A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

[Abby Normal]

It’s been suggested that we should just give up and ignore what’s happening. This is probably good advice because the trend is set. The impetus is with the prophets of Political Correctness. I genuinely hate to imagine what society will be like in 50 years time. Massive changes are easy to oppose but it’s the insidious, incremental ones that are the hardest to overcome. We just surrender a bit here and there. Then a bit more..... The internet makes this mission easy and the tactics are obvious. They are the ones used by Rubenhold and her supporters. Decide on the agenda. Isolate those that disagree. Insult them, demonise them and give them a name (ending in ..ist or phobe) then people (who are far more worried about being called names than giving an honest opinion) start to disassociate themselves. Then they can distort what they like and it’s game over and on to the next.

Mentioning Orwell is a cliche of course but it’s valid IMO. I’m glad that I won’t be around when opinions are prescribed. When history books are redacted or revised by dangerous idiots with agendas. Lawrence Fox is right. I wish him luck because he’s going to need it.

dam right herlock. get on the pc wagon or youll be demonized. called a racist or a bigot and bullied. its a pc witch hunt and it is a form of fascism. hr is doing it now with qanon crap. it wouldnt be so bad but the ones who are the worst at it dont really give a **** about issues. its an us vs them mentality...win one for your side at all cost.
its the problem with the two party system, which imho is the bane of politics today. us vs them nothing really about issues. dr seuss summed it up perfectly in his book Sneetches. uh oh i referenced dr seuss. im in trouble now.

[Ms Diddles]

hi rj
i think the got lucky refers to mary kelly having her own room. however, if anyone meant it as in because she was attractive, then i totally agree with you... it is squirm (or cringe) worthy.

I've always interpreted it this way too, Abby/ Mr Barnett.

I'm a feminist, and this never got my misogyny radar pinging!!

[erobitha]

Surely the ‘got lucky’ comment refers to Kelly taking the Ripper back to her room, providing him with the opportunity to spend more time on her mutilation.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t take your comment that no woman has ever made a ‘Ripper hit the jackpot’ type comment seriously. I’m willing to bet you have only read a fraction of the posts made by women. Which sadly puts you on a par with HR and her acolytes.

Bingo

[erobitha]

And yet on this very thread, we have someone writing that the Ripper "got lucky" when he picked up Mary Kelly.

Thus stressing the victim's supposed carnality. One has seen this comment made on these message boards many times over the years, always by a male poster. "The Ripper hit the jackpot" when he found Mary Kelly.

Can't you see why it might cause a feminist, or really any thinking person, to squirm?

Not only is it insensitive, I think it is very likely to be psychologically wrong.

But lust is his motive, wise men keep telling me.

You really are interesting RJ. I find you genuinely fascinating.

If you knew anything about psychology of serial killers you will know exactly what I meant when I said ‘got lucky’. I have no gratification or glorification for what he did - the man was clearly a disturbed individual. As others have correctly considered, it was in reference to the fact the mutilation was his desire. To get access to Mary Kelly in absolute privacy to him was lucky.

If you believe anyone on here is somehow getting kicks from these brutal murders of innocent women, then perhaps the reality of the real world, and the real world in 1888, has become all too much for you.

Poor form RJ.

[spyglass]

It’s been suggested that we should just give up and ignore what’s happening. This is probably good advice because the trend is set. The impetus is with the prophets of Political Correctness. I genuinely hate to imagine what society will be like in 50 years time. Massive changes are easy to oppose but it’s the insidious, incremental ones that are the hardest to overcome. We just surrender a bit here and there. Then a bit more..... The internet makes this mission easy and the tactics are obvious. They are the ones used by Rubenhold and her supporters. Decide on the agenda. Isolate those that disagree. Insult them, demonise them and give them a name (ending in ..ist or phobe) then people (who are far more worried about being called names than giving an honest opinion) start to disassociate themselves. Then they can distort what they like and it’s game over and on to the next.

Mentioning Orwell is a cliche of course but it’s valid IMO. I’m glad that I won’t be around when opinions are prescribed. When history books are redacted or revised by dangerous idiots with agendas. Lawrence Fox is right. I wish him luck because he’s going to need it.

