Anderson's theological writings

[PaulB]

Again, "...an overweening need to see himself, and for his readers to see him -- as usual -- as the smartest person in the room when it came to the Ripper." In general comparison to his contemporaries, on what evidence do you base this judgement of Anderson's character?

[PaulB]

Can you cite the anti-Semitic material in any of his writings.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

Yes, all good points there for sure.

I was just arguing that the critical element might not be a love or loathing for Jews, or immigrants, but rather an overweening need to see himself, and for his readers to see him -- as usual -- as the smartest person in the room when it came to the Ripper.

That he bravely stood his ground to the spineless Home Sec. over a tabloid-driven hysteria, wherein the victims 'helped' the murderer kill them -- being degraded crims' themselves they deftly avoided the beat police (Macnaghten in his memoirs claims he went down to Whitechapel and sat with harlots and their pimps, expressing compassion for their plight).

That the initial profile was correct and even with Anderson abroad -- he wasn't -- the house to house search proved the police analysis correct. But it was the Polish Jews who retarded the forces of English justice.

I am arguing that Anderson was looking for iron-clad excuses. If his fading memory had told him that certain un-cooperative Eskimoes were to blame, he would have blamed them instead.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

On Chris George's blog site recently, I added a comment that might show (in some people's opinions at least) a possibly backdrop scenario about Anderson and his comments. Here is a redacted version of it. I hope Chris doesn't mind me quoting myself from his blog.. don't think he will..

I’ll add something if I may? I do not take this small additive of mine too seriously, but it must be added that Sir Robert Anderson, Assistent Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 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, and indeed, on numerous occasions, a preacher of his form of the gospels. Some of his writings are not exactly pro-zionist. Could this have, in the background perhaps, any influence upon his pointing the finger towards a Polish Jew in his biography, The Lighter Days of My Official Life, written in 1910? (Though the referenced part was written in Blackwood’s magazine at an earlier date.)

The “Anglocising” attitude mentioned in your article does bear some thinking about, as the general Victorian attitude to almost any foreign race or creed was extremely “we will teach then and show them the ways of behaviour, religion and social inter-action." This was not just apparent in the conquered lands of the Empire, but also towards the influx of the migrant. (As Stewart has kindly provided an example of above)

It has been a well-known comment that well up until the 1960’s, there were still certain members of the Met Police Force, at varying levels, still with undertones of both racial and anti-semitic thoughts. Though this has been very much under played, it emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s more as a racialist problem.

Now if the influx of Jews from the Poland/Russian/Bulgarian/Hungarian/German countries was of such a large quantity as we know it was in the Late Victorian period, surely it is only right to compare this influx with the West Indian, then Asian influx 1950’s to 1980’s? Could there have been any noticable anti-semitic attitude amongst the Metropolitan Police in the 1880’s? And could this have anything to do with the attitude towards the Jews involved/mentioned in the JTR saga, one wonders?

Large influxes of foreign groups in any country causes friction within the population. The Met Police are not excluded from this... and there have been sections within this group known to have been rascist in their attitudes past. Perhaps it is only natural to allow the same was the case in the LVA. Except in those days, it was accepted that one could say things about and have an attitude towards foreigners that today is simply not acceptable.

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To ChrisGeorge

Once again you make a very compelling case for Anderson the despicable.

My caveat would be that Anderson comes across, albeit in his own memoir, as a very conceited, superior, aren't I a card, person but also one -- relatively -- free of class, sectarian, and nationalistic prejudices, so long as they are not Catholics.

Therefore, my reading of the comments he published in 1910, about recalcitrant Polish Jews, is that, predictably, his indestructible ego was trumping his deteriorating memory. He was thus providing two, inter-connected excuses as to why the fiend was not brought to justice.

1) The murderer was from a vile, ethnic sub-group who routinely protect criminals in their midst, the bloody swine!

2) The penultimate example of this sort of appalling attitude and behaviour was by the witness who openly proclaimed that he had identified the suspect as the murderer, yet also said he would not testify against a fellow member of the tribe!

Anderson's subsequent and public mortification at the bomb which went off amongst English Jews, I think, was genuine, though he was unable to simply admit that he had exaggerated and/or over-reached.

PS

It is such a silly, desperate and unbelievable tale: yes, it's him, but I refuse to testify! What are you going to do about that, copper? And with the murderer -- via facial expressions alone! -- giving the game away too.

How about the witness just saying: no, I don't think it's him, and the suspect remaining calm rather than, in this pantomime, exclaiming, yes, it's me, I'm the Terror, God of Abraham help me, I've been recognised!

