The International Working Mens Association/Wiiliam Wess

[lynn cates]

script

Hello Archaic. It appears that transliteration is not as common as I thought. So it may well be that the Hebrew script you have above is non-transliterated Yiddish.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

Yiddish looks like English, except English has no double S or umlaut vowels or dipthongs like German script has.

My GOODNESS, Lynn!

I find it hard to believe you would mention dipthongs in polite society...



Next thing we'll know you'll be telling someone that their participle is dangling!



Uh-oh, and this is me BEFORE the brandied eggnog... Archaic!

[lynn cates]

scripted reply

Hello Archaic. Thanks for that. Well, my observation applies ONLY to the Yiddish transliterated into German script. Which now, it seems, didn't happen as often as I had thought. I suppose it's because that's the ONLY kind I would recognize.

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

Don't worry, Lynn, your Yiddish is wa-a-ay ahead of mine. I only know important New York Yiddish Survival Words like "Knish".

I'm sending you an email with a funny story.

-B.

[Roy Corduroy]

Poor Roy- haven't you heard?

You can call me Po'Boy

The relationship of Cause and Effect has been scientifically disproved. Sorry.

I'm sorry to hear they broke up.

[Archaic]

'The Worker's Friend' & Libraries

Here's an interesting little factoid: in 1888, the New York Public Library had a subscription to 'The Worker's Friend'.

The NYPL also carried other London papers such as 'The Times', 'The Economist' and 'The Jewish Chronicle'.
I didn't see any London papers like 'The Star', 'The Pall Mall Gazette', or 'The Daily Telegraph' listed.

There was a very high number of Jewish immigrants in New York City so it makes sense that Jewish-language papers were in demand, but I was surprised to see that other well-known London papers didn't make the cut.

This photo is from the George Sims book 'Living London' and shows men reading newspapers at a Free Library in Mile End.

> I have a couple of questions maybe others can answer:

Would East End neighborhood libraries like the one shown in the Sims photo have carried 'The Worker's Friend', or would they have seen it as "too radical"?

Does anybody know what a weekly issue of this paper cost in 1888?

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Hi again all,

Some great information being shared and discussed....thanks folks, its been a worthwhile venture.

The thing that I think many people like yourself Roy fall into is a belief that the Ripper murders were some kind of 3D event that stood out from all the environmental and social issues that were the backdrop around them. What they really represent are some unusually vicious crimes committed during some very unusual and violent times. They belonged in that area.........had these occurred on Fleet Street or its surrounds they would have likely had some maniac toff reveling in bloodlust....like some Hellfire Club remnant....but where these murders did occur, in the ghettos....organizations and movements were ready to erupt in revolt likely much more serious than Bloody Sundays peaceful beginnings.

Including men that had planned to blow up Parliament in recent years or to assassinate Members of Parliament during 1888.

2 entities were receiving the kind of public support Marx counted on, the disenfranchised and less fortunate striving for equality in a system and seeking a different societal base than the one that existed in London at that time. People living under the rule of a foreign nation and starving to death in a system that had abandoned them.

We are talking about emotional, visceral angst...not just some picketers marching around Trafalgar Square with placards. Anger, resentment, desperation,.....Socialist Anarchists and Fenians did have some unity in those regards.

And from that bubbling revolution nest we have of a group of murders that shocked the nation into awareness, taxed the resources of the police, and that unified the neighborhoods resentment and dissatisfaction for the guards to the slums....the local Police, and the government that had allowed this travesty of conditions to occur in the first place.

Is it impossible that the anarchists and or the Fenians committed some of or used some of the murders in the East End to bring about some attention and hopefully some change?

I dont see that as improbable at all. But I wonder if Warren wondered about that question too.

I do see a death with a single wound by a man clearly obsessed with mutilation of his victims post mortem highly improbable though....so I can see why you may feel the way you do based on the skewed perception that was what actually occurred in Dutfields Yard.

Best regards

[Phil Carter]

Hello Michael,

In William Fisher's book, East End 1888, he writes of the raids on the IWMC in some detail I believe.
This place, as you have quoted earlier, WAS quite a den.

No, it isn't impossible that the anarchists and or the Fenians committed some of or used some of the murders in the East End to bring about some attention and hopefully some change?, knowing who was there, who was running the place, who the KNOWN anarchists were (Turner etc)... and it raises some very important issues one of which I am now intruiged by. The writing on the wall.
An anarchist WOULD write that. A loose cannon to boot.

Therein also, I believe, lies the key to the stamping of the Special Department Files, a rule made at THAT time by Anderson, as not to be released to the public in perpetuity.
Because of the political climate, the ultimate loss would be the downfall of society as was. i.e., The Government, The Crown, The Empire. That had to be protected at all costs. And that is why those Fenian Files, and the ones connected to the Whitechapel murders in Kew, were stamped "in perpituity".
That way, the real answer could never come out, showing how both weak and vunerable the top brass THOUGHT the situation was, and how threatened they themselves felt.

best wishes mate, and well done!