I agree to a point, However, when I recently pointed out on a certain FB group that alot of History written about Elizabeth 1 was actually written by the Victorians, I was deemed to be anti British....Traitor and trying to whitewash our history ....these were the same people that support Lawrence Fox.

Lawrence Fox is an idiot, and isnt right about anything.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree to a point, However, when I recently pointed out on a certain FB group that alot of History written about Elizabeth 1 was actually written by the Victorians, I was deemed to be anti British....Traitor and trying to whitewash our history ....these were the same people that support Lawrence Fox.

Lawrence Fox is an idiot, and isnt right about anything.

I think that he’s right about political correctness. It exists, it’s an issue and society is just allowing it to fester unchallenged. People are genuinely worried about this situation so it’s only surprising that it’s taken this long for a movement to surface. It was only a matter of time. Of course, any movement can attract a ‘fringe.’

[Ms Diddles]

It genuinely interests me how the term "PC" has come to be used as a pejorative.

The hysterical responses to anything deemed un-pc are counter productive and not conducive to what could be a constructive dialogue around such issues.

See HR's response to those who disagree, for example.

On a personal level, I see the essence of political correctness as quite a positive thing.

it's just a shame that it has become so corrupted.

For myself, I am far more irked by bigotry and small mindedness than I am by the PC brigade.

Spyglass - I'm with you on the Lawrence Fox thing. He's a tool!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s so much hysteria going on that people are becoming afraid to open their mouths and for me that’s a scary thing. Look at Sharon Osborne over the Piers Morgan thing. Now to me Morgan did absolutely nothing wrong but there was the usual hysterical response. Sharon Osborne defended him then felt the need to backtrack and weasel around because she was terrified of being labelled. It seems like every time someone gives an opinion these days they have to follow it with......I just want to stress that I in no way support the view that.....or something like it. There’s an over-reaction to everything. Look at what happened with David Starkey. How many times have we all said something that we regret or said something and though “that came out wrong?” Starkey made his infamous comment about “so many damned blacks’” which of course sounds terrible (was terrible) and he apologised for it. Now most people have seen Starkey on tv. He gets very worked up when debating. He was obviously meaning to say something like “.....so many black people survived,” but when trying to add emphasis he added the ‘damned.’ He himself said that he was trying to add emphasis because he was frustrated at his interviewers comments. Taken as a sentence it was obviously offensive and he was right to apologise for what he admitted was very clumsy wording. But for one sentence he’s lost every honour and award that he’s gained over an illustrious career. His cowardly publishers have dropped him. Over one very clumsy, very poorly chosen sentence. An offensive sentence, yes. But one sentence said in the heat of debate nonetheless. Surely that can’t be fair. Of course we shouldn’t tolerate bigotry but if we keep seeing it in absolutely every triviality then we’re going to end up in a boy-who-cried-Wolf scenario.

[caz]

Surely the ‘got lucky’ comment refers to Kelly taking the Ripper back to her room, providing him with the opportunity to spend more time on her mutilation.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t take your comment that no woman has ever made a ‘Ripper hit the jackpot’ type comment seriously. I’m willing to bet you have only read a fraction of the posts made by women. Which sadly puts you on a par with HR and her acolytes.

I couldn't have put that first sentence better myself, Gary.

And the last time I looked, I was a woman.

The fact that RJ Palmer takes a "got lucky" observation [referring to the opportunistic destruction of the one victim who had a room of her own] in the sense of a sexual conquest over a younger, more attractive female, is his problem, nobody else's. I've never looked at it that way, but maybe I would if I borrowed RJ's man goggles.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

dam right herlock. get on the pc wagon or youll be demonized. called a racist or a bigot and bullied. its a pc witch hunt and it is a form of fascism. hr is doing it now with qanon crap. it wouldnt be so bad but the ones who are the worst at it dont really give a **** about issues. its an us vs them mentality...win one for your side at all cost.
its the problem with the two party system, which imho is the bane of politics today. us vs them nothing really about issues. dr seuss summed it up perfectly in his book Sneetches. uh oh i referenced dr seuss. im in trouble now.

