The People of the Abyss

[Limehouse]

Limehouse,

You're a saint!

Mike

Thanks Mike! I'm far from saintly of course.


Harry,

Picard, Liza(2005) Victorian London, Orion, London. Page 180 "In all three parishes (Bethnal Green, Whitechapel & Kensington) children under five made up 62 per cent of the deaths of labourers and their families".

Picard was quoting from an official enquiry carried out in 1842. Sixty years later, I doubt whether the figure had fallen by much more than 10 per cent.

[The Good Michael]

Limehouse,

You're a saint!

Mike

[Limehouse]

Limehouse,
I quoted word for word what is written in the version I perused on the web.Tell me of any other parts you claim I have misconstrued or quoted wrongly.The Victoria Cross chapter for instance?

I have not yet denied the claim of 50%.I have asked you to supply the data to back your claims,so I have nothing yet to disprove.
Ally,
You are quite correct in what I wrote.I still stand by it .I have made my own experiments.Have you?Here is what was wrote in the book"The crimes of Jack the Ripper',by the author Paul Roland.'The most desperate settled for 2d,the price of sharing a crowded room slumped over a rope in a doss house".I hope he doesn't mind me quoting the words.Why I brought it up in that particular thread should be obvious.Why I mention it is to forstall people like yourself assuming I made it up.
And true to form,you cannot resist the personnel element.Well deluded is something that has yet to be decided.At least,one of your country men is attempting to do the right thing.Puts your smug remarks to shame.Good for him.

Harry,

I never suggested you misconstrued any passage from the book. I simply quote from my copy of London's book, which differs from yours. You used that quote to demonstrate your point that London used questionable statistics. I replied by demonstrating that my copy of London's book does not contain those statistics.

You ask me to supply data to support my claim that 50% of east end children under five died but infact I HAVE produced data - that quoted widely in many sources.

I don't want to continue this banter any longer. It is pointless. You have your view and I have mine. We are each entitled to our views and have each made our views clear. Neither of us is going to change those views so let's just let it rest there.

[harry]

Limehouse,
I quoted word for word what is written in the version I perused on the web.Tell me of any other parts you claim I have misconstrued or quoted wrongly.The Victoria Cross chapter for instance?

I have not yet denied the claim of 50%.I have asked you to supply the data to back your claims,so I have nothing yet to disprove.
Ally,
You are quite correct in what I wrote.I still stand by it .I have made my own experiments.Have you?Here is what was wrote in the book"The crimes of Jack the Ripper',by the author Paul Roland.'The most desperate settled for 2d,the price of sharing a crowded room slumped over a rope in a doss house".I hope he doesn't mind me quoting the words.Why I brought it up in that particular thread should be obvious.Why I mention it is to forstall people like yourself assuming I made it up.
And true to form,you cannot resist the personnel element.Well deluded is something that has yet to be decided.At least,one of your country men is attempting to do the right thing.Puts your smug remarks to shame.Good for him.

[Ally]

Limehouse,
Pinkerton,
You are correct.Jack London does not claim to have observed people sleeping on or against ropes.He states other methods of sleeping,but not on ropes.

So then why did you start this whole thing by posting the following?

When a person writes of individuals standing sleeping on a rope stretched across a room,it seems more a case of fiction than fact.

You started this argument on a thread about People of the Abyss, now you are claiming you were aware that there was no such reference.

What's your damage?

Of course, this doesn't mean that rope sleeping didn't happen. It clearly did and only the deluded would be arguing against it, but there's no actual prohibition on arguing delusions, so carry on.

[Limehouse]

