Foreigners

[Tecs]

It is what happened. But what I'm saying is this. The witness saw someone who had particular characteristics they associate with being Jewish. Fine. The guy says he looks Jewish. But what I'm wondering is if the person the witness saw was not Jewish, and merely had those features. Because he WAS in fact foreign. If Hutch had in fact said foreign, instead of Jewish, would that statement have in fact been correct, and wouldn't that make it a lot easier to find the guy?

If the witness said Jewish, the cops would look for Jewish. If the witness says dark hair, sallow skin, large hooked nose, bushy eyebrows, etc. then yes that describes many Jews. But also north Africans, Middle Easterners, South Americans, Eastern Europeans. The very word "Jewish" is limiting. You combine "Jewish" with a description of the persons clothes, and it doesn't fit. Had the word "Jewish" never been uttered, the cops would have a much larger suspect pool, but simple observation of various peoples would have narrowed it down pretty quickly. Because the witness said "Jewish" the cops looked for Jewish and didn't find who they were looking for.

So "foreign" might have been a euphemism used by the press, but I think they were in fact right, where Hutch for example said "Jewish" and was wrong.

Moral of the story, describe the person, don't speculate on race or culture.

Interesting.

So would your guess be that Hutchinson was just being casually anti semitic, in the way that many people even today are?

I agree that he may have been innacurate so do you think that the likelihood is that he just used a catch all description out of convenience, lazyness or even prejudice?

And following on from that, would Abberline knowing his district be able to tell if somebody was prejudiced that way? I'm thinking a little bit about the scene in JFK where Kevin Costner is interviewing Kevin Bacon. He listens intently to his story but when he starts ranting at the end you can see Costner's exasperation as he realises that 1 he's probably just a prejudiced nutter and 2 he's no use as a credible witness. I can imagine Abberline listening with baited breath to this amazing description and then sighing as Hutch "goes off on one."

But, thinking about it, does the way it is written give us a clue? If the above scenario had happened, would Abberline have calmy written as he did? If Hutch had been ranting (and please forgive the following words) "He looked like one of those bloody yids", or "Bloody Jewish bastard he was." would Abberline or whoever transcribed it, have even written that down realising how useless it may have been? Probably. But is there a chance he may have stopped writing, not written the word or changed it? The fact that it was clearly and calmy written may suggest that it was given in a clear and calm way which may suggest against it being a rant of any kind.

I've never actually thought of that before and am thinking off the top of my head so if it's a load of rubbish, there you go!

regards, (and again, please forgive the foul words above)

[Errata]

On your final point I don't think there was a confusion over Jewish/foreign was there? As I understood it, Hutchinson said Jewish appearance, Abberline understood this as did any officer connected to the case who was privvy to the information, (Paddy attached the copy of the statement above) but when published by the press somebody changed it to foreign presumably to avert any anti semitic tensions?

Happy to be corrected if that wasn't what happened.

regards,

It is what happened. But what I'm saying is this. The witness saw someone who had particular characteristics they associate with being Jewish. Fine. The guy says he looks Jewish. But what I'm wondering is if the person the witness saw was not Jewish, and merely had those features. Because he WAS in fact foreign. If Hutch had in fact said foreign, instead of Jewish, would that statement have in fact been correct, and wouldn't that make it a lot easier to find the guy?

If the witness said Jewish, the cops would look for Jewish. If the witness says dark hair, sallow skin, large hooked nose, bushy eyebrows, etc. then yes that describes many Jews. But also north Africans, Middle Easterners, South Americans, Eastern Europeans. The very word "Jewish" is limiting. You combine "Jewish" with a description of the persons clothes, and it doesn't fit. Had the word "Jewish" never been uttered, the cops would have a much larger suspect pool, but simple observation of various peoples would have narrowed it down pretty quickly. Because the witness said "Jewish" the cops looked for Jewish and didn't find who they were looking for.

So "foreign" might have been a euphemism used by the press, but I think they were in fact right, where Hutch for example said "Jewish" and was wrong.

Moral of the story, describe the person, don't speculate on race or culture.

