Was Anderson Prejudice?

[Busy Beaver]

I don't think there was predjudice, but more of a we're going to get the Ripper. All the top men had names and hoped that if they banded that name about for long enough an arrest might be made, whether they all agreed with each other seemed to be irrelevant, as they all had different suspects in mind as we know. Not jumping in and arresting someone just to clear the case was probably a good thing as some poor innocent probably would have got the noose.

[Abby Normal]

I wonder if because Macnaughten suspected Druitt he was prejudiced against the upper classes, or if because Littlechild suspected Tumblety he was prejudiced against Americans?

Thanks DK-and everyone else who responded!
From the responses it dosnt look like Anderson was overtly anti semetic, or had anything in his history to point that he was. But I do see prejudice in his writing-

During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion.

looks to me he had some definite pre conceived negative notions. and I sense the wiff of-an Englishman couldn't have done it-sentiment.

[Harry D]

Wasn't part of Anderson's reasoning that the recalcitrant jewish immigrants would protect one of their own rather than rat them out to the authorities? Not necessarily if they knew the Ripper, but they might have kept suspicions to themselves. A contemporary rabbi who condemned Anderson at the time, actually backed up his argument. Remember reading it in Paul Begg's book.

The ritualistic signature of these murders suggest a jewish killer, and several of the murders occurred near jewish sites. Anderson may have indeed been prejudiced but his theory was not unfounded.

[rjpalmer]

The ritualistic signature of these murders suggest a jewish killer.

Really? There is something inherently Jewish in disemboweling women? Please elaborate.

[Harry D]

Really? There is something inherently Jewish in disemboweling women? Please elaborate.

Why did the murderer take Catherine Eddowes' kidney? It is not a random organ that one would take in a snatch-n'-grab. It would be difficult to find and extract, but nonetheless the killer ran the risk for some purpose.

While the Syrians and the Arabs viewed the liver as the center of life, the kidneys, in contrast, held a primary place of importance in Israel. In Hebrew tradition, they were considered to be the most important internal organs along with the heart. In the Old Testament most frequently the kidneys are associated with the most inner stirrings of emotional life.
- The metaphorical and mythical use of the kidney in antiquity.

And there is an undoubted influence drawn from the Pentateuch evinced in the slaughter of Mary Kelly.

Combine this with the fact that the area was overcrowded with immigrants, the murders happened near jewish sites, and there was an identification of a jewish suspect, the likelihood is that the killer was one of the tribe.

[Sam Flynn]

If there was any degree of ritual to the eviscerations, one would expect to see more consistency both in terms of technique and the organs taken, yet there was a fair amount of variety across the series. This doesn't point to adherence to a particular ritual - nor any practised skill for that matter - but to someone improvising as he went along.

[Michael W Richards]

If what you see Sam is motivation-less, talentless improvisation, then who's to say that more than one man might have done the job? Surely the unskilled knifemen and people with little or no knowledge of anatomy would do work that is very similar. In that is has little reason, and little precision.

The precision is what you deny in these cases, and Ill say again, the contemporary investigators demonstrably believed in September 1888 that they were dealing with someone who had some training. I think its clear in some cases, Kates kidney is one thing that keeps me on the fence with including her on JtR's list. Yes, he could have stabbed and grabbed, but it doesn't come across like that. The time taken to section colon, the nose, the facial marking...in near darkness..this was someone who knew his knife. Was he the same someone who hastily but competently removed an almost complete uterus? Great question.

[Sam Flynn]

If what you see Sam is motivation-less, talentless improvisation

I didn't say that, but pointed to the differences between the murders as a counter-indicator of ritualistic behaviour or practised skill. I just wanted to clarify that point. I don't wish to discuss it further on this thread, which I just noticed is about the totally unrelated topic of whether Sir Robert Anderson was prejudiced.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok Sam..redemption post, from the Jewish Chronicle, Mar 4, 1910...."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "JEWISH CHRONICLE."
SIR, - With reference to "Mentor's" comments on my statements about the "Whitechapel murders" of 1888 in this month's Blackwood, will you allow me to express the severe distress I feel that my words should be construed as "an aspersion upon Jews." For much that I have written in my various books gives proof of my sympathy with, and interest in, "the people of the Covenant"; and I am happy in reckoning members of the Jewish community in London among my personal friends.

I recognise that in this matter I said either too much or too little. But the fact is that as my words were merely a repetition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without any consideration.

We have in London a stratum of the population uninfluenced by religious or even social restraints. And in this stratum Jews are to be found as well as Gentiles. And if I were to describe the condition of the maniac who committed these murders, and the course of loathsome immorality which reduced him to that condition, it would be manifest that in his case every question of nationality and creed is lost in a ghastly study of human nature sunk to the lowest depth of degradation.



Yours obediently,
ROBERT ANDERSON"


Obviously aware that his remarks have been construed as anti-Semetic. But also fairly compelling in his rebuff of the notion citing he has personal friends that are Jewish. Do we know about his inner circle around 1910?

