Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20

Early Child Development and Care
ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20


Teaching race
Stuart Hall

To cite this article: Stuart Hall (1983) Teaching race, Early Child Development and Care, 10:4,
259-274, DOI: 10.1080/0300443830100402
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443830100402


Published online: 19 Jan 2011.


Teaching race
STUART HALL
Open University

WHAT I broadly want to do is to address four sets of problems. First
of all I want to identify what seems to be some of the difficulties with
teaching about race and then I want to say something about the
economic, political and ideological aspects of race. These remarks
are not directly addressed to the kinds of specific curriculum
interests that might arise in schools or indeed the kinds of questions
that might be posed in examination - but instead I have tried to
organise them to address the issues with which one needs to engage
when teaching in this area.

1

First of all there are pedagogical difficulties which are especially
important because it is an area about which people feel very strongly
indeed. One of the strategies which some teachers adopt is to try to
side-step the explosive nature of the subject itself and walk around it,
to catch it unawares, (except that it usually catches you unawares
rather than the other way round). It is not possible to do very much
with the area at a steadily high classroom temperature but several
points are important. You have to recognise the strong emotional
ideological commitments people have to positions about race - this

[260 STUART HALL]
isn't an area where people simply think they know things but it is
very strongly charged emotionally and this fact has to be recognised
and be brought out. Whatever your own commitments and feelings
are about the area (and all of us have feelings about it) they have to
be made clear in the way in which we handle the topic and the kinds
of things we say about it. It's not a topic where an academic or
intellectual neutrality is of much value. Nevertheless I do think you
have to create an atmosphere which allows people to say unpopular
things. I don't think it is at all valuable to have an atmosphere in the
classroom which is so clearly, unmistakeably anti-racist that the
natural and "commonsense" racism which is part of the ideological
air that we all breathe is not allowed to come out and express itself.
What I am talking about here are the problems of handling the timebomb
and doing so adequately so that it connects with our students'
experience. That experience has to surface in the classroom even if it
is pretty horrendous to hear - better to hear it than not to hear it,
because what you don't hear you don't engage with, and this is after
all part of the very material about which we are teaching. We are not
talking here about an abstract topic with which we are entertaining
ourselves or over which we are stretching our minds. We are talking
about very real concrete social, political and economic issues which
touch the students' lives, which they experience. So we have to
consider the problem of how to create an atmosphere in which those
questions can be openly and honestly discussed - one in which your
own position can emerge without people feeling over-weighted by its
authority (although that authority is always exerted whether you are
at the front or back of the class).
Now to move on more substantively to the empirical, conceptual
and theoretical problems which are involved when teaching in this
area. Because the subject is so exceedingly complex it is very difficult
to teach about it clearly. One of the curious paradoxes about the area
is that people know very simply what they feel and where they stand
but when it comes to explaining the phenomena i.e. relations
between different ethnic groups, racist practices, racist beliefs, racial
prejudice - however you want to put it - becomes a great deal more
complex because it requires putting together explanations from
different areas of knowledge. All the attempts at a simple

[TEACHING RACE 261]
explanation must fail. There are two obvious examples; one is to
argue that racism has to do with race which actually is not quite as
obvious as it sounds. Here the statement is taken in its own right in
an attempt to explain social phenomena in this area of concern by
applying single-mindedly the categorian criteria of relations
between races, but it does not provide an adequate explanation. The
other, which is a mirror reflection of it, is to say that the whole
question of race is an epiphenomenon of more classical traditional
kinds of structures and practices, especially economic and class ones
and that one can on the whole dissolve questions of race by looking at
them in terms of economic relations and social and economic
structures etc of a more familiar kind. This will take you some of the
way but it certainly won't take you all the way. It does involve a
greater theoretical argument (which I won't engage in here) but I
certainly don't think that in a general theoretical sense racism is
attributable in a simple way to capitalism, although it would be
impossible to study racism in isolation from the economic and social
structures in which it functions and operates.
Now if you take those two examples on the basis of their double
negatives you begin to see that to try to explain phenomena in this
area one has to look at the relations or articulations between two
things which appear in our world closely linked (and are linked in
important ways) but are not dissolvable one into the other.
Whichever way round you try to do it - to dissolve class relations
into race relations or vice-versa there are so many things you still
can't explain. We are concerned here with handling quite complex
social phenomena which are produced by different sets of
determinations and which, though linked have different and in some
ways distinct histories. It is though not always possible to separate
or isolate out ethnic relations from the other social relations and the
social structures in which you find them. I am very much opposed to
constituting this as a kind of specialist area of social science - the
"race relations" problem as it were. This is by definition a
phenomenon which one only begins to understand when one sees it
in terms of the different institutions, processes and practices of whole
societies in their full complexity in which race becomes a pertinent
aspect of the social structure, the way in which its relations work and