[Tecs]

My entire life I have been confronted with "Funny, you don't LOOK Jewish." And I have red hair and green eyes because I'm Scottish as well as Jewish. Trying to explain to people that a Religion does not necessarily confine itself to a phenotype (or race if you will) has just been a losing proposition. None of these people have been anti semites. Most have been my friends. Strangers. Parents of boyfriends.

I really think not Jewish. But if not Jewish then what? If North African surely that seriously winnows down the suspect pool. The real question isn't "Does foreign mean Jewish?. The real question is "Did the assumption of Jewish instead of foreign hurt the case?"

Hi Errata,

What you say at the top is the point I was trying to make. If somebody saw you they would not say "of Jewish appearance" because as you say, you do not look like what people think Jewish people look like. And I think that is really the simple point. Everything else we have gone through about how right, wrong, correct, innacurate etc it might be is actually irrelevant to the point. The point is that there is an, admittedly stereotypical, image of what Jewish looks like and so we can have an idea of what he meant when he said Jewish appearance.

To use my own analogy, I am from Liverpool and there is an image that everyone in Liverpool wears shell suits and has curly hair and a moustache! I know people probably don't really believe that and of course it's nonsense and came from a comedy programme which was obviously over the top, but to suspend reality for a moment, if that image was what people really did believe most Liverpudlians look like and somebody said that a suspect looked like a Liverpudlian, however innacurate, wrong, ignorant etc that may be, we know that the person meant he had curly hair and a moustache. We could then argue for years about how innacurate the image was but it wouldn't alter the fact that that was what the person meant.

On your final point I don't think there was a confusion over Jewish/foreign was there? As I understood it, Hutchinson said Jewish appearance, Abberline understood this as did any officer connected to the case who was privvy to the information, (Paddy attached the copy of the statement above) but when published by the press somebody changed it to foreign presumably to avert any anti semitic tensions?

Happy to be corrected if that wasn't what happened.

regards,

[Errata]

Hi C4,

Yes you make good points too. It's like the 4 legged dog thing. Every dog has 4 legs but not everything with 4 legs is a dog. So, to point somebody out and comment on their Jewishness isn't neccessarily anti semitic, but it is the type of thing an anti semite might do.

regards,

My entire life I have been confronted with "Funny, you don't LOOK Jewish." And I have red hair and green eyes because I'm Scottish as well as Jewish. Trying to explain to people that a Religion does not necessarily confine itself to a phenotype (or race if you will) has just been a losing proposition. None of these people have been anti semites. Most have been my friends. Strangers. Parents of boyfriends.

And when I ask what a Jew is supposed to look like, most people say "Seinfeld". And I can't deny that a lot of us look like that here in the US. My dad looks like that. That whole side of the family looks like that. You know who else looks like that? Pick a Russian. Any Russian. Most of us here came from Russia and Poland. But it's not a "Jewish" look. It's a Slavic look. An Eastern European look. Most Jews that people have met came from that region. So yes, the four legged dog, but more so. Not all Jews are Eastern European. Not all Easter Europeans are Jews. Some Jews look like Scots. Stalin looked Jewish. Really really wasn't.

There are in fact two completely different mafias in New York. One is made up of Russian Jews. One is made up of Russian Orthodox. The one made up of Russian Jews is notorious (The "Jewish" mafia, Coen, Seigel, etc.). Cuba, Vegas, really anything from Godfather II. It's mostly gone now, but still exists in terms of community bosses and labor. The Russian mob is new. Came over in the early 90s. Not Jewish, not gone, very brutal. Still very much a problem. And both resent the hell out of being assumed to be a part of the other. Like for the love of god do not make that mistake. The Jewish mafia objects to the gratuitous violence of the new guys. The Russian Mafia objects to being thought of as Jews.

I honestly don't think any witness in this case would have said that a person was of Jewish appearance unless they really thought that person was Jewish. Which for them would have meant Eastern European. But there were Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc. in London who were not Jewish. They were fleeing the same things the Jews were fleeing. And then you have to wonder how much exposure these people had to other races. North Africans have many similar features to Eastern Europeans. So do Gypsies, and they had never lived in England previous to the 1870s. South Americans share many features with Eastern Europeans. So do we expect them to be able to differentiate, or do we accept that Jewish may mean large nose and dark hair?