[John Malcolm]

I'm going to note we need to be more cautious here. We tend to view the past with what C S Lewis called "chronological snobbery," and moderns are often as oblivious to their own premises as Victorians. We may with Jews confuse pluralism, which allows multiple viewpoints on a subject with relativism which proclaims them all equally good or valid. But, some of the statements Anderson makes about his exegetical works (which I have not read) in his defense with mentor would make me think the opposite is true. While there is a type of Christian antisemitism that has existed, there is an alternate stream of Christian thought that argues of the Jews that those who bless them will be blessed. While thos gets tricky in Victorian times, "German Rationalism" is a major movement in Victorian Anglicanism and this school, which rejects all the major tenets of the historic creeds of Christianity tended towards the Darwinistic racism of the day, Anderson was a theological conservative. In English speaking Christianity in the Victorian era there has been a movement of Christian Zionism going back long before the Victorian age. Anderson seems to indicate in these comments this is his opinion.

He may show some of elements of classism, but I would be hesitant to brand him an anti-semitic.

Thank you for this post, KRS.

To date, the arguments touting Anderson as anti-Semitic (more specifically relating to posts in the various Ripper-related message boards) have, overwhelmingly, been grossly simplistic. It is the contemplation suggested by KRS that needs to be taken into consideration if a proper assessment of Anderson is realistically to be achieved. As one who has spent a considerable amount of time trudging through Anderson's religious (and other) works, I see the suggestion (or belief) that the man was anti-Semitic as completely unfounded. On second thought, "unfounded" is much too kind. "Ignorant" is more accurate. Unfortunately, many popular views of Anderson, his character and his "theory" fall into this same category. This topic has been done to death on the message boards (plural), and these forums have proven, time after time, to be a less than adequate place to set the bullshitters straight. It always ends the same way.

Are we to be content to settle it by blindly joining the biggest crowd? Or are we to yield to whichever authority presents its claims with the greatest arrogance?

- Sir Robert Anderson

I am more than willing to engage in conversation about this subject, but, as much as I owe to and admire Casebook, this is not the place for it. Anyone interested in a serious one-to-one, I'm always up for it. Messenger, email, Skype, whatever. I'm not interested in the "silly little games" that some posters here live for, but to each his own. Carry on, it's still a lively sport, just not mine. Feel free to PM me (is this possible here now?).

[Abby Normal]

Thank you for this post, KRS.

To date, the arguments touting Anderson as anti-Semitic (more specifically relating to posts in the various Ripper-related message boards) have, overwhelmingly, been grossly simplistic. It is the contemplation suggested by KRS that needs to be taken into consideration if a proper assessment of Anderson is realistically to be achieved. As one who has spent a considerable amount of time trudging through Anderson's religious (and other) works, I see the suggestion (or belief) that the man was anti-Semitic as completely unfounded. On second thought, "unfounded" is much too kind. "Ignorant" is more accurate. Unfortunately, many popular views of Anderson, his character and his "theory" fall into this same category. This topic has been done to death on the message boards (plural), and these forums have proven, time after time, to be a less than adequate place to set the bullshitters straight. It always ends the same way.

Are we to be content to settle it by blindly joining the biggest crowd? Or are we to yield to whichever authority presents its claims with the greatest arrogance?

- Sir Robert Anderson

I am more than willing to engage in conversation about this subject, but, as much as I owe to and admire Casebook, this is not the place for it. Anyone interested in a serious one-to-one, I'm always up for it. Messenger, email, Skype, whatever. I'm not interested in the "silly little games" that some posters here live for, but to each his own. Carry on, it's still a lively sport, just not mine. Feel free to PM me (is this possible here now?).

you do realize the title was about prejudice, not anti semitic? and there is a difference. and that the OP was only asking if there was traces of either in Andersons background? and that later on its acknowledged that apparently there is no evidence of overt anti semitism. and that the question and comments were then directed to prejudice? which from his own statement open that possibility.
nobodies (im not any way) accusing him of be an anti semitic here. calm down.

The fact of the matter is that there was a strong anti jewish feeling around the time, that the ripper could have been a jew. that no "Englishman" could have been the killer. Could he have been prejudice by that sentiment in general? could he have been prejudice personally?

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

I see you also quote Anderson. He may have been talking about himself. heres another quote by him-"In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

Ironic.

[John Malcolm]

OK, "prejudice". Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience - this definition? If so, Anderson was not prejudiced in any way. Opinionated, yes, absolutely. Some of Anderson's opinions, which I find discriminatory, strongly suggest prejudice (e.g., his thoughts on Home Rule, the Catholic Church), but, by definition, his stated opinions are backed up (agree with his reasoning or not), by reason and experience. There is a difference here, as well. Taking any of his various comments that may appear to suggest prejudice out of context does not allow for a proper assessment. Using these quotes to support an opinion is not unreasonable, but, again, they must be kept in context. I don't mean to sound pompous (which does come across when I read some of my posts), I certainly don't have the right. I just find it very annoying when the same "prejudices" are applied to Anderson by commentators who base their opinions, not on "reason or actual experience", but on the opinions of others. That's prejudice.