[262 STUART HALL]
the way in which the social relations in institutions are linked and
connected with one another. These relations will always exist
differently in different social formations.
I suppose the first point that I'm making is that there is something
really intrinsically difficult and complicated about the area. The
questions of explanation are ones which we all hope will inform our
ability to transform racist societies and racist situations - whether
you are handling them at a simple or sophisticated level. We have a
kind of wager or bet that if we understand things better we might be
able to unlock or shift them. One does have to recognise the
complexity of the analytic and explanatory problems we have in
dealing with this phenomena while at the same time trying to use
them to connect back to questions of politics and practice. It is not
possible in the end to deal with this issue in a wholly analytic way -
that is to say, in a way which does not raise the questions of changing
the existing structures that we arc examining.
I might have implied a moment ago that it doesn't matter how
you set up the teaching situation, whether in terms of racism or
ethnic relations or racial prejudice or discriminatory attitudes and
actions or whatever. I do however think it matters crucially. There is
a kind of liberal commonscnse way of approaching the topic which
fastens on to questions of discriminatory attitudes between people
from different ethnic populations, prejudicial actions, beliefs and
opinions etc. One tendency in teaching is to take these immediate
surface manifestations of the problem at face value and to look at
how these prejudices arise through a kind of attitudinal or social
psychological explanation of what the phenomena is. There is a
second strategy which says that all of that is just the surface and we
should rather go to the structures which generate particular kinds of
relations, which generate particular kinds of racial structures etc
and on the whole I tend to go for the second of these alternatives.
We have to uncover for ourselves in our own understanding, as
well as for the students we arc teaching, the often deep structural
factors which have a tendency to persistently not only generate
racial practices and structures but reproduce them through time
which account for their extraordinarily immovable character. One
of the things I want to come back to when I talk about racism and

[TEACHING RACE 263]
ideology is the deeply based way in which racism in a particular
society manifests itself and its deeply resistant character to attempts
of amelioration, good feeling, gentle reform and so on. For that
reason I turn to the structural questions although it would be a
mistake not to bring whatever explanations you are dealing with
back to what I just a moment ago called the surface phenomena.
One has after all to explain what students will be most sensitive to
i.e. the interplay of feelings between the groups which are structured
around the awareness of racial difference. No matter how deep you
go into structural factors you need to show that they do generate
particular interactions between groups of people but you have to be
able to show that you can get a deeper understanding of these surface
relations.
Teaching strategies which engage people's most obvious,
uncomplicated, unreflexive apprehension of the problem are
important but if having engaged them at that level you try to change
attitudes and prejudices by putting good attitudes and good
prejudices against them, what you get is a kind of "ding-dong" of:
"Well you believe that and I believe this, you see it that way and I see
it this way", and it becomes extremely difficult to move on in any sort
of productive way. Social science is about deconstructing the
obvious, it is about showing people that the things they immediately
feel to be "just like that" aren't quite "just like that". The really
crucial question is how do you begin to make that move away from
the level of prejudice and belief. One needs to undermine the
obvious. One has to show that these are social and historical
processes and that they are not written in the stars, they are not
handed down. They are deep conditions which are not going to
change if we start tinkering around with them. We must not give our
students that kind of illustration. We can however begin the process
of questioning what the structures are and how they work.