Hutch's description is kind of interesting. He says Jewish appearance, but according the dress he gives, the man was not Jewish. It sounds like the man was North African. Saudi perhaps. Middle Eastern fibers in his clothing, ostentatious gold chain, carnelian seal, a horseshoe which was a popular charm in that region and not too many other places at that time. Could be Afghani, could be a well traveled Russian, could be Egyptian. Certainly foreign, not at all Jewish. Frankly there were not many of us left in the middle east at that point, and those that were there lived in isolated communities eschewing any cultural contamination from surrounding peoples. And the Zionist movement was strong at this point. Any middle eastern Jews who were going to move went to Palestine.

I really think not Jewish. But if not Jewish then what? If North African surely that seriously winnows down the suspect pool. The real question isn't "Does foreign mean Jewish?. The real question is "Did the assumption of Jewish instead of foreign hurt the case?"

[Tecs]

Hello Tec,

I was interested to read your post and think you can very well draw a parallel between the jewish immigrants to the East End in the 1880s and the recent influx of eastern europeans. The Jews replaced the irish cockneys as the lowest in the pecking order - not sure who the eastern europeans replaced - perhaps the gypsies? There does seem to be an inherent need in the human race to feel "better" than someone. I once listened to a pair of Swedish drunks on the underground, each trying to impress the other, and the winner seemed to be the one who could say that his wife had the better job. "Bigger fleas have smaller fleas upon their backs to bite 'em etc".

Rumours of the ill-doings reputed to have been committed by those furthest down flourish and it is only a step from "these Jews/eastern europeans are always up to no good" to "He's up to no good, he must be a Jew/eastern european!". It is therefore easy to tar all foreigners with the same brush. My daughter-in-law's Swedish midwife, Swedish appearance, speaks perfect english, lived with her (Swedish) husband in Kent for sixteen years and happened to enter a pub speaking Swedish. The landlord immediately told them to get out, "we don't serve your sort in here". When she replied "What? Swedes?" everything was rosy again but I can't help wondering if their decision to move back to Sweden was influenced by this. People are discontented and want someone to blame and many of the "upper classes" are only too happy to encourage the idea that immigrants are to blame for everything wrong with society. I can't help feeling that this was the case in the east end in the 1880s.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi C4,

Yes you make good points too. It's like the 4 legged dog thing. Every dog has 4 legs but not everything with 4 legs is a dog. So, to point somebody out and comment on their Jewishness isn't neccessarily anti semitic, but it is the type of thing an anti semite might do.

regards,

[Tecs]

Tecs....

Forgive me if I've misunderstood but as far as I remember the Jewish/foreigner issue was more about the Police changing the words? In answering the possible anti semitism of the Police it was pointed out that Hutchinson described a man of Jewish appearance

Pat.....................

Pat,

Exactly!

And when it appeared in the papers it said Foreign appearance.


Thanks,

regards,

[Paddy]

Gov'ner

As a cockney myself I recall this being used by shopkeepers or costermongers.
As said before to appease customers. Not to people higher but more to equals. I would say someone who offered a service would use this term.
Another address I recall was when someone asked a stranger a question they called them John ! I thought my dad knew the people and made him laugh...

As there were many Jewish people from Spain, Holland, Germany, Poland and Austria in the East End foreigners would probably have been a more correct term to use.

I recall from what my aunt told me that a lot of the Jewish people were smarter
dressed with their overcoats and hats.

Pat..........................................

[curious4]

Immigrants

Dear all,

Forgive me if I've misunderstood but as far as I remember the Jewish/foreigner issue was more about the Police changing the words? In answering the possible anti semitism of the Police it was pointed out that Hutchinson described a man of Jewish appearance but when printed in the press it was changed to foreign vis a vis, the Police actually tried to divert any suspicion from the Jews in order, most likely, to prevent any anti semitic incidents. This suggests that the locals didn't actually call Jews foreigners or vice versa but rather they did just call Jews Jews and it was changed elsewhere.

