Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Natalie Severn]

Howard,
I can only state that this Jewish editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Greenberg [signing himself Mentor],appears deeply offended that the Jewish community have been "singled out" if not "targeted" by Anderson in these articles in Blackwoods Magazine ,as being the sort of folk who would act in such a dangerously anti social manner as to shield this murderer from justice ,thereby allowing him to continue killing and mutilating on the East End streets. This is clearly what has given deepest offence and it comes from a contemporary middle class Jew.
I believe it is important in that it reveals a reckless side to Anderson"s character as correctly noted by the City Police Chief Henry Smith as such a statement,were it to reach a wider public,could have caused a dangerous backlash agains the Jewish Community.If someone said such a thing today they would be in serious trouble with the law themselves.

Moreover,we know that Anderson"s memoirs were not generally well received.Winston Churchill,then Home Secretary determined whether Anderson should forfeit his pension because of disclosures of confidential information.He noted the articles did Anderson little credit and added that they seemed to have been written" in a spirit of gross boastfulness--in the style of "How Bill Adams Won the Battle of Waterloo."
This is quite apart from the embarrassment caused when he admitted writing several Parnellism and Crime Articles---and then dumping the blame on Monro.
Cheers

[Howard Brown]

In perusing various threads here and elsewhere regarding the allegation of an anti-Semitic bias on the part of Anderson, allow me just add these random thoughts:

Anderson doesn't smack of being an anti-Semite,period. He was an "elitist" who had the same general opinion of the Have Nots of all entities that other well off individuals or individuals who had become familiar with the "whole" of an entity, in this case the Jews of The East End, had. He was able to distinguish an assimilated successful Jew like Montagu ( as an example) from a rank and file socialist Jew, whether he said so in print or not. Had he not been cognizant of the different social statuses of Jews and used that label" low class" then we might have an argument for his probable anti-Jewish position. I don't think we do for the reason given before.

Its not, or shouldn't be, that disturbing to anyone that Anderson used the label "low class Jews", since he makes a distinction between elements of Jewry in London.

Anderson, of course, explained his position on which "type of Jew" he was referring to in a subsequent piece. He didn't deviate from his original premise, rather only clarified which element he referred to without a lot of the concomitant genuflection and bowing and scraping which people engage in when braced on a question which seemingly blankets an entire group....

I think his provincialism ( not racism, which is a blanket assessment of the "whole " of an entity or group...such as "those faggots",which includes every homosexual and does not designate a certain element within that entity) is not unusual. We still delineate individuals from groups even today...and there's no need to explain how we do that.

If we look at Anderson's Declaration, its essential to understand that he did clarify what he meant. Whether one believes it or not depends on who you are,I suppose.

This same sort of assumed insensitivity was also found within the ranks of assimilated Jewry towards the recently arrived Jews. I have found newspaper articles which provide the reader with a clear cut message from assimilated,established Jews that presents an even more disparaging portrayal of the newly arrived Jews from Jews. Yet, that isn't considered anti-Semitic at all.

One might question whether Mentor had the status of assimilated Jews in mind when he counterpointed Anderson. Could Mentor have wanted a clarification from Anderson to coerce him to indicate which Jews he meant? Probably not,I guess.... But at least it did provide that clarification.

Fortunately,in one sense, the Anderson Blackwood's article appeared nearly 25 years after the WM. Had it appeared on the front page of a contemporaneous newspaper, it probably would have caused embarassment for all Jews, since a sizeable number of persons in circa 1888 would probably "read" what Anderson said in 1910 in the way that some of us still do.

Larkin's blanket assessment of the Portugese people-nation-race can be seen as a 'racist' comment. He didn't attempt to delineate Peninsular War peasants from East End sailors and ironically, as a side note, Anderson was the one who dismissed him as a waste of time.

If I could make one suggestion on how we as a body examine Anderson's remarks, it would be that we separate the reference to "low class Jews" when examining the whole of what he is saying. It has served to distract the reader and modern Ripperologist from focusing on his claim in the first place for far too long. That he had or has been percieved as having an ethnic bias diminishes the (more important) gist of his recollections...recollections that his peers and contemporaries dismissed for a variety of reasons... and one that only Swanson apparently agreed with.

[The Good Michael]

Natalie,

Never said Fishman was a communist. I said that he brings up communism, anarchism and social/labor changes in his book attributed to Jewish immigrants, and that that shows that the belief that there was trouble to be had from these new immigrants was not unfounded. For the police and the government, any social change spells trouble.

Cheers,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Peculiar

In an effort to gain some idea of Anderson's character as viewed by his contemporaries a few quotes might be useful.

"Sir Robert, as our readers are aware, entertains what are sometimes called peculiar notions about crime and criminals, and the methods by which they should be treated by the State. His views do not exactly accord with those of some of our best known criminal judges, and Home Secretaries have been known to disregard his advice; those of his critics who believe in making the punishment always fit the crime object that some of his proposals are weak, while on the other hand he is a red rag to the Secretary of the Humanitarian League ... he is now grey and elderly." - The Yorkshire Weekly Post, Saturday March 7, 1903.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Mike, the argument is about that point and it is brilliantly answered by Leopold Jacob Greenberg [pen name MENTOR] in a March 4 1910 article he wrote as editor of the Jewish Chronicle .
I took the trouble to transcribe a couple of sections of the article which you will find on a new thread under Anderson in the Police section entitled "Mentor"s response to Anderson".Clearly what Anderson said was deeply offensive and very upsetting, particularly about Jews sheltering a dangerous murderer.Anyway read it for yourself.Its also here,in the Press section of the Casebook, under "Jewish Chronicle March 1910".

I would disagree with you about your analysis of Professor Fishman.He is Jewish and a liberal but I would never describe him as a communist.Many Victorian men and women such as Labouchere-- -even Queen Victoria herself, were strongly anti -racist and the Queen is on record as finding some of her own families attitudes quite racist when they objected to her taking her Indian teacher with her on a family holiday to Nice.She said she found their objections racist and that she was offended by their views.