2

Having said that let me say a bit more about economic and
industrial factors. Here again -I issue a kind of warning or

[264 STUART HALL]
qualification. There is a tendency in this area either to think that the
structural economic features explain pretty much all that one needs
to know. Or, on the other hand, that to deal with the structural
economic features is to collapse into a kind of economistic account of
a phenomenon which is more complex than that. I don't think that
any structural or generative account of racism could afford to leave
out the crucial determinations which emerge from the economic
relations of a society like this one. Although it is not a sufficient
explanation of the phenomena it will take us a good deal further than
anti-economistic or anti-reductionist sociologists would like to
think. This is one area where the economic dimensions do explain a
good deal particularly if you think of the kinds of questions which
systematically appear on examination papers - questions about the
tendency of racial groups to cluster or concentrate whether it is in the
occupational or industrial sectors or in terms of class structures more
generally or in terms of housing or of differential relations in
education etc. There is a long history to the British situation which
happened overseas but what you are trying to explain is the
identifiable growth at a certain stage in the post-war period of black
commonwealth migrant workforce. One can of course find black
enclave populations in Britain centuries before that but what we are
trying to explain from the early fifties onwards is a qualitatively new
phenomenon. It undoubtedly has a very close relationship to the
kind of labour demands of British industry at that particular period.
It would be impossible to try to explain the full factors - those which
opened the doors for working people from the Asian sub-continent,
the Caribbean and parts of Africa - without looking at the particular
labour needs of British industry at that stage. Only if you go back to
the debates about whether in fact the black overseas population
should be recruited in that way (there was an interesting debate
which was kept under wraps for a long time before the decision was
taken to encourage black migration on any substantial scale) will
you see that paramount in people's minds at that time was relative
shortage of labour. This provides a starting point not only to explain
the general questions of the flow of people but also to explain the
internal movements in terms of the economic - the need for certain
kinds of surplus labour. This will explain the particular clustering of

[TEACHING RACE 265]
the black working population in specific areas. It enables one to look
at the way recruitment into particular industries, particular
occupations and at particular occupational levels clearly have a very
strong economic substratum to them.
The real question is how much you are going to try and explain in
that way. You can attempt to match up in a very fine-tuned way
either the rise in indigenous racism or the shifts in particular
legislative policies with particular economic movements. For
instance, what are the correlations between economic movements
and say the introduction of the very early race legislation? How
much was it due to the fact that at that stage already the demand for
that kind of labour was beginning to tail off in the British economy?
How much did it have to do with the fact that already the first wave
of black migration, certainly from the Caribbean was beginning to
tail off before those economic dips become manifest? How much does
it have to do with the fact that already from the late fifties, certainly
from fifty-seven and fifty-eight onwards, there was beginning to be
an explicit political and social problem around race which must
have had its bearing on both the decision to legislate in the area, the
making of it into a manifest political topic about which politicians
were going to conduct a debate on how to legislate their policies etc,
this obviously affecting the way in which those issues would be
debated in the society as a whole?
I am not convinced that the question of economic determination
can provide either adequate explanations or the sort of fine-tuned
intermesh that I was talking about a minute ago. If, for instance, you
try to explain the movements of black populations and their
settlement and position in the British social structure by kinds of
functional explanation it won't do. If you constitute the devilish
collective mind of capital (if only you could tell me where the
committee meets sometime!), if you could just imagine it meeting
occasionally and saying, as it were, "What do we need next chaps
and where do we need them from?" - your understanding will not
progress. If you look at what is happening in detail you will see that
the relationships between functional and dysfunctional features,
that is to say the contradictions which are sometimes built into what
is happening economically and" what is being legislated and

[266 STUART HALL]
discussed politically, are too diversant to constitute anything like a
neat functional fit. The important questions are concerned with the
ways in which one begins to conceptualise the relationship between
surplus populations of this kind and the dynamic movements of the
economy. The questions of surplus populations and the notions of
the surplus labour force or reserve labour force are both generative
and .productive ideas which move the relationship between the
patterning of race and the dynamic of the economy into a somewhat
deeper and more adequate theoretical or explanatory level. The
moment you do that you are beginning to shift away from any sort of
explanation which would identify race exclusively as the element
which you have to consider. At that point you do, for matters of
teaching strategy as well as for reasons of explanation, have to
identify other surplus or reserve populations including the native
unemployed and women and the Irish, all three of whom in British
history constituted and played something of the same functional role
in relation to the expelling needs and the sucking in needs of different
developments within capitalist industry. Nothing in this area is
assisted by identifying the racial question either negatively or
positively as in some way abstractable from the other dynamic and
historical process of the society.
One should be attentive to the important ways in which one can
speak of an Irish racism in Britain and one should be attentive to the
ways in which racism and sexism as ideologies are more comparable
in some ways than either racism or sexism and class because there
are ways in which both racism and sexism as ideologies depend on
the process of naturalisation and tend more easily than class
relations in terms of their ideological syntax to refer themselves to
what "mother nature" did. There is of course that tendency in class
relations too to think that they were really born that way but a social
structure is harder to find in the early books of the Bible than either
of the other two - the other two are really right there from quite early
on and can be ascribed to nature. It is part of that naturalisation that
gives those two ideologies their deep-seated structuration, which
makes them very hard to remove. "Use the evidence of your eyes,
don't you see that they are different"? I am not attempting to
privilege race and sex over class, I am trying to account for certain