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

This is getting confusing, but to set the record straight, Charles Le Grand and John Turner were absolutely and in no way the same man. And the John Turner who ended up in Portland Prison is probably not John Turner the socialist. Three unique individuals.

Archaic,

You're a sweet girl, but did you even bother to read this thread before you started posting in it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

Archaic,
You're a sweet girl, but did you even bother to read this thread before you started posting in it?

Yes Tom, I did. Others seem to have appreciated the information I posted.

Thank you for telling me that I'm "sweet", but I'm an adult woman and not a "girl".

I could respond in kind by telling you that your post is unnecessarily rude, and that you are therefore a "rude boy", but instead I will make the assumption that you are a man and will have the courtesy and maturity to apologize for your (hopefully) unintended rudeness.

Best regards, Archaic

[lynn cates]

well done

Hello Archaic. Permit me to observe that I very much appreciate your posts. You are dedicated to finding a solution to this labyrinth--as I trust we all are.

Right. Keep it up.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Chill out on the defensiveness, Arch. You've already pissed off Monty and Rob with it. No sense doing any more damage. My question was sincere and not intended to be rude. My compliment was also sincere, though you apparently didn't appreciate it. You seemed shocked to learn about this paper, yet I had already posted that I own a copy of the very issue Krantz was editing on the night of Stride's murder, and the subsequent edition.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

This is getting confusing, but to set the record straight, Charles Le Grand and John Turner were absolutely and in no way the same man. And the John Turner who ended up in Portland Prison is probably not John Turner the socialist. Three unique individuals.

Tom is right here, Phil.
If you check out the "we have him thread" and read Chris's 'red herring' post, you will see where the confusion has set in.
LeGrand was not John Turner, John Turner's name was mentioned initially because he was the only Belgian in Portland Prison in 1901, as per the information given in the newspaper article Mike Covell posted.
However, Charles LeGrand was the only man convicted of threatening women in late 1891 and sentenced to 20 years penal servitude, LeGrand matches the other details given in the same article on three counts.

[Archaic]

Tom, I'm not "shocked" to learn about this paper. I'm interested, which is why I am participating.

If you feel that myself or another member is "being defensive", why not first examine your own behavior and see if perhaps you are unintentionally giving offense by being rude, dismissive, or condescending?

I know you have been around for a long time, but you do not own the thread or the forum.
Members are allowed to discuss what they choose to discuss- even if you or someone else has discussed it before.

Even if you or someone else has arrived at some personal conclusion regarding that issue.

What's wrong with discussing or re-discussing an issue? What's wrong with exploring? After all, it's not like the Ripper murders have been solved.

You yourself have discussed side topics on this thread and no one has attempted to stop you.

I've tried to focus on the IWMA and their paper. If you care to go back a few pages you'll see that I am the one who posted a link to the online edition of the 1872 book "The Secret History of the International Working Men's Association". The history of the IWMA is what this thread is about.

I've been told you're a bit miffed that the 1895 Press Record lists 'The Worker's Friend' as being published in Hebrew, rather than Yiddish, which somehow affects your personal theories, but I also posted several other sources which say the paper was in Yiddish or mostly in Yiddish and tried to find a way to account for the apparent discrepancy.

I don't have an agenda and I don't censor the material I find before sharing it.
It doesn't even matter to me if I personally agree with it- if I find something interesting I just put it out there and trust other intelligent adults to make up their own minds. They are perfectly free to ignore it or dismiss it if they choose; that makes no difference to me.

I'm happy for you that you own some copies of the IWMA paper, but I don't know what that has to do with anything-
unless of course you also own the entire subject?

I'm sure that many members feel differently, and welcome participation and the free, open, and courteous exchange of ideas.

Best regards, Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Tom is right here, Phil.
If you check out the "we have him thread" and read Chris's 'red herring' post, you will see where the confusion has set in.
LeGrand was not John Turner, John Turner's name was mentioned initially because he was the only Belgian in Portland Prison in 1901, as per the information given in the newspaper article Mike Covell posted.
However, Charles LeGrand was the only man convicted of threatening women in late 1891 and sentenced to 20 years penal servitude, LeGrand matches the other details given in the same article on three counts.

Thanks Debs,

So who is THIS John Turner of the IWMC?
The only reason I thought of the nom de plume was the name in the Portland prison record, but no sign of Mr Grande in prison.. or have I missed something from the 1901 census? Plus he changed his name ad hoc.

best wishes, and a very Merry Xmas to you!

Phil