The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[DVV]

Interesting thoughts Mike,
I know there was one police opinion making tthe GSG the work of "a Jew who boasted at it" - but then it is also, somehow, antisemitism, from an insane Jew, or at least, its aim could be seen as an attempt to "tease", to provoke, antisemites of the area...
On the other hand, some police reports have argued that the writing had to be recent, because if not, it would have been erased by the Jews who were living there...which suggests: 1/ the ambiguous anti-Jewish feelings of the graffito were also perceived by the police. 2/ it can hardly be a coincidence, as you feel it, that the piece of apron was left near to it...and so there remains a possibility that the murderer himself wrote it.
As to Christ, I simply think that Brad's suggestion was not stupid.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Hi Michael,
I confess I see too many coincidences about the Jews in the double-event. I'm not sure of anything, but I find possible that the murderer (especially if we accept Stride as his victim) expressed his antisemite feelings on 30 September. It seems too much extraordinary to me that he could have killed Stride in such a place, then threw the piece of apron near the graffito by pure coincidence (had he written it or not).

Amitiés,
David

David,

I, too see the connection between the graffiti and the apron. And, , yes, this is whether he wrote it or not, and I favor the latter. Yet, this is not explicitly antisemitic. To the contrary, it is, without bringing Christ into the equation, almost surely a Jewish writer complaining about the blame his people have gotten.

Why was it written small and neatly? The writer was someone who, perhaps liked order.

Why was it written in English? So everyone, including the Irish, the Italians, the Turks, or anyone else who was around could read it and see how pissed the guy was about the blame.

Why was it written where it was? It was close to home, and a place where so many had to walk to get hither and yon. He felt comfortable, as a Jew, doing this outside Jewish housing than taking it to a cathedral. This was his comfort zone. If JTR wrote it, there's a connection to his comfort zone for the killings as well.

To give it antisemtic meaning is to insert too many externals into the text.
Even the police were concerned about antisemitism arising from the message, not because the message was anti-jew, but vecause it was the exact opposite.

The above is all opinion, but I think the argument is strong, and much stronger than, "Someone who hated Christ-killers wrote it."

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Michael,
I confess I see too many coincidences about the Jews in the double-event. I'm not sure of anything, but I find possible that the murderer (especially if we accept Stride as his victim) expressed his antisemite feelings on 30 September. It seems too much extraordinary to me that he could have killed Stride in such a place, then threw the piece of apron near the graffito by pure coincidence (had he written it or not).

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

The greedy/wealthy stereotype was - and is - infinitely more popular than the notion of "Jew-as-Christ-killer". Christ was killed in 34AD, but many people throughout history have perceived that they were being swindled by wealthy Jews on a day-to-day basis - ergo, it stands to reason that the "greedy/wealthy" stereotype gets to be reinforced, and therefore uppermost, in people's minds. The "Christ-killer" stereotype (it's not even a stereotype, as such) doesn't even approach in prevalence such other spurious epithets as "big-nosed", "shuffling", "wailing" and "whining", that spring most often to mind when one considers the typical slanders aimed at Jews by their detractors.

Even if this were not the case, then it still requires a considerable amount of mental gymnastics to turn "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" into "The Jews don't take the responsibility for having killed Christ".

Hi again Sam,
it is more likely that Jesus was crucified in 30AD (and was born around 6...BC), but no matter.
Yes, it requires some amount of mental gymnastics to turn the GSG into an obvious reference to Christ, but the hypothesis suggested by Brad seems to me a reasonnable one (whether the GSG is the work of Jack or not) - and I maintain that you may underestimate the Christian dimension of antisemitism, especially because religion was more important at the time, and still I don't see why you distinguish antisemitic arguments as if each of these were exclusively used by distinct groups.
That the Jews have killed Jesus, and that the Jews are greedy, are two popular antisemitic thoughts. I'd add that Judas and his 30 coins make a strong link between greediness and the death of Jesus. And this was also well popularly known.

