Anderson's theological writings

[Roy Corduroy]

two men, Anderson and Monro, in top positions in the force with the same extreme theological viewpoint

extreme theological viewpoint

What

extreme theological viewpoint

do you mean, Phil?

That they believed in Christ? They read the bible?

This thread, consisting of a bunch of twenty first century atheists discussing Anderson's theological writings, is hilarious. Just the whole idea of this thread is hilarious.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

I used the wording "leaving hints". Nothing more. I also said he has "been accused". Did I state here that I did that, i.e. accuse?
The rest of your summary is way way beyond that..which I did not say, nor mean, please note.

As far as your interpretation of what others interpret in another person's writing is concerned.. all you see here is odd snippets of comments to conclude from. Speaking personally, I have indeed read one whole book written by Anderson purely based on theology, and attempted a second. These are what I base my "hints" upon. And no, I do not intend to go through some of the most boring literature I have ever read again in order to list examples. Reading one book once, by dint of attempting a second, was enough for me. I doubt if many people have read all of Anderson's theological work in full. Have you?

kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathan,
No, it wasn't directed at you but at Phil Carter's comment that Anderson "has been accused, if that is the correct terminology, of leaving hints of anti-semitism in some of his writings, whilst being a zealous Christian..."

Discussion of Anderson invariably degenerates into discussion of his religious beliefs and whether or not he was anti-Semitic; the former usually judged through modern eyes and from modern perspectives, and showing no real grasp of what Anderson's religious beliefs were and whether they were extreme in his day and age, and the latter usually lacking any supportive evidence beyond personal and generally subjective impressions derived in the main from his autobiography. It seems futile to attempt a rational discussion based on a knowledge and understanding, for soon we are told that Anderson was a religious zealot communing with the voice of God and such a Jew-hater that he'd pin the murders on a Jew with only the slenderest of reason. But nobody seems able to come up with any evidence or understanding set in the context of the time.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason,

Well, here we speculate. I agree the main body of their religious fervour would certainly not be acceptable as a general line of enforcement.. but individual decisions on a watered down basis influencing things?...a little like (and I have not expanded upon this nor put weight upon it) Anderson's moral certainty lines perhaps? Just a mild thought.

I agree with you that any extreme theological basis of influence in the LVP would probably be slight though. It wouldn't wash on a general basis.


kindly

Phil

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

Well, as we have two men, Anderson and Monro, in top positions in the force with the same extreme theological viewpoint, is it plausible that their theological views did influence the methodology that they tried to convey on to others below them within the force, without referencing to that specific theology?


kindly

Phil

I dont know enough of Monro's theology to really comment. Anything is possible but how successful would they be at this?

[mariab]

All Anderson is doing is {...} sitting on the fence.

Typical politician.

His economic dismissal of many Jews (and their benefits to a society) is way off.

Yes, the Jews in the 19th century were either seen as a burden to society (as Alien working class immigrants) or as “holding up all the money“.

[jason_c]

I'm not informed enough to say, but one would be able to tell if they compared Anderson's statements to Monro, Macnaghten, Swanson etc..


Possibly both, but even after reading the conservative quote on minorities attached in SPE's post #33, I wouldn't consider Anderson as more anti-minorities as the next non-socialist Victorian. Their anti-semitism appears to me more like a reflex.

Actually i just read Anderson's quote there, thanks for pointing it out. All Anderson is doing is humphing and hawing, largely sitting on the fence. Its fairly enlightened in parts. Its by no means the words of a little Englander.

edit: His economic dismissal of many Jews (and their benefits to a society) is way off.

[mariab]

Whats important I believe is wether Anderson was more or less anti-semitic than most.

I'm not informed enough to say, but one would be able to tell if they compared Anderson's statements to Monro, Macnaghten, Swanson etc..

And was this anti-semitism based on theology? Or was it based on his experience of dealing with low class Jews as Assist Comissioner of the CID?

Possibly both, but even after reading the conservative quote on minorities attached in SPE's post #33, I wouldn't consider Anderson as more anti-minorities as the next non-socialist Victorian. Their anti-semitism appears to me more like a reflex.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason,

Well, as we have two men, Anderson and Monro, in top positions in the force with the same extreme theological viewpoint, is it plausible that their theological views did influence the methodology that they tried to convey on to others below them within the force, without referencing to that specific theology?


kindly

Phil

[jason_c]

I agree with Chris George here. My special field is the French (and Italian) 19th century and I'd have to say that there was practically noone who was not at least a little bit anti-semitic in the 19th century, apart from pronounced liberals and socialists, or other groups with a special agenda.

I wouldnt disagree with much of this maria. Whats important I believe is wether Anderson was more or less anti-semitic than most. And was this anti-semitism based on theology? Or was it based on his experience of dealing with low class Jews as Assist Comissioner of the CID?

[mariab]

I agree with Chris George here. My special field is the French (and Italian) 19th century and I'd have to say that there was practically noone who was not at least a little bit anti-semitic in the 19th century, apart from pronounced liberals and socialists, or other groups with a special agenda.

[Jonathan H]

To Jason C

Yes, I think that too is food for thought, for sure.

I argued in 'Safely Caged' that Anderson was not an anti-
Semite, quite the reverse, yet he get himself into a nasty pickle in 1910.