[TEACHING RACE 267]
differences one can make in the functioning of different kinds of
ideology. One of the ways in which ideologies function is to
naturalise themselves. They disguise the fact that they are historic
and symbolic constructions by appearing to be part of what nature
is. Some ideological formations find it easier to make that move of
naturalisation giving them a long and deep persistence although
that is not the only mechanism of ideology. There are other
ideologies and other ideological forms which function in ways which
give them a greater kind of efficacy. I am only comparing race and
class ideologies in terms of their power to disappear behind nature
and I am drawing the similarity between sex and race which is very
often appealed to in terms of, "You can see the difference" and if you
looked at the syntax of class in that kind of obvious sense the cues
and signs would be more complicated. They are not so immediately
and manifestly obvious, although it is a very fine distinction as
people do use exactly natural and symbolic and material cues to try
and place people and locate them socially.
It is not only correct to connect race with other dimensions in
terms of what it can explain but also in terms of the underlying
politics of your teaching in this area, because unless one can show
those correspondences and differences and be sensitive to them one
can't deal with the question which a good student trained in your
hands is going to ask you. "Yes, I now understand it, what do we do
about it?"

3

Now let me say something about the more political aspects. Having
tried to take questions of economic structure and the relation of the
needs of labour and types of labour force you can see why it is that
particular forms of migrant labour form a specially flexible reserve
army especially in the early phases when that black labour force
came more or less fully reproduced. It was ready for work to put it
crudely - whereas in the next generation what is happening right
now is that you have to reproduce them, I mean reproduce them
socially. You have to born them and then grow them and teach them

[268 STUART HALL]
and educate them and train them and discipline them before you get
them in at all, and by then there are actually no jobs for them to go
to. So then you have to look after them in unemployment, reproduce
them through enforced leisure and police them quite hard and then
unfortunately like other people they faintly resemble, they are going
to get old and go on living- they live quite a long time, West Indian
women particularly are strong and long survivors. So the
reproduction costs of this labour force look particularly attractive in
1951 and look particularly unattractive and expensive in 1971 when
in any case you have less money in your pocket and fewer schools to
reproduce them through and less plots in the cemetries and so on -
you are short of everything as it were. The reproduction costs begin
to turn back on you.
There is an argument that says that one of the ways to understand
the legislative policies of race in Britain is that as the cost of
reproducing the black part of the labour force has grown, as Britain
had to take the fact seriously that they are here to stay and to settle
throughout the full life cycle, so the legislation has tended to try to
reconstitute that black population more as a really authentic
migrant force like Southern Italian labour whom you send back
home for Christmas and deny the right to vote and so on. If you have
tried to travel on the train from South to North Italy during the
Swiss industrial holiday you will know what keeps those clocks
going. They travel up and down. The reproduction costs are in
Calabria and they are in the North Coast of Africa and they are in
the interior or Turkey behind the NATO line. They have managed
to maintain that system of backwards and forwards movement
partly because of geographical factors but partly also by making it
difficult to bring families and making it unattractive for them to stay.
This backwards and forwards movement was quite common in a
previous period of migration i.e. that between the Caribbean and
North America until it was limited by legislation during the latter
part of the war. In the early part of the 1950s there was a constant
movement of migrant labour moving backwards and forwards to the
Southern states, and if they were able to stay for the whole part of a
year they took very substantial earnings to the family back home.
Part of that argument says that what is happening here is a

