians in the country, but the West Indians were citizens of the Empire and could not be prohibited from immigrating to Britain. The Nationality Act of 1948 guaranteed the right of all British subjects of the colonies and Commonwealth to immigrate to Britain without restriction.[43] While the government could not stop West Indian immigration to Britain, they initially did nothing to encourage it. By the early 50s the demand for more employees by British industry had reached the point where the government dropped its opposition and began encouraging immigration. But this lasted only as long as the demand for more workers existed. When recession hit, the government returned to its more neutral stance. The actions of the government were not without critics in the late 50s. Right wing groups and leftist labor unions both criticized the government's immigration policy and called for limits on the number of immigrants allowed from the West Indies.[44] Conservative MPs criticized the government's policy in official Parliament debates, but government spokesmen defended the policy in place. They did not defend it on the basis of anti-discrimination but as essential for good relations between Britain and the Commonwealth states. The critics responded that the colonies and Commonwealth states had restrictions on immigration of British nationals and reserved the right to deport them if they broke the law. [45]

After the riots, conservatives and radical unions renewed calls for limits on immigration. One MP, Cyril Osborne, called for a 12 month moratorium on immigration into Britain in order to sort out a new policy, with exemptions for 'bona fide' students. He feared that if nothing were done, race relations would get worse: "If we do not do it, and there is serious unemployment, the trade unions will impose the rule 'last in, first out' and there will be trouble. It will be black against white. We are sowing the seeds of another 'Little Rock'[46] and it is tragic. To bring the problem into this country with our eyes open is doing the gravest disservice to our grandchildren, who will curse us for our lack of courage. I regard the Nottingham incident as a red light to us all."[47] The race riots of Notting Hill and Nottingham were only a symptom of the difficult transition that was taking place in the identity of the British. Not only was it a transition from Empire to Nation-State, but from a traditionally white culture to a more ethnically diverse culture. Working class and poor white males living in Britain during the Imperial period could always view themselves as better than those peoples ruled in the British Empire. After the Second World War they began to encounter non-whites where they lived for the first time, and found that whatever attitudes towards non-whites they were not superior to them, and they had to compete with them for jobs, housing, and even mates. The riots of August and September 1958 forced the upper and middle classes of British society to take a hard look in the mirror, and they didn't like what they saw. The comments of the racist Arkansas Governor Faubus saying, "We have sympathy for you..." about the problems were especially troubling.[48] Were they no better than the racists in the American South? What about the ‘colour blindness’ that was supposed to exist in British life and in the legal system?[49] Conservative and Liberal MPs such as Osborne calling for immigration bans or limits were criticized for having the same basic argument of Faubus: Tension and disorder can be avoided - but only by discrimination against the coloured minority, by pandering to popular prejudice rather than challenging it and – as many social and religious groups have done with success – seeking to educate and guide public opinion to a more tolerant attitude. That is the proper responsibility of community leaders in such cases, at least in a community which claims to offer full citizenship to all Commonwealth citizens, irrespective of colour, religion, or national origin.[50] The riots also ended the dream of the Mother Country for most West Indian immigrants, and started them on a quest to find a separate identity from the British colonial one they had grown up with. Problems still occurred, but the Notting Hill riots could be seen as an event that began to change the way the British looked at race relations and at themselves.

Bibliography.
1) Editorial “Faubus on Nottingham” The New Statesman, 8/30/58 2) Editorial “The Hooligans of Notting Hill” The New Statesman, 9/06/583) Little, Kenneth “Integration without Tears” The New Statesman, 9/20/584) Manley, Norman “A Challenge to Britain” The New Statesman, 9/13/58 5) Mallalieu, J.P.W. “Notting Hill: Two Ways of Life” The New Statesman, 9/13/586) Sigal, Clancy “A Short Talk with a Fascist Beast” The New Statesman, 10/4/587) The Observer (London) “Race Riots Meeting at Chequers” 9/07/58 8) The Observer (London) “Racial Fight in London” 09/01/589) The Times (London) ‘“Keep Britain White’ call in Notting Hill Area” 09/10/5810) The Times (London) “Magistrate asks for Voluntary Curfew” 09/04/5811) The Times (London) “Ways to Check Exodus from West Indies Discussed” 09/10/5812) The Times (London) “Renewed Call for Changes in Immigration Law” 08/28/5813) The Times (London) “Renewed Racial Disturbances in London” 09/02/5814) Banton, Michael; Recent Migration from West Africa and the West Indies to the United Kingdom. Population Studies Vol 7 issue 1 (Jul 1953)15) Gilroy, Paul; There aint no Black in the Union Jack16) Goulbourne, Harry; Ethnicity and nationalism in post-imperial Britain.17) Golbourne, Harry; Race Relations in Britain since 194518) Pilkington, Edward; Beyond the Mother Country19) Rose, E.J.B.; Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations

My parents immigrated from Portugal in 1970. I've always been 'foreign' and on holiday I was always the foreign cousin. Notting Hill is my home and it has been since I was born. I lived on Ladbroke Grove, Tavistock Road and since 1980 on Colville Terrace. At secondary school I grew up with Portuguese Spanish Black English Irish - result of ethnic immigrants settling in the same area. The black communities were predominant and are the original residents as my parents recollect. My parents remember that Notting Hill was run down and not a very attractive place to live in, therefore only suitable to house working class immigrants and locals.