I don't see any reason to provoke the bullies, though, Abby, by getting angry if the cap doesn't fit. For example, I know I'm not a rabid feminist, so it won't worry me a jot if anyone suggests I am, just because any kind of abuse by men against women makes me desperately sad. I know I'm not homophobic either, so I wouldn't get angry if anyone suggested I was. The same applies to accusations of racism, sexism or misogyny. If you know an accusation like that doesn't apply to you, as an individual, you don't need to react to it as if, secretly, deep down, it just might. You can't speak for everyone, so if a sweeping generalisation used to describe a whole group, such as 'Ripperologists', doesn't apply to you, don't own it. Don't get defensive on behalf of all those who do wear their bigotry on their sleeve like a badge of honour.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It genuinely interests me how the term "PC" has come to be used as a pejorative.

The hysterical responses to anything deemed un-pc are counter productive and not conducive to what could be a constructive dialogue around such issues.

See HR's response to those who disagree, for example.

On a personal level, I see the essence of political correctness as quite a positive thing.

it's just a shame that it has become so corrupted.

For myself, I am far more irked by bigotry and small mindedness than I am by the PC brigade.

I'm totally with you on this one, Ms Diddles.

The biggest bigots can behave like the biggest snowflakes when the PC brigade threatens to disturb their peace.

"Political correctness gone mad" is considerably less toxic than free speech without limit or responsibility.

Love,

Caz
X

[Linotte]

I know this is an old thread, but I just came across it.

Question: Has anyone thought of making a searchable document with the erroneous information and the corrections and posting it online? This could probably be done in Google Docs and then PDF'ed. It's a hands-off approach, but the information would still be out there for those who are seeking it out. Because based on this, I'm sure we'll see other journal articles coming out either supporting her conclusions, like this one, or refuting them. It may be a good idea to have this info in one place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know this is an old thread, but I just came across it.

Question: Has anyone thought of making a searchable document with the erroneous information and the corrections and posting it online? This could probably be done in Google Docs and then PDF'ed. It's a hands-off approach, but the information would still be out there for those who are seeking it out. Because based on this, I'm sure we'll see other journal articles coming out either supporting her conclusions, like this one, or refuting them. It may be a good idea to have this info in one place.

Hi Linotte, welcome to Casebook

I may be mis-remembering but I seem to recall Jon Menges talking about something like this. If he did say something then I’m unsure if anything came of it? Opinion appears to be divided on this subject with some saying that it’s better just to ignore the hype and maybe they’re right? I haven’t heard much on the subject lately but I don’t do social media. IMO it would be good to see a detailed, properly researched rebuttal out there highlighting her agenda and showing that we aren’t serial killer-worshipping weirdos. Whether it will happen or who would write it is the question.

[John Wheat]

There appear to be no serial killer worshipping weirdos on casebook however I've become disenchanted with the endless threads on witnesses that have been turned into suspects eg Lechmere and numerous threads on the diary. While there seems to be very little debate about sensible suspects. I'm wondering has Ripperology become a parody of itself.

[Linotte]

Hi Linotte, welcome to Casebook

I may be mis-remembering but I seem to recall Jon Menges talking about something like this. If he did say something then I’m unsure if anything came of it? Opinion appears to be divided on this subject with some saying that it’s better just to ignore the hype and maybe they’re right? I haven’t heard much on the subject lately but I don’t do social media. IMO it would be good to see a detailed, properly researched rebuttal out there highlighting her agenda and showing that we aren’t serial killer-worshipping weirdos. Whether it will happen or who would write it is the question.

Hi Herlock! I've lurked for awhile, but this is my first reply to a post.

What I'm talking about is having some kind of document or spreadsheet and make it available to the public. Jonathan posted some of his notes and it looks like that he and the other roundtable contributors already basically did a side-by-side comparison of errors and omissions versus the correct information. My suggestion is to organize the information, perhaps by chapter, convert the document into a PDF, and post something here in the forum with a link. This way, all of the information is in one place and it's easily found with a Google search. The goal should be to provide the information for people to find so they can decide for themselves. This would especially be helpful to any postgrad students or academics who may be writing a dissertation or journal article that examines Rubenhold's work. I did discuss Rubenhold and the conclusions in The Five with my cousin who's involved in women's studies academia here in the States. She is familiar with the case and when I told her about Rubenhold's conclusions, she started laughing. She had not read the book, but she did advise me that some of her peers had, and they were not impressed with Rubenhold's work. So not everyone in academia agrees with Rubenhold. So my suggestion is to post the notes for informational purposes and to let it go. Let Google do the rest of the work.