[TEACHING RACE 269]
retrospective political enforcement of migrant status on a settled
black population. This involves discouraging anybody else from
coming and especially discouraging the formation of extended black
families, curtailing the non-labouring part of the population - the
aged - and then encouraging repatriation, ("After you've worked it
out shove off back where you came from!") leaving the black
population here not exactly like, but very much more like a longterm
"guest worker". It is more sensitive not only to economic
dimensions but also to the political climate in a period when there is
not a shortage of labour but a growing unemployment coupled with
the economic problems of welfare, reproduction and social
reproduction and so on, when far from the need for such a force there
is the need to expand the areas for employment opportunities for the
white population tending to generate much higher levels of
unemployment among blacks in general and especially among black
school-leavers. In this situation you are politically making the black
population into a more flexible and responsive labour force. This is
the more sophisticated way of trying to extend what is basically an
economic argument to account for political developments. One of
the best statements of this argument, which is worth looking at, is
Sivanandan's short pamphlet, From Immigration Control to "Inland
Repatriation" published by the Institute of Race Relations. I think
however that although it provides part of the explanation, it doesn't
adequately deal with the dynamic political and ideological factors
attached to questions of race and racism in Britain which have to be
introduced into the explanations that you are dealing with.
I don't want to say a great deal, but I do want to say something,
about the political level. I want to point, on the one hand, to the
lurchy rise to visibility of the question of race as an indigenous theme
of British political life and political relations. We have to examine
how it happens, when it happens, in response to what factors and
how it is brought about - and it cannot be exclusively explained in
terms of the early clashes in North Kensington or Enoch Powell
himself as an individual etc. When attempting to explain the politics
of race in Britain we do have to give some attention to the
institutional basis in which that politics has developed. We have to
look at those particular sections of political leadership which have

[270 STUART HALL]
chosen to make statements about race and which have made a deep
political investment in the topic of race, which have, with Powellism
as a phenomenon, actually used race to open up a quite wide range
of political themes some of which had very little to do with race at all.
We have to look at the rise of political movements which function on
the back of indigenous racism and which try to awaken racist
sentiments in society. We have to look at the very real and growing
importance of the media and especially of the press and above all the
popular press in a quite specific campaigning role around issues of
race, around very primitive appeals to the notions of a "British way
of life", of "British and alien cultures" etc. This is a very complicated
operation particularly the functioning of the media and I don't have
time to go into that in detail but I don't think we should talk as if the
politics of race fell out of the sky. It does have its institutional
implications.

4

Ideological questions are one of the ways in which we return to what
we previously spoke of as attitudes, prejudices and beliefs. The
difficulty with focussing on attitudes and beliefs is that you
eventually come back to a notion that these are individual
emanations of good and bad, that they are to do with the differential
perceptions of other people. Before long you can fall into the position
of, "Well don't we all like to hang about among our own and don't
we all make differences and jokes about people who are different
from ourselves?" You begin to sketch out a world which ought to
have eaten itself from end to end because of multiple racism, brown
and black hair, green and pink eyes etc. - any difference. One really
has to stop that runaway rout into difference and ask why some of
those differences have consistently become historically pertinent.
It's along that channel that populations divide, that societies
structure themselves, that perceptions crystalise and that people
bring out truncheons. We must beware of dissolving the question of
race into an infinite scatter, an inventory of all the possible
differences that people can make-, and show that it has served a very

[TEACHING RACE 271]
powerful social and historical function in various societies at
different stages in history.
As far as questions of race are concerned what matters much more
than the differences are the already available languages which
surround us from birth in this society - powerfully charged, welldeveloped
languages which have consistently tried to come to
understand the historical relation between the people of this nation
and other nations, this economy and other economies, in ways
connected with race made those relations work, made them
pertinent and which have been in existence for a very long time. The
way in which we begin to think racially and to perceive racially has
a great deal to do with the available languages of racism available in
societies like ours. The elements of those languages can be used to
put together ideological explanations of phenomena which are really
quite different. It isn't that anybody confuses in their head old-style
imperialism with the indigenous racism of the 7O's and 80's but this
language of racism has been used to explain the sorts of structural
differences which were implied in plantation society; then the sorts
of structural differences which were implied in the gap between a
rapidly developing, primarily industrialising capitalist society and
the rest of the globe; and then to explain a set of relations between a
truly imperial power and its imperial relations. It's a well-minted,
well-developed language which is around and which people draw on
in order to explain to themselves new situations.
There is no sense in which you could try to explain the
distribution of racist ideologies in a simply class-structured way.
There is no way in which relations between Britain, either as a slaveowning
or as an imperial economic and political power, and the rest
of the world could have been lived out over long periods of time
leaving one whole class sector of the population saturated with those
ideas and the rest of the population totally free of them. It's an
inconceivable notion, not only in terms of how ideologies penetrate
societies but also when you look at actual ideological and political
practices. Racism in our society is in part sustained by the defensive
institutions of the working class as much as the rampant and
offensive institutions of the capitalist class. The fact that certain
forms of working-class and trade union racism differ in their extent,

