Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Simon Wood]

Steady Michael,

That's far too logical an observation.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

"Oh boy, talk about wish fulfillment in action. And I'm accused of providing no facts or context."

You still haven't provided any facts or context so I don't know what you're talking about.

RH

[jason_c]

Hi Jeff,

I have seen the article but how you can refer to a group of specific ethnicity using the term "of their own kind" and not be tagged anti-semitic is beyond me. The language he used clearly reveals his personal opinions of the people he describes. In less than flattering tones.

Best regards

Easily.

Perhaps because Anderson was writing more than a century ago and not as a member of a 1980's Lambeth, Gay & Lesbian, Interracial Community Group.

I disagree with using modern concepts of political correctness to criticize the language of individuals born around the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign.

[perrymason]

Easily.

Perhaps because Anderson was writing more than a century ago and not as a member of a 1980's Lambeth, Gay & Lesbian, Interracial Community Group.

I disagree with using modern concepts of political correctness to criticize the language of individuals born around the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign.

Hi Jason,

I used nothing "modern" as the basis for my remarks....its obvious that London was besieged by immigrant Jews throughout the Victorian era, which led to the farcical overcrowding and unemployment in the East End and a definite spike in anti-Monarchy sentiments. The majority of the issues that arose were for the police to deal with, and it was the police that held the front lines of demonstrators back and took the clubs and stones thrown by the rebellious crowds during protests...like in Trafalgar Square in 87.

I think the Police more than any other single group was exposed to the degradation, crime, cultural diversity and ethnic explosion in the East End, and as a result some came away with some preconceptions....like what Jews would likely do if faced with the possibility of having to turn one of their own kind in because they slaughtered some Gentile women, in Andersons case.

Now, if Andersons reasons were only interpreted as Jews hiding murdering Jews, but were actually about revolutionaries hiding fellow revolutionaries from justice....then I would withdraw my comments.

Best regards Jason

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

There are many new facts in my two recent articles but, despite them, all that remains on which to accuse Aaron Kosminski is Macnaghten offering him up as one of three people "more likely" than Cutbush to have been JtR and an assumption that sixteen years later Anderson's low class Jew/Polish Jew/Polish suspect may have been the same person.

It's scant evidence on which to condemn a man for all eternity to being Jack the Ripper.

The heavy burden of responsibility is yours.

Regards,

Simon

[Supe]

Jason,

You make an important and valid point: People, of all classes and communities, thought differently than we do today. Not only did words not necessarily mean the same thing, but entire world views and intellectual and spiritual underpinnings were differently formulated.

There is no question that prejuidice against Jews was pervasive throughout English society at the time (as it was against the Irish and Scots--among many others) and reading the likes of Dickens can seem embarrassing today for his stereotypes (as are even later works by writers like Agatha Christie). Still, distinctions must be drawn when the use of anti-Semite today conjures up images of holocaust-deniers, skinheads and Scottish trades unions calling for spectators at Parkhead to wave PLO flags when Celtic played a team from Israel.

Moreover, I would argue that suggesting other Jews might wittingly harbor a Jewish JtR is not necessarily evidence of prejudice but more likely that of pragmatic experience. Clearly today many in various ethnic, racial and religious communities will not actively aid in the apprehension of a suspected criminal who shares their ethnic, racial or religious identity. 'Twas ever thus.

Don.

[Chris]

Moreover, I would argue that suggesting other Jews might wittingly harbor a Jewish JtR is not necessarily evidence of prejudice but more likely that of pragmatic experience. Clearly today many in various ethnic, racial and religious communities will not actively aid in the apprehension of a suspected criminal who shares their ethnic, racial or religious identity. 'Twas ever thus.

But surely where Anderson gave offence was in saying that he had deduced from his belief that the murderer had been protected by the people he lived with, that he must be a "low-class Jew".

Of course, there will always be a tendency of people to protect close relations, regardless of which racial or religious group they may belong to.

[Natalie Severn]

Why not listen to what the [Jewish] editor of the Jewish Chronicle who was outraged by Anderson"s----hear what he had to say in er-the year 1888?
Or if you prefer to read another contemporary,Major Smith, a man who was as senior as Anderson since he was Chief Commissioner in the City of London police.He was appalled by Anderson"s inferences and what he called "reckless accusations".And quite rightly so.

[perrymason]

I think the comment I read earlier suggesting that the "low class" line simply referred to the economic status, or the status of the flavor of Judaism he followed as seen by Orthodox and established Jews... however Im not certain that the phrase was interpreted any differently today than it would be in Victorian England....its just elitist jargon.