Limehouse,
You yourself say it is only a claim.What I am asking is statistical proof to support the claim.I know what Rumbelow writes,and although he doesn't state his source,it is possibly chapter 21 of 'Children of the abbyss'.If you read that chapter yourself,fifty five per cent is stated by London to die within the first year,and another twenty five out of every hundred before the age of five,a total of eighty per cent.Read the chapter carefully.Then read chapter 25."But he went further this blind man,and in his voice was the bitterness of an afflicted man to whom society did not give enough to eat.He was one of an army of six million blind in London".Yes six million.The total population of London at that time is given as six million,so was every person in London Blind?Journalistic license,as someone has written? or just plain hogwash,and posters write and say I should accept it without question,as an authority on the period.
Pinkerton,
You are correct.Jack London does not claim to have observed people sleeping on or against ropes.He states other methods of sleeping,but not on ropes.So what exactly is the source of such activity.Who was or were the eye witnesses.Where is the proof?Mike writes I should accept it because it makes sense to others.Sort of follow the leader,and numbers dictate what is true or false.Mike might claim that as logic,I do not.If it is a game Mike,why do you play?
I once spent weeks on end,part of a family group,each evening with other family groups,from six o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning,in a concrete room with concrete floors.It was about forty yards long,and eight yards wide.It was underground,with stone steps leading to the entrance.We were not forced to do it,though some might claim because of our circumstances we were.We were crowded in together,men,women and children,to try and sleep the night away.No beds,not even a rope,the trick must have been long forgotten,but we did it.It was not pleasant.It was unhygenic.No one died.It was not in London,but it could have been.Now what does that prove,nothing really,only that it could be done.

Harry,

In my copy of London's book, the line you quote actually reads "He was one of an enormous army of blind in London". Six million is not mentioned anywhere in that quote in my copy of the book.

If you doubt that 55% of poor children died before their fifth birthday at this time it is up to you to prove otherwise. I am satisfied with that figure.

[smezenen]

Mike ,
There is no way anyone is going to change Harry's. thats not the purpose of my experiment. Yes he and I have had a sometimes heated argument about the subject. One thing is clear between us and that is we disagree on some thing, not everything. We respect each others opinion. My interest in the topic has grown as our discussion has gone on, so much so that i decided to experiment with it. The goal of my experiment is more for my own knowledge and not to try to change the mind of anyone. I will post pictures and if I can figure out how maybe a video or two (I'm hoping my daughter can teach me how to use Youtube) in order to share what I find with those that are also interested.

[harry]

Limehouse,
You yourself say it is only a claim.What I am asking is statistical proof to support the claim.I know what Rumbelow writes,and although he doesn't state his source,it is possibly chapter 21 of 'Children of the abbyss'.If you read that chapter yourself,fifty five per cent is stated by London to die within the first year,and another twenty five out of every hundred before the age of five,a total of eighty per cent.Read the chapter carefully.Then read chapter 25."But he went further this blind man,and in his voice was the bitterness of an afflicted man to whom society did not give enough to eat.He was one of an army of six million blind in London".Yes six million.The total population of London at that time is given as six million,so was every person in London Blind?Journalistic license,as someone has written? or just plain hogwash,and posters write and say I should accept it without question,as an authority on the period.
Pinkerton,
You are correct.Jack London does not claim to have observed people sleeping on or against ropes.He states other methods of sleeping,but not on ropes.So what exactly is the source of such activity.Who was or were the eye witnesses.Where is the proof?Mike writes I should accept it because it makes sense to others.Sort of follow the leader,and numbers dictate what is true or false.Mike might claim that as logic,I do not.If it is a game Mike,why do you play?
I once spent weeks on end,part of a family group,each evening with other family groups,from six o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning,in a concrete room with concrete floors.It was about forty yards long,and eight yards wide.It was underground,with stone steps leading to the entrance.We were not forced to do it,though some might claim because of our circumstances we were.We were crowded in together,men,women and children,to try and sleep the night away.No beds,not even a rope,the trick must have been long forgotten,but we did it.It was not pleasant.It was unhygenic.No one died.It was not in London,but it could have been.Now what does that prove,nothing really,only that it could be done.

[Pinkerton]

I read "People of the Abyss" about a year or two ago and I don't remember reading about people sleeping by leaning on a rope anywhere in the text (though I have read about the subject in other texts). I just did a text search for the word "rope" on the online version of the book and it doesn't appear anywhere. Is it possible this book is being confused with another?

[The Good Michael]

How do we know Smezenen is telling the truth? This may be just a ploy to change Harry's mind. Even photographic evidence isn't enough to be sure. Photography, as it captures what the picture-taker wants us to see, is one of the biggest lies out there; as big or bigger than written journalistic lies. Harry needs to change his mind just because rope-sleeping makes a lot of sense to many of us who share common logic, and because contemporary accounts say it happened, and because we've all slept in similar fashions. Harry is a nonbeliever because he has a bug up his rear end, and not because there is no evidence. To test this concept isn't proof. It's only what Harry demands. Don't play his games.