On the other points raised, I wish I could find a previous post I did and copy and paste it as it is the exact same point but wrt people asking what Jewish actually looks like, I did suggest that in our modern politically correct world we are terrified of ever saying anything that could even vaguely be considered racist, anti semitic or such like. As a result we shy away from saying what is true. I went to an event at a Jewish centre a few years ago. It was attended by many Jews and non Jews and to get to the point, it was very obvious on the whole who was Jewish and who wasn't. Of course it's not 100% accurate and there were plenty of people there who were Jewish but didn't look it and probably vice versa too. But let's not be silly, we all know what Jewish appearance looks like, and in many cases it would be true. No, it's not the be all and end all, no it's not 100% accurate, no I wouldn't bet my house on it and yes, of course there are exceptions but on the whole, I know what is meant by Jewish appearance.

As a final asside, we have many Polish people here in the North West. One of our local supermarkets is near to where many of them have settled and you hear many Polish and Eastern European voices when you are in there. I am pretty certain that I could identify 8-9 out of 10 people as Polish even though I couldn't tell you exactly what somebody Polish looks like! I was in there on Sunday and it is very clear who the Polish people are, it's just an instinct, it's just human nature.

And to pretend that it doesn't exist or that in any way it is symptomatic of anything sinister is stupid and even offensive.

regards,

Hello Tec,

I was interested to read your post and think you can very well draw a parallel between the jewish immigrants to the East End in the 1880s and the recent influx of eastern europeans. The Jews replaced the irish cockneys as the lowest in the pecking order - not sure who the eastern europeans replaced - perhaps the gypsies? There does seem to be an inherent need in the human race to feel "better" than someone. I once listened to a pair of Swedish drunks on the underground, each trying to impress the other, and the winner seemed to be the one who could say that his wife had the better job. "Bigger fleas have smaller fleas upon their backs to bite 'em etc".

Rumours of the ill-doings reputed to have been committed by those furthest down flourish and it is only a step from "these Jews/eastern europeans are always up to no good" to "He's up to no good, he must be a Jew/eastern european!". It is therefore easy to tar all foreigners with the same brush. My daughter-in-law's Swedish midwife, Swedish appearance, speaks perfect english, lived with her (Swedish) husband in Kent for sixteen years and happened to enter a pub speaking Swedish. The landlord immediately told them to get out, "we don't serve your sort in here". When she replied "What? Swedes?" everything was rosy again but I can't help wondering if their decision to move back to Sweden was influenced by this. People are discontented and want someone to blame and many of the "upper classes" are only too happy to encourage the idea that immigrants are to blame for everything wrong with society. I can't help feeling that this was the case in the east end in the 1880s.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Guv'nor

I can't honestly recall its being used to address a superior, come to think of it, C4. I've usually heard it in shops/markets as the vendor hands over, say, a bag of fruit ("There ya go, guv'nor"), on leaving a taxi ("Take care, guv'nor") or as a greeting between friends ("Wotcha, guv").

Never have I heard it used from a pleb (like me) to a police officer, bank clerk, doctor, dentist or other figure possessing the merest authority. It's perhaps a tad too "familiar" for that.

Hello Sam,

Looked up "guv'nor" and in the on-line Cambridge Dictionary, it is defined as "a man who is in a position of authority over you", while in the Urban dictionary it is said to mean "The Boss".

From your examples I would say that sometimes some plebs are more equal than others, and that you, being the paying customer, are in a position of power, so that the taxi-driver, greengrocer etc could be said to be "bigging you up" as your custom is important to them. Have you, for example, ever gone into a shop and asked for "a pound of onions, please guv"? Yes, I agree it is a term of familiarity. A politician in a posh suit, or a banker, for example would be addressed as "sir" (or cur, as I would prefer to spell the word in that case).

Between equals on a level footing I think most would use the word "mate" and this does seem to be the case between my nephews and their friends on Facebook, both working class men of around forty, and this seems also to have been passed on to their sons (aged around 12-13). After he discovered Eddowes' body, P.C. Watkins ran to the warehouse watchman for help exclaiming "For God's sake mate (i.e. friend, colleague) come to my assistance!".

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[Paddy]

Hutchinsons Statement

Tecs....