That this might be because his memory had conflated the Kosminski family ('suspecting the worst ...' Macnaghten, unofficial version) with all Polish Jews of that era, who were perhaps recalcitrant when it came to giving up one of their own, but only if they were thieves or something like that.

Therefore 'certain' low-class Jews really meant the low-class family.

If we put together the bits and pieces for a working hypothesis, the family knew that Aaron hated whores, that he was periodically violent, that he was a chronic self-abuser, and that they could not account for their member on the nights of the murders.

Terrified of reprisals, they kept it quiet, or were not absolutely sure, until he attacked one of their own with a knife and they had him hastily sectioned. Only then did 'Kosmisnki' come to police attention, or at least senior police attention -- say sometime in 1891 -- and Anderson realized, to his acute frustration, that it was too late.

The suspect had been 'safely caged' from the police.

No wonder the hope that he was dead calcified into a belief.

All this was not Adnerson's fault, at all, but it ate away at him and later his failing memory produced a myth, fusing 'Kosminski' with Sadler and Lawende, behind which is the truth: a brother who knew he had identified the fiend, and the fiend, in turn, knew he that had been identified -- by a brother. But he would not give him up to the hangman if his sibling could be found to be hopessly insane --which he was.

That behind the silly 'Seaside Home' pantomime is real human anguish and tragedy; of a family 'suspecting the worst'.

[ChrisGeorge]

Yes, but was the Kosminski case(amongst others) the reason he made such allegations against low class Jews?

Assuming he didnt often think of low-class East End Polish Jews before his 1888 CID appointment. On his date of joining the CID he may have been positively disposed towards all Jews. What made him say such things about low class Jews then? Perhaps it was his experience with the Kosminski family and others from 1888 onwards.

Hi Jason

The way I read Anderson's memoirs about his statement about the non-cooperative attitude of low-class East End Polish Jews -- i.e., they protect their own and refuse to work with Gentile justice -- is that it was based on other cases and not just the example of Kosminski and his people. Pizer, for example, would be another case along almost similar lines, although I am not sure Anderson had Pizer in mind -- I read it that he meant in regard to Jewish suspects in other crimes of a different nature.

All the best

Chris

[jason_c]

Hello Jason and Jonathan

Thank you both for your replies.

Jason, technically you are correct that we don't know when Anderson came to suspect Kosminski, and yet Anderson's own words betray the fact that he had a bias against the Jews, so as I said in my post, it seems clear that he was predisposed to think poorly of Jews both as criminals and, even more damningly, as protectors of criminals. The guy was a piece of work. And that's why the fellow takes up so many bytes in this forum.

Jonathan, thank you for your kind words about my post.

Jonathan, Anderson is speaking generically about the Jews, which is what upset the Jewish Chronicle's editorialist Mentor (aka editor Leopold Greenberg). Greenberg correctly called Anderson out in regard to the unfairness of the accusation that the former Scotland Yard official made against the Jews in general -- with Anderson saying in essence, "these people won't give up one of their own to Gentile justice, that's just the type of people they are!" -- so it clearly wasn't just an accusation against the Kosminski family.

Best regards

Chris

Yes, but was the Kosminski case(amongst others) the reason he made such allegations against low class Jews?

Assuming he didnt often think of low-class East End Polish Jews before his 1888 CID appointment. On his date of joining the CID he may have been positively disposed towards all Jews. What made him say such things about low class Jews then? Perhaps it was his experience with the Kosminski family and others from 1888 onwards.

[Jonathan H]

Oh hi, Paul.

Is your first post directed at me, or ChrisGeorge, or Phil Carter?

I myself have been arguing the position that Anderson is not anti-Semitic, and therefore for him to accuse a Jew -- arguably -- goes against the expected bias of this admittedly complex historical source. ChrisGoerge put a strong counter-argument to that line of argument.

I base my judgement of Anderson's historical reliability as a source on primary and secondary sources, eg. Major Griffiths, H.L Adam, his own memoirs where every, arrogant anecdote he relates portrays himself as smarter, or more moral, or more knowledgeable, or whatever, than anybody else.

Yet Anderson also portrays himself -- as do others of that era -- as an incorruptible civil servant, one who would not favour his own upper class in a criminal inquiry, and who stringently based his judgements on the facts, and not prejudices or string-pullers. He is happy to mix with, and help people of different classes, faiths and races, and a case can be mounted that in 1888 he did indeed keep a cool head about the Whitechapel murders whilst others succumbed to as ludicrous hysteria (eg. no rail-roading of some poor, handy wretch.)

Also, I base my opinion on absorbing the varied opinions of secondary sources like yourself in 'The Facts', of Martin Fido -- who sees him as conceited but not deceitful -- of Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow who interpret him as demonstrably dodgy and over-reaching.

Having read his memoirs, I find his letter about the controversy of his memoirs, in terms of the Jews, genuine and wrenching in their regret at the outrage caused, but that he was sincere in believing that it was a Jew who had been 'unhesitatingly' identified by another Jew -- and who refused to testify.

For what it is worth, I published an article in 'Ripperologist' (called 'Safely Caged') a few years ago, which tried to reconcile opposing points of view, primary and secondary, on Anderson's reliability to show that -- despite errors caused by an 'overweening' ego and poor memory -- Anderson was probably right about the culpability of his preferred suspect.

The few who read 'Safely Caged' let me know, quite politely I thought, that it had utterly failed; that my argument fell hopelessly between two stools, right on its rear.