[272 STUART HALL]
in their modality, in their grip on people's imaginations from other
types, say National Front racism, the fact that it is quite significantly
different in its articulation, is not the same thing as saying that it
would be possible to make a cut through the British population and
come out with goodies on the one hand and baddies on the other.
Those differences have to be confronted because if you go back to the
politics of race and to the resistance to racism, they have been one of
the most pertinent factors which have consistently divided the
working class politically within itself and throughout the whole of
the period that I am talking about. It has prevented the emergence of
anything that even remotely resembled a mass non-racial political
organisation or struggle, whose principal kind of thrust was the
internal unity of classes across the divide constituted by race. In fact
the history of the period is the history of the continued internal
segmentation of the labouring force and one of the principal ways in
which that segmentation has expressed itself politically and
ideologically is around questions of race. That has been one of its
crucial political and ideological effects, and in an increasingly nonexpanding
economic and political climate, racism of a virulent kind
has been able to provide a kind of adequate explanation, not so much
for people at the top of the society but more for people at the bottom
of the society, as to what it is they are experiencing and why it is that
a kind of racist politics makes sense.
This is not safe but combustable material that you are dealing
with and if you try to stop the story about racial politics, racial
divisions, racist ideologies short of confronting some of these difficult
issues, if you present a kind of idealised picture which doesn't look at
the way in which racism has acted back inside the working class
itself, the way in which racism has combined with, for example
sexism working back within the black population itself, if you try to
tell the story as if somewhere! around the corner some whole
constituted class is waiting for a green light to advance and displace
the racist enemy and constitute a non-racist society, you will have
done absolutely nothing whatsoever for the political understanding
of your students. You can also tell the story I have just been trying to
sketch out in a way which so undermines the possibility of building
and developing social and political movements around those issues,

[TEACHING RACE 273]
that it doesn't do them any good either. One has to walk a very fine
line here and not tell a story which is really nice for the fireside,
makes you glow inside, which lines up the goodies and the baddies
for that will not explain the real world which you and I live in, a
world which is not unified around those ideological symbols in the
way which we would like. We want to change or transform the world
as it is so that it begins to approximate more to that but that is
something which has to be done, it isn't something which is written
into the conditions which we inherit. If on the other hand you tell the
story so that the students come out saying, "Well everybody is racist,
we all are and we have been from ever since, there is nothing you can
do about it and it has disabled us, we have never been able to develop
politically around this, the forms of resistance which develop in the
black community are containable etc.", you are simply preventing
the possibility of acting on the situation.
Somehow one has to steer that difficult line whilst not selling short
the complexity of the issues with which you are dealing. Instead of
thinking that the questions of race are some sort of moral duty, more
intellectual academic duty which white pople with good feelings do
for blacks, one has to remember that the issue of race provides one of
the most important ways of understanding how this society actually
works and how it has arrived where it is. It is one of the most
important keys, not into the margins of the society, but right into its
dynamic centre. It is a very good way of getting into the political and
social issues of contemporary British society because it touches and
connects with so many facets. That does make it a difficult problem
to handle and to explain adequately and one mustn't try to go for
simple explanations because one does want to create a dynamic
which involves people in the problems of trying to build anti-racist
politics.


This article originally appeared in thc journal of the National Association of
Multicultural Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1980.
Early Child Development and Care,
1983, Vol. 10, pp. 259-274
0300-4430/83/1004-0259 $18.50/0
(c) Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, Inc., 1983

Printed in Great Britain
Permission for reprinting given by Professor S.M. Hall.