And yes, I see the irony. I cannot defend the accusations that Anderson was arrogant.

[John Malcolm]

One of the things that has always bothered me about Anderson and his definitely ascertained fact about the polish Jew suspect, is that it set off a 125 year search for the proverbial crazy Jew.

I sense wiff of prejudice in this proclamation, and I wonder if any one else thinks his ideas on suspect was influenced by his prejudice against Jews and was wondering if there was any other anti Semitic or prejudice against Jews in his back ground?

Getting back to the original question:

That "wiff" is the stink that comes out of the back end of the "anti-Andersonites", who often have their own agendas. His "ideas on suspect" were not based on any race or class prejudice. They were based on the investigations by the police, from the ground up, not the other way around. It very well may have been the case that one of the reasons it took so long for the police to "get on the trail", was because initially they weren't seriously considering the possibility that the murderer came from the generally law-abiding immigrant community. Take the "gang" angle, for example.

[seanr]

Getting back to the original question:

That "wiff" is the stink that comes out of the back end of the "anti-Andersonites", who often have their own agendas. His "ideas on suspect" were not based on any race or class prejudice. They were based on the investigations by the police, from the ground up, not the other way around. It very well may have been the case that one of the reasons it took so long for the police to "get on the trail", was because initially they weren't seriously considering the possibility that the murderer came from the generally law-abiding immigrant community. Take the "gang" angle, for example.

I'm sorry but no, this kind of argument can't be allowed to stand. It seems like everybody refuses to even think about the idea that anti-semitism or any form of racism was involved in this case and in any other. Despite documented cases on record of the police either showing open prejudice towards immigrant/ non-white communities and/ or exploiting non-white members relative economic/ social weakness in order to secure a prosecution.
I almost seem to detect an insistence that anyone who even *considers* the possibility of racism are doing so from the basis of their own prejudice.

And yet, the following are statements of fact. Beyond Anderson's preferred suspect being Jewish (as other's seem to suggest the only argument for anti-semitism is that he suspected a Jewish man), Anderson's argument goes one step further. He is arguing that the reason the police were unable to catch the suspect, was because the Jewish community protected their own. Or in more brutal terms, Anderson says the reason Jack the Ripper was never brought to justice was because there was a Jewish conspiracy against the investigation. In blunt terms, that sounds pretty anti-semitic.

Furthermore, if it is true and a identification did take place at the seaside home in Brighton, then a mentally ill Jewish man who is on record as 'harmless' during his stay in an asylum, who largely spoke Yiddish (so perhaps did not have a good command of English) was not arrested in the usual fashion, but was in fact kidnapped and taken to an 'off the books' identification.
Would a sane, white, wealthy suspect have been treated in this way? - I'd tend to think not. The behaviour towards the suspect reflects a prejudice towards how the police can treat such a person.

And also, the accusations Anderson makes goes a step further. Anderson alleges that the Jewish witness would not testify because a Jew would not testify against another Jew - even in a case of murder. In brutal terms, Anderson is arguing that Jewish people would prefer that other Jews who murder gentile women did not face gentile justice for their crimes. As no other law punished the suspect/ perpetrator then Anderson is effectively saying Jews believe other Jews should be able to get away with murdering non-Jewish women. That sounds pretty anti-semitic.

Let's imagine for a moment the identification did not take place, as some argue. If that is the case then Anderson's claims and the Swanson marginalia are fabrications. What would Anderson's motivation be for telling such a tall tale? - Well, for one a high profile case had not led to a successful prosecution. To protect his reputation and those of his men, when discussing why the investigation failed the story he relied on to explain away that failure was: the Jewish community conspired against us to protect one of their own. If Anderson's story was not true, and contemporary police such as Henry Smith and Edmund Reid did challenge Anderson's version of events, then Anderson relied on anti-semitic tropes to build his 'story'.

What evidence do we really have against Kosminski? - his name, the case against him, even a suspect matching with him is missing from the official police files until the MacNaughten memoranda. There is nothing more than these stories on which to base the accusation. The identification, if it did happen, is highly suspect and reminiscent of police behaviour in miscarriages of justice. If it did not happen, then there is nothing more than a concocted story based on anti-semitic tropes.

Far from the consideration of potential anti-semitism only coming out of the back end of the 'anti-Andersonites' there really is an argument to be made that anti-semitism did play a part in this sequence of events around Kosminski. Responsible 'pro-Andersonites' and believers in Kosminski as the suspect really should be considering this angle - even if ultimately they decide not to agree with it or can make arguments that anti-semitism did not influence the police handling. But it is potentially *there* and it should not be so easily dismissed.

[John Malcolm]

Huh?

The original question is a valid one. Your response is curious. But since you are much better acquainted with the case and Anderson's potential motivations than I am, I must concede that you are right.

Thank you for proving my point.