Amitiés,
David

I think David makes an interesting case, and point, the language is compatible with a sarcastic knock on the local Jews.....(spelled incorrectly, likely making him gentile),...and that knock could be a broad, anti-semetic semi-biblical reference ..."and again... the juwes arent held responsible for nothing".

In context, that could easily refer to a murder that took place an hour at least before the section is left...but also perhaps almost 2 hours. Enough time for the Mitre Square murderer to get wind of Berner Street's action earlier.

Private property. Jewish members. Found inside the gates. Nobody sees anything from 12:46 until the Pony does. Schwartz...Jew...possible member? attending that night? Was the yard empty...when neighbours said often after meetings "low men" would be in the yard,..sometimes with women,...one would assume, of ill repute.

Seems to me Jacks either a club member, or an anti semite who thinks maybe they killed her. Particularly adding interest to the fact that the physical evidence left is from only the second murder. Did he claim one only? And maybe again later...with a kidney section? Just askin...

PS...I say, follow the money....where did her doss money go, she earned it cleaning and was paid...for the corsage? Cashous?...would be interesting to know if this could be seen as her preening. The Lint brush...the velvet to hold for her.....I think she knew she wouldnt be coming back there that night....but not that she was in danger.

All the best David, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

what you call a "theological argument" is a mere popular view, just as the supposed wealth and greediness of the Jews.

The greedy/wealthy stereotype was - and is - infinitely more popular than the notion of "Jew-as-Christ-killer". Christ was killed in 34AD, but many people throughout history have perceived that they were being swindled by wealthy Jews on a day-to-day basis - ergo, it stands to reason that the "greedy/wealthy" stereotype gets to be reinforced, and therefore uppermost, in people's minds. The "Christ-killer" stereotype (it's not even a stereotype, as such) doesn't even approach in prevalence such other spurious epithets as "big-nosed", "shuffling", "wailing" and "whining", that spring most often to mind when one considers the typical slanders aimed at Jews by their detractors.

Even if this were not the case, then it still requires a considerable amount of mental gymnastics to turn "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" into "The Jews don't take the responsibility for having killed Christ".

[DVV]

No Sam,
what you call a "theological argument" is a mere popular view, just as the supposed wealth and greediness of the Jews.
Both are complementary rather than opposite or distinct.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hello David,

I honestly can't understand why you want to oppose those who stereotype the Jews as the Christ's killer, and those who stereotype them as "penny-pinchin swindlers", etc. How can you make two distinct groups?

Because the one set of stereotypes is far more prevalent than the "theological" one. When three of the greatest writers in the English language - Shakespeare, Marlowe and Dickens - decided to feature Jews in their works (Shylock, Barabas and Fagin), did they have them assassinate the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury? No - they portrayed them as wheeler-dealers, swindlers or thieves. As good writers, they would have known what their audience would have expected as archetypes, and they didn't let their audience down.

Obviously a "Christian" antisemite would use all other kinds of stereotypes handy.

What is more likely in a street comprised of Jewish traders - a piece of graffiti complaining about their miserliness or dishonesty, or a piece of graffiti complaining that they killed the Messiah?

And no need to be rich or having made long studies to "know" that the Jews have played a role in the death of Jesus - at least in 1888.

No doubt the local Italians weren't safe from the more discerning working-class yobbos daubing anti-Roman slogans on their walls for the same reason

[DVV]

Hi Brad,If we are relying on one person who thought that way, as opposed to vastly more who stereotyped Jews as penny-pinching swindlers, then the chance of the graffito's being an attack on the Jews as Christ-killers has to be very small. Certainly, there is nothing in the phrase that points categorically towards the "theological" interpretation. In fact, a literal reading suggests that its writer meant to say that the Jews didn't take responsibility for anything, rather than the specific accusation that they were denying their alleged deicide.

