Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Foreigners

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Whether or not the stereotype is actually true, most people, then and now, take it to be true, so that when a witness says "He looked like a Jew", we can be pretty sure that he's describing a dark-haired man with dark eyes and a prominent nose. The witness statements should be understood in the light of a physical description, I think, rather than as assertions about religion or nationality. The witnesses, after all, are saying "he looked like ...", not "he was ...".

    The real question is, in that time and place, when someone said "he looked like a foreigner", did they mean the same thing as someone saying "he looked like a Jew", or is there some shade of meaning that's been lost?
    - Ginger

    Comment


    • #47
      G'Day all

      Just my two cents worth.

      But I've always presumed the foreign had more to do with clothing, hat, hairstyle etc and there, especially with C19 Jews, you could see a difference.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Ginger View Post
        Whether or not the stereotype is actually true, most people, then and now, take it to be true, so that when a witness says "He looked like a Jew", we can be pretty sure that he's describing a dark-haired man with dark eyes and a prominent nose. The witness statements should be understood in the light of a physical description, I think, rather than as assertions about religion or nationality. The witnesses, after all, are saying "he looked like ...", not "he was ...".
        You are absolutely right. My point is that no stereotypical appearance confines itself to a single group. With the sole exception of the Maori. The description anyone gives of a "typical" Jew could apply to about five other ethnic groups. So since "looks Jewish" doesn't mean "is Jewish", a person has to ditch the stereotype and go by the alluded to features. And the problem with taking the stereotype, or even believing it is that it becomes entirely possible that the police looked ONLY for someone who was Jewish. Not someone who might be of some entirely different ethnicity who shares those features.
        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by GUT View Post
          G'Day all

          Just my two cents worth.

          But I've always presumed the foreign had more to do with clothing, hat, hairstyle etc and there, especially with C19 Jews, you could see a difference.
          GUT, I would say that you can spot an Englishman a mile off by the way we dress, and there are certain English characteristics to dressing that are unique to us.

          But, I think this thread has been taken down a dead end by certain posters. No one was claiming that 'Jews' stand out and somehow we are the blonde haired, blue eyed Aryans and Jews are all dark and 'swarthy'.

          It was more a comment on Eastern Europeans and their features as opposed to ours, and anyone who can't see that must be blind.

          Is anyone seriously suggesting that you can't differentiate between a Frenchman and an Englishman through 10 seconds of seeing how they dress, walk down the street, their features, how they communicate etc?

          Foreigners really do stand out in England, including Aussies and Americans.

          Comment


          • #50
            G'Day Fleetwood Mac

            Aussies stand out!!!!!

            Not by being drunken yobs in shorts, slouch hats and thongs I should hope.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #51
              What is interesting about the Hanbury street man is that (I think it was) John Richardson was said to have addressed him as "guv'nor", something Jack London mentions, saying that as soon as he put on his "poor" clothes he was no longer so addressed.
              Good point, well made. Appearances can be deceptive and perception is (almost) everything. If you dressed like a toff, you'd be treated like a toff.
              I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

              Comment


              • #52
                Although, personally, I doubt very much that the Hanbury Street man in question - sleeping rough and waiting for the market - dressed anything like a "toff".

                Comment


                • #53
                  I agree that he may have been inaccurate so do you think that the likelihood is that he just used a catch all description out of convenience, lazyness or even prejudice?
                  You refer to Hutchinson. There are two possibilities with regard to this witness,irrespective of his motives:-
                  (1) He was lying.
                  (2) he was telling the truth.
                  If he was telling the truth he was a remarkably perceptive witness. (They do exist). His description of the man he claims to have seen is either invented or extremely detailed, depending on which of the possible views of his testimony you take.

                  Hutchinson's description is either mendacious or well-observed. I don't think it can be described as 'lazy'. If he was truthful, I would take it that the man was, or gave the appearance of being, specifically Jewish, rather than generally foreign.
                  I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Ben View Post
                    Although, personally, I doubt very much that the Hanbury Street man in question - sleeping rough and waiting for the market - dressed anything like a "toff".
                    Hi Ben,

                    Apologies for being less than clear. I was commenting on the remarks attributed to Jack London. I agree with your assessment of the Hanbury Street stranger being unlikely to have been dressed like a toff.
                    I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Understood, Bridewell, and thanks for clarifying.

                      All the best,
                      Ben

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by GUT View Post
                        G'Day Fleetwood Mac

                        Aussies stand out!!!!!

                        Not by being drunken yobs in shorts, slouch hats and thongs I should hope.
                        Hello GUT, well of all the ex-colonies, and I hope you people know your place, still, after all this time; and this includes all of you, even the people who were never colonies, such as the French; who need to know their place, the Aussies are most like us in outlook.

                        But, I can only make this point. I'm sat here in what could only possibly be considered to be an English style of dress. The only other people who could possibly dress like this are the Welsh and definitely not our Jock friends from north of the border.

                        I'm sat in a pair of cords, a set of black brogue shoes, a jumper made in the US (Gant), and a Barbour coat hanging on the door. Now, imagine that look: would an Australian or an American really dress like that? It's a monumental no from all four corners of the earth. The English have a long history of taking other people's ideas and melding them into our own view of life. We do this very well, whether it's music or clothes or anything.

                        Now, I dress like an Englishman, and I walk like an Englishman - we think we own the earth. Moreover, you could pin me down to the North of England by style of dress because a Londoner would wear a suit jacket with a pair of brogues - not a Barbour coat.

                        And, the really observant could easily pin me down to the North East of England, because other parts of the North tend not to be so formal - it's a product of our mining culture.

                        Also, you could easily pin me down as a Working Class North Easterner who has done alright for himself to be able to afford expensive clothes, but doesn't have the hair that the middle class tend to have. Middle Class people in England do not, as a rule, crop their hair, it's beneath them; I've always had my hair cropped.

                        And then, for the really observant. You could pin me down to County Durham by my build. I'm 5'9 with broad shoulders - being average height but broad suggests I could be from coal mining stock, which I am, and those who know England's history know that people came all over to work in the mines in County Durham: Jocks, Taffs, Irish etc, but just by the look around my eyes you'd know there's no Irish or Welsh blood in me.

                        If you put up a Scotsman and an Englishman in photos, it would be obvious to the observant which one is which just by the look around the eyes.

                        Anyone seriously suggesting that you can't tell an Englishman from other nationalities must be on some serious mind bending drugs, and if those people making the suggestions are American then God only knows what they're thinking of because Americans are some of the most easily recognisable people in the world.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          G'Day Mac

                          Us colonists down under know our place for sure [tugging his forelock, for whatever that means].

                          And please don't tell anybody but I largely agree.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The English have a long history of taking other people's ideas and melding them into our own view of life. We do this very well, whether it's music or clothes or anything.
                            And do you think us poor dumb colonists don't?
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              My dad was a cockney from London and would have not stood out one bit in Oz with his mannerisms, his sayings and personality....Bless him !

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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                A lot depends on

                                1. How long the foreigner has been "in-country" [I think Pat's dad might stand out for lack of tan]

                                2. How much they have integrated into the local society, dress, language mannerisms etc, you see some immigrants that you'd never pick others stand out 60 years after arrival.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X