Mike

[Limehouse]

Limehouse,
50 per cent seems quite a lot.No doubt you have statistics to prove that statement.The same claims were being made for the depression of the 1930's,but it wasn't so.I lived then in a street where the average family was 5 children.Only one death of a child under 10 occured,in the time I lived there,which was 12 years.As for the empire,it was won and held mainly by the armed forces,comprised mainly of the lower classes.True it was administered by a multitude of civil servants,and I agree with the exploitation.How else could an empire be won and held.
I was one of a family of eleven children in the great depression of the 1920's-1930's.All except one survived into adulthood.That wasn't too long after Jack London's time.
Yes I agree thousands were turned down on recruitment,same applied in 1939.Same would apply even today,but thousands more passed the mark and would in these times.Perhaps today obeseity rather than malnutrition would apply.As for the Whitechapel victims,Tabram was well nourished,Stride fairly nourished,and Chapman perhaps the only one described as under nourished.Times were hard,no disagreement there,but was it as bad as has been claimed.
By the way two Ripper authors, James Tully,and Paul Roland,describe the 'Rope' method.One describes it as being rope webbing.

Harry,

There are numerous sources of information that support my claim that more than 50% of East End children died before their 5th birthday. One source that might be close at hand to you is Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper. On page 23 he writes "Most children were physically and mentally underdeveloped - that is, those who did not die in childbirth. Fifty-five per cent of East End children died before they were five".

Early death was not just confined to the very poor. My mother's relatives were master engineers in Limehouse. One of them, George De Ritter, who was relatively prosperous, lost SIX of his children in the last quarter of 1878, three of them died on the same day.

My grandfather on my father's side was one of 12 born at this time. They lived a tiny village in Suffolk called Westleton. The family worked maily in agriculural labouring and fishing. They were poor but supplemented their incomes with home grown produce, home-raised chickens and rabbits caught in local fields. They were all fit and healthy. There were ten boys. All but one of them marched off to war between 1914 and 1917, including my grandfather. Only one of them died in battle. All returned and lived into adulthood - all of them through the depression and WW2. Just goes to show, a country upbringing produced healthier citizens, despite a low income.

[smezenen]

Harry,
I have ran into many more descriptions of the rope, webing being one of them but the one true constant in all but one account has someone either cutting or untieing the rope in the morning to waken the sleepers. I will be testing more than one version to see what works best. I have already devised a way to string the rope across my den and that a thicker diameter rope will be more comfortable than a thin rope. also a piece of rag roled around the rope gives some relief from the rope biting into you. I have yet to try to sleep but have decided on the positions i will try this coming week. More to follow.

[harry]

Limehouse,
50 per cent seems quite a lot.No doubt you have statistics to prove that statement.The same claims were being made for the depression of the 1930's,but it wasn't so.I lived then in a street where the average family was 5 children.Only one death of a child under 10 occured,in the time I lived there,which was 12 years.As for the empire,it was won and held mainly by the armed forces,comprised mainly of the lower classes.True it was administered by a multitude of civil servants,and I agree with the exploitation.How else could an empire be won and held.
I was one of a family of eleven children in the great depression of the 1920's-1930's.All except one survived into adulthood.That wasn't too long after Jack London's time.
Yes I agree thousands were turned down on recruitment,same applied in 1939.Same would apply even today,but thousands more passed the mark and would in these times.Perhaps today obeseity rather than malnutrition would apply.As for the Whitechapel victims,Tabram was well nourished,Stride fairly nourished,and Chapman perhaps the only one described as under nourished.Times were hard,no disagreement there,but was it as bad as has been claimed.
By the way two Ripper authors, James Tully,and Paul Roland,describe the 'Rope' method.One describes it as being rope webbing.

[Limehouse]

didn't the empire collapse with the loss of direct control over most overseas territories especially India within a few generations of Mr. London's proto-ethnography. Surely it's only relevance today is in the discourse of the centre and far right.
On London's reliability was he not acting as a journalist and is therefore allowed to be rhetorical, embellish the truth and be slightly inaccurate.

Chris Lowe

Quite so Chris, and he followed in the footsteps of men such as George Sims.

[truebluedub]

didn't the empire collapse with the loss of direct control over most overseas territories especially India within a few generations of Mr. London's proto-ethnography. Surely it's only relevance today is in the discourse of the centre and far right.
On London's reliability was he not acting as a journalist and is therefore allowed to be rhetorical, embellish the truth and be slightly inaccurate.

Chris Lowe