I personally believe that the "their kind" is the giveaway here Chris, taken in context with his term usage above. Since Anderson himself was in fact one of THEIR KIND...in that he was a fellow resident of London and a human being. But the ethnicity angle seems all important to him. In reality, with his local knowledge he could have referred to a neighborhood harboring a criminal and been giving an unbiased opinion.

That we dont see outright proof of antisemitic feelings is perfectly natural, instead we see comments that are likely restrained compared to what he might say privately. The integrity of the force had to be maintained publicly.

Best regards

[robhouse]

It is fairly clear that there was a perceived distinction between the "respectable" ie anglicized portion of London's Jewish population and the "newcomers," the Eastern European and Russian immigrants, who were regarded as a lower class group of Jews, who were, amongst other things, less inclined to assimilate etc. This latter group was also unfairly blamed for a variety of social ills, and the anglo-Jewish population was worried about being overly associated with them. There are numerous articles in the Jewish Chronicle for example, where Jewish writers suggested that the newcomers should adopt English ways so as to dodge the bullet of anti-Immigrant feeling. To what extent Anderson shared much of the feeling that was then current is open for some debate. However, I think his "low-class Jews" comment was largely to differentiate between the two groups. Mentor's criticism was as Chris says largely directed at Anderson's suggestion that the Police formed a theory that the Jews would shelter the criminal, and that this theory led the police to deduce that the Ripper must therefore be a Jew. Anderson responded to this in a letter to the JC in which he said:

"When I stated that the murderer was a Jew, I was stating a simple matter of fact. It is not a matter of theory. I should be the last man in the world to say anything reflecting on the Jews as a community, but what is true of Christians is equally true of Jews—that there are some people who have lapsed from all that is good and proper. We have ‘lapsed masses’ among Christians. We cannot talk of ‘lapsed masses’ among Jews, but there are clicques of them in the East End, and it is a notorious fact that there is a stratum of Jews who will not give up their people."

Obviously this statement is up for interpretation, but on the surface, it appears that Anderson is saying that the police did not form the theory that the Ripper was a low class Jew based on the idea that the Jews will not give up one of their own. But Anderson's vague wording was bound to lead readers to many different interpretations (or misinterpretations) of what he actually meant to say.

In any case, I don't agree that any of this indicates Anderson was an anti-Semite. Nor do I think the statement "of their own kind" indicates it either, but others may choose to disagree. I tend to agree with Jason's interpretation.

Simon,

Well, with all due respect, let's just drop it shall we. We obviously disagree, so let's just leave it at that. You are of course free to have your own opinions, as I am free to have mine. As for your saying "The heavy burden of responsibility is yours"... I agree, you are right. With regards to Kozminski as a suspect, I accept the responsibility for making a case. That is what my book is about after all.

In the spirit of the season, let's bury the hatchet. Merry Christmas to you.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

In the spirit of the season may I say that I eagerly await your watertight case against Aaron Kosminski.

Despite our many [and sometimes acrimonious] differences please be assured that I harbour you no ill will and wish you and your family a Happy Christmas and a Prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

The same to you Simon.

And you will be happy to hear that my case against Kozminski is not watertight by any means, but I have given it the old college try. Best wishes to you and your family also.

RH

[Simon Wood]

"All's well that ends well" as somebody famous once said.

[DVV]

Hi all,
the main problem with Anderson's theory is the essential role of the "house to house search":
"During my absence abroad the police had made a house to house search for him. (...) And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point."
I fail to see what they could have found in Kosminski house that could "prove" that he was the Ripper "beyond doubt".
They certainly didn't found a victim's organ, nor Jack's knife or Chapman's rings...
And what else could be a proof?

Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

Hi all,
the main problem with Anderson's theory is the essential role of the "house to house search":
"During my absence abroad the police had made a house to house search for him. (...) And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point."
I fail to see what they could have found in Kosminski house that could "prove" that he was the Ripper "beyond doubt".
They certainly didn't found a victim's organ, nor Jack's knife or Chapman's rings...
And what else could be a proof?

Amitiés,
David

"proved our diagnosis right".....now if that isnt putting the cart before the horse...what diagnosis had they made that they confirmed? It appears that they believed he was a local immigrant Jew being sheltered by his "own kind"....because thats what the Anderson statement suggests.

"Diagnosing" guilt within a specific ethnic group based on assumptions....before any evidence other than merely their proximity to crime scenes can be attributed to them seems to me, on the surface,... to suggest prejudice.

Best regards all.