[Stewart P Evans]

Immigrants

Anderson certainly voiced his opinion on immigrants.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Jonathan

We don't know Sir Robert Anderson's reasons for suspecting Kosminski, presumably meaning Aaron Kosminski, beyond the notion that the suspect was recognized by a fellow Jew, presumably as most of us think, Joseph Lawende.

But I would submit to you that his contention that no Jew would give another Jew up to Gentile justice and that his own people were protecting him, might be at the heart of how he felt about the East End Jews, and that he thought in the first place that the killer was likely to have been a Jew.

I would suggest that due to his attitude toward the low class immigrant Jews the early suspicion that the Ripper could have been a Jew, i.e., Leather Apron, was believed by Anderson, and that he hung onto that suspicion particularly when a likely candidate such as Kosminski was identified as the possible murderer. Thus what you say about Anderson's claim that Kosminski "goes against the expected bias" is quite the opposite: a deranged Jew is the type of man Anderson would have suspected as the killer all along.

Best regards

Chris George

Except we dont know when he came to believe that low class Polish Jews did not give each other to Gentile justice. Anderson was writing at the end of his career. Did he come to believe this in 1888? 1892? 1902? Neither you or I know for sure when his bias came about.

To ChrisGeorge

I think that is a very astute counter-argument.

I think that Jason C also makes a good point too, about the dodgy timing of Anderson's downbeat view of [allegedly] un-cooperative Polish Jews in the East End.

Or, is behind this controversial claim of 1910 really just the Kosminski family who did not give up one of their own, and whom police, or at least the chiefs, only learned about -- as a Ripper suspect -- after he had been sectioned?

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

[Jonathan H]

To ChrisGeorge

I think that is a very astute counter-argument.

I think that Jason C also makes a good point too, about the dodgy timing of Anderson's downbeat view of [allegedly] un-cooperative Polish Jews in the East End.

Or, is behind this controversial claim of 1910 really just the Kosminski family who did not give up one of their own, and whom police, or at least the chiefs, only learned about -- as a Ripper suspect -- after he had been sectioned?

[jason_c]

Hi Jonathan

We don't know Sir Robert Anderson's reasons for suspecting Kosminski, presumably meaning Aaron Kosminski, beyond the notion that the suspect was recognized by a fellow Jew, presumably as most of us think, Joseph Lawende.

But I would submit to you that his contention that no Jew would give another Jew up to Gentile justice and that his own people were protecting him, might be at the heart of how he felt about the East End Jews, and that he thought in the first place that the killer was likely to have been a Jew.

I would suggest that due to his attitude toward the low class immigrant Jews the early suspicion that the Ripper could have been a Jew, i.e., Leather Apron, was believed by Anderson, and that he hung onto that suspicion particularly when a likely candidate such as Kosminski was identified as the possible murderer. Thus what you say about Anderson's claim that Kosminski "goes against the expected bias" is quite the opposite: a deranged Jew is the type of man Anderson would have suspected as the killer all along.

Best regards

Chris George

Except we dont know when he came to believe that low class Polish Jews did not give each other to Gentile justice. Anderson was writing at the end of his career. Did he come to believe this in 1888? 1892? 1902? Neither you or I know for sure when his bias came about.

[ChrisGeorge]

To Phil Carter

No, I just mean that the idea that Anderson was a typical, clumsy, anti-Semitic, Puritan, one who would believe anything evil of the tribe, eg. the Ripper was a Jew and the witness was a Jew, who refused to co-operate with 'Gentile Justice', is arguably not borne out by a more nunaced understanding of this chief's theological beliefs (albeit narrowly sectarian against Catholics) and his character as a diligent and honest, professional policeman.

That his memoirs show a person who would be be suspicious of the mob's accusations against a mentally-deranged, poor, foreigner, and a Hebrew. Therefore, for Anderson, nevertheless, to have chosen a Polish Jew -- whatever the merits or demerits of the case against him to which we are not completely privy -- goes against the expected bias.

It means that the criticism he received from English Jews must have been sincerely moritifiying, and privately distressing, for Anderson -- but he had expressed himself clumsily.

Yet, painful criticism to one side, he had chosen this Polish Jew based, as he perceived it, on the weight of the evidence.

I think the reason Anderson could not bring, presumbly 'Kosminski', to justice was, as he implied in the magazine version, that the prime suspect was already 'safely caged' in an asylum. That's not a fact, just an interpretation of limited and contradictory data.