Forgive me if I've misunderstood but as far as I remember the Jewish/foreigner issue was more about the Police changing the words? In answering the possible anti semitism of the Police it was pointed out that Hutchinson described a man of Jewish appearance

Pat.....................

[Tecs]

Just a quick question. If the Eastenders referred to Jews as "foreigners", what did they call foreigners?

Best wishes,
C4

Dear all,

Forgive me if I've misunderstood but as far as I remember the Jewish/foreigner issue was more about the Police changing the words? In answering the possible anti semitism of the Police it was pointed out that Hutchinson described a man of Jewish appearance but when printed in the press it was changed to foreign vis a vis, the Police actually tried to divert any suspicion from the Jews in order, most likely, to prevent any anti semitic incidents. This suggests that the locals didn't actually call Jews foreigners or vice versa but rather they did just call Jews Jews and it was changed elsewhere.

On the other points raised, I wish I could find a previous post I did and copy and paste it as it is the exact same point but wrt people asking what Jewish actually looks like, I did suggest that in our modern politically correct world we are terrified of ever saying anything that could even vaguely be considered racist, anti semitic or such like. As a result we shy away from saying what is true. I went to an event at a Jewish centre a few years ago. It was attended by many Jews and non Jews and to get to the point, it was very obvious on the whole who was Jewish and who wasn't. Of course it's not 100% accurate and there were plenty of people there who were Jewish but didn't look it and probably vice versa too. But let's not be silly, we all know what Jewish appearance looks like, and in many cases it would be true. No, it's not the be all and end all, no it's not 100% accurate, no I wouldn't bet my house on it and yes, of course there are exceptions but on the whole, I know what is meant by Jewish appearance.

As a final asside, we have many Polish people here in the North West. One of our local supermarkets is near to where many of them have settled and you hear many Polish and Eastern European voices when you are in there. I am pretty certain that I could identify 8-9 out of 10 people as Polish even though I couldn't tell you exactly what somebody Polish looks like! I was in there on Sunday and it is very clear who the Polish people are, it's just an instinct, it's just human nature.

And to pretend that it doesn't exist or that in any way it is symptomatic of anything sinister is stupid and even offensive.

regards,

[Sam Flynn]

Can't remember ever having heard the expression being used between equals when I was a child or even later.

I can't honestly recall its being used to address a superior, come to think of it, C4. I've usually heard it in shops/markets as the vendor hands over, say, a bag of fruit ("There ya go, guv'nor"), on leaving a taxi ("Take care, guv'nor") or as a greeting between friends ("Wotcha, guv").

Never have I heard it used from a pleb (like me) to a police officer, bank clerk, doctor, dentist or other figure possessing the merest authority. It's perhaps a tad too "familiar" for that.

[lynn cates]

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann . . .

Hello Ginger. Thanks for posting that.

"Still, I don't doubt the reporter interviewed her, and see no reason to think that he didn't correctly relate the gist of her story."

Nor yet I. The man was:

1. waiting for the market to open

2. spoke with a foreign accent

3. looked Jewish (whatever that means)

And it could have been anyone--just as the foreign looking man, seen by Long, could have been anyone.

Of course, the man who was found living in a house off New Caledonian Road was NOT just anyone--it was Isenschmid. He had been wandering the streets for several weeks.

Cheers.
LC

[Ginger]

"What prompted the question was the account of the strange man on the stairs in Hanbury street. He was referred to as "a foreigner" and we are told that he must therefore have been Jewish."

For what it's worth, the "Evening Standard" for Sept 10th (http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18880910.html) quotes Mrs. Richardson as saying

The only possible clue that I can think of is that Mr. Thompson's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew; and spoke with a foreign accent.

Whether these are Mrs. Richardson's verbatim words is open to question, considering that the sentence occurs in the middle of a fairly polished expository paragraph. Still, I don't doubt the reporter interviewed her, and see no reason to think that he didn't correctly relate the gist of her story.

[Observer]

Hello Observer,

Never suggested that the man was Swiss - that was Lynn's input. Not heard the expression being used among equals, though.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi C4

It was aimed at the said gent. Re guv'nor, I have often herd it used thus

Regards

Observer