Mid 1980's, flats on Powis Square were built and gradual changes took place for the better in and around Notting Hill and Ladbroke Grove. The new people moving in were still largely foreign and working class. The crime rate dropped steadily from late 80s into the 90s. The infamous All Saints Road was a no go area. The riots in the late 70s early 80s made sure of this, though I don't remember them very well, only caring about homework and boys! Walking down All Saints a while ago, after years of avoiding it by habit, I was surprised to see designer shops and smart cafes! Infamy has made it famous. Ladbroke Grove's reputation as a dangerous area made it a place to avoid. Holland Park was the wealthy area and is today one of the richest and most expensive areas in London whose residents seem humble about their fortune. All of us lived in harmony, apart from the crime that is regrettably part of life.

Portobello, lying between 'upper class' Notting Hill and 'working class' Ladbroke Grove, didn't and doesn't quite fit either area. According to my father, the original boundary for the Notting Hill area was Westbourne Grove and Portobello was considered as part of Ladbroke Grove area when I was at school!

Notting Hill has always been working class and made up mainly by immigrants and natives. We're happy that way. If Notting Hill has given a false impression that this is Beverly Hills, then buy a one way ticket to America. The residents will not allow this world famous market to be turned into a freak show. Incongruous mobile phones shops belong on high streets and major supermarkets have no place here. The small business owner, especially market stall traders, is respected and appreciated around here. We're not denying change and development and tourism is necessary, however too much Unfortunately, in the future things may be very different and we have 'The Blue Door' to thank.

'That film', as I call it! Not a terribly good movie anyway. I doubt the producers knew or maybe did not care what they accomplished with it. The call of money ringing too loudly in already filthy rich ears? Unfortunately, the repercussions have been phenomenal and rapid in manifestation but also damaging. Notting Hill has become too trendy for itself, another Sloane Square. It became The place to be seen and eat in a couple of years ago and Notting Hillbillies and Hillites were born. Now it's THE place to live in I dread the future! Two tiny words that are worth millions: West Eleven.

I worry about greedy landlords who have already benefited greatly and although there are lots of new businesses opening, many old long-standing ones have been forced to sell up and move on due to overwhelming rent increases. What people may not realise is that around 70% of houses around the Portobello area are Notting Hill Housing Trust or Council property. These homes are not for sale, so do we see the possibility of enforced evictions or exorbitant rents? I worry about the return of petty crime, which has been sporadic for the past decade. 'New rich' with flashy sports cars and clothes screaming designer. 'Fresh meat' in neon lights could not say it louder! I worry that maybe one day the new residents with clout might complain to the Council and get 'unsavoury' people moved or an old yet historical and traditional building or practice replaced, like the Notting Hill Carnival, that after all IS Notting Hill. We have nothing against new residents and natural progress of evolution but if people do not like to live among the working class folk then please leave. We will not change for you nor alter our beloved Portobello.
Rosalind Da Costa

[1] The sources are unclear on this. The primary sources put the rioters at no more than 200 at any one time, but some secondary sources, most notably Beyond the Mother Country, place the number at over one thousand.

[6] Ethnicity and Nationalism in Post Imperial Britain. Guilbourne, Harry 1991. p28

[7] Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to present. Pp 287-296

[9] Norman Manley, “A Challenge to Britain”, The New Statesman 13 September 1958

[12] Banton, Michael. Recent Immigration from West Africa and the West Indies to the United Kingdom. Population studies, Jul 53. P 10

[21] Correspondence, ‘The Colour Problem’ The New Statesman 20 Sep 1958

[27] News from Our Own Correspondents. Notting Hill: Two ways of Life. by J.P.W. Mallalieu, The New Statesman 13 Sep 58

[33] 'Short Talk with a Fascist Beast' Clancy Sigal, The New Statesman, 4 Oct 1958, p 439-40.

[40] Unfortunately, most sources did not go into detail as to why white women dated blacks and how their views differed from that of men.

[46] MP Osborne’s 'Little Rock' statement is in reference to September 1957 when President Eisenhower forcibly implemented the US Supreme Court’s “Brown vs. Board of Education” desegregation order with soldiers from the 101^st Airborne Division after Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to defy the integration of Little Rock High School.