Hi Jonathan

We don't know Sir Robert Anderson's reasons for suspecting Kosminski, presumably meaning Aaron Kosminski, beyond the notion that the suspect was recognized by a fellow Jew, presumably as most of us think, Joseph Lawende.

But I would submit to you that his contention that no Jew would give another Jew up to Gentile justice and that his own people were protecting him, might be at the heart of how he felt about the East End Jews, and that he thought in the first place that the killer was likely to have been a Jew.

I would suggest that due to his attitude toward the low class immigrant Jews the early suspicion that the Ripper could have been a Jew, i.e., Leather Apron, was believed by Anderson, and that he hung onto that suspicion particularly when a likely candidate such as Kosminski was identified as the possible murderer. Thus what you say about Anderson's claim that Kosminski "goes against the expected bias" is quite the opposite: a deranged Jew is the type of man Anderson would have suspected as the killer all along.

Best regards

Chris George

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for the explanation and the reply. I am now clear as to your meanings.

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

No, I just mean that the idea that Anderson was a typical, clumsy, anti-Semitic, Puritan, one who would believe anything evil of the tribe, eg. the Ripper was a Jew and the witness was a Jew, who refused to co-operate with 'Gentile Justice', is arguably not borne out by a more nunaced understanding of this chief's theological beliefs (albeit narrowly sectarian against Catholics) and his character as a diligent and honest, professional policeman.

That his memoirs show a person who would be be suspicious of the mob's accusations against a mentally-deranged, poor, foreigner, and a Hebrew. Therefore, for Anderson, nevertheless, to have chosen a Polish Jew -- whatever the merits or demerits of the case against him to which we are not completely privy -- goes against the expected bias.

It means that the criticism he received from English Jews must have been sincerely moritifiying, and privately distressing, for Anderson -- but he had expressed himself clumsily.

Yet, painful criticism to one side, he had chosen this Polish Jew based, as he perceived it, on the weight of the evidence.

I think the reason Anderson could not bring, presumbly 'Kosminski', to justice was, as he implied in the magazine version, that the prime suspect was already 'safely caged' in an asylum. That's not a fact, just an interpretation of limited and contradictory data.

[mariab]

SRA is faster than Nembutal and not habit-forming.

Even thinking about them can someti

;-)

One has to have a definitive religious persuasion I'd wager to be able to wade through all the stuff he wrote with any conviction (which I am not).

Precisely, and I can't think of a worse candidate than myself.

Stewart send me some time back an image of a letter from Anderson to Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler, so they were friends and correspondents at least on theological matters. Of course that doesn't mean that this buddy buddy correspondence warmed the cold chambers of Sir Robert's heart in terms of alleviating the hard stance he took about Jews' refusal to work with Gentile justice. And in fact we know of course that Adler in 1888 and later Mentor, the editorialist with the Jewish Chronicle in 1910, vociferously resisted the police ideas about finding a connection of the murders to the Jews. Clearly Mentor (i.e., the editor Leopold Greenberg) felt that bigotry was at work in Anderson's attitude toward the low class Jews of the East End, if not Jews in general.

Agree with every single word of this post.

During my doctoral studies I had to read many New England Puritan sermons from the 17th C.

Wow, not a big surprise then that you later decided to leave that dissertation for other plans. For the initial chapters of my dissertation I had to go through an endless amount of articles, announcements, proclamations published during the first years of the French Revolution and they were for the most part fascinating (if not a bit repetitive), but going through several dozen (semi-identical) opera scores reflecting the ideas of the French Revolution on the stage got super B-O-R-I-N-G very quickly. I remember I got severely depressed and unable to get up in the morning while trying to work on this in Paris, but possibly it was sheer laziness. ;-)

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

- What?



Archaic

Hello Bunny... yes you... Bunny.. read my lips...lol


We can't hear you at the back.


kindly

Phil

[auspirograph]

Anderson? He is not read, but sleepeth...

I wonder how Martin Fido managed to stay awake reading Anderson's theological writings to see if he was telling the truth.

As it appears to be of some interest, my new book, Jack the Ripper: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders, was a chance to review Anderson's religious output.

Rather than a mind-numbing analysis of his theology, it is a survey of his approach and of the influences that led to his prolific output in context of his position at Scotland Yard.

Robert Anderson approached theological subjects as he did criminal cases and investigations; by the rules of evidence. The influences on his theological writings was derived from a wide reading of scientific and biblical studies of the late Victorian period.

He actually established quite a reputation during the period, and since, as an evangelical scholar and preacher, and it is in this regard, that a deeper insight may be gained of the man who wrote it as, "...a definitely ascertained fact" that the Ripper was a poor Polish Jew.