Hi Sam,
I honestly can't understand why you want to oppose those who stereotype the Jews as the Christ's killer, and those who stereotype them as "penny-pinchin swindlers", etc. How can you make two distinct groups? Obviously a "Christian" antisemite would use all other kinds of stereotypes handy.

By the way, the opposition also appears in the Bible between Christlike poverty and the wealth of the Pharisees.
And no need to be rich or having made long studies to "know" that the Jews have played a role in the death of Jesus - at least in 1888.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Brad,

I do not know how many people would of had that theological argument in their minds when thinking of Jews. However, it would only take one person.

If we are relying on one person who thought that way, as opposed to vastly more who stereotyped Jews as penny-pinching swindlers, then the chance of the graffito's being an attack on the Jews as Christ-killers has to be very small. Certainly, there is nothing in the phrase that points categorically towards the "theological" interpretation. In fact, a literal reading suggests that its writer meant to say that the Jews didn't take responsibility for anything, rather than the specific accusation that they were denying their alleged deicide.

[Fisherman]

Brad writes:

"... we do not know who wrote the graffitti."

Seconded, Brad! But I have a sneaking feeling I know who did NOT write it though...

All the best!

Fisherman

[celee]

Hi Brad,But how many East End poor at the time would have had that rather "theological" argument in their minds when thinking of Jews - as opposed to the rather more earthy (and, I have to say, more commonplace) use of the "swindler/shirker/skinflint" stereotype?

Dont know, but we do not know who wrote the graffitti. I would not be surprised if religion played a part in the everyday life of an East End poor person. I know the churches always help feed and dress the poor here in Daytona and they are always preaching the word. When a person has nothing to turn to they often turn to God and Religion. There are so many churches in the poor part of town here in Daytona that they almost out number bars.

I do not know how many people would of had that theological argument in their minds when thinking of Jews. However, it would only take one person.

Your friend, Brad

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Brad,

I guess you have never set through a service conducted by a real fire and brimstone Pastor.

But how many East End poor at the time would have had that rather "theological" argument in their minds when thinking of Jews - as opposed to the rather more earthy (and, I have to say, more commonplace) use of the "swindler/shirker/skinflint" stereotype?

The antisemitic interpretation of the GSG is convoluted enough when one takes it to mean "lack of accountability", or "dodgy dealing" -- but it takes an even greater effort of the imagination to turn "blamed for nothing" into "responsible for the murder of Jesus". Why not Peter's Denial, one of the most celebrated denials of responsibility in the gospels?

Why not, for that matter, Israel Lipski's protestations of innocence a year earlier? This would be taking things too far, perhaps - and I'm not advancing it as a serious suggestion - but at least it has the virtue of local topicality.

[celee]

Monty,

I never hear Christians disparaging against the Jews because of Christ. Never.
There are many ill-conceived reasons for antisemitism, but no Christian I know, and I know many, calls the Jews Christ killers. Perhaps, someone with an odd fundamentalist bent would say such a thing. Fortunately, I distance myself from such. I taught Sunday school for 6 years and I never heard that kind of thing except as a fringe statement, but never in earnest.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike.

I guess you have never set through a service conducted by a real fire and brimstone Pastor. You know I am not a very religious person but some how the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ sank into my brain.

Your friend, Brad

[Monty]

Mike,

I know you werent, its fine.

Besides, it was my mistake for not wording what I mean correctly.

I think Don may be correct, about it being an 'unchurched' thing. Being unchurched myself, and a majority of my friends being the same, maybe ignorance played a part.

I will say that there was a Guy I use to work with. He was born into the Hindi faith, lapsed, then found Christianity. Working at a desk opposite him, I had to endure his vehement attacks upon the Jews based upon his belief the the 'jews were to be blamed for his death'.

Now Im quoting there. Because of my interest in this case I found his exact choice of words intriguing.

I do take you views on board however, a Gentleman? Me? Most here would disagree.

Monty