Is Kosminski the man really viable?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I really donīt need to go into Andersonīs religious texts to form an opinion of how Victorian racism in combination with phrenology could have shaped the conception of what the Ripper was, Sir Robert!

I think it helps, Fisherman, because you are taking what you believe (correctly) about Victorian attitudes towards "low class Polish Jews" in general and applying them to a specific individual who happens to have written quite a few evangelical works. It might be possible to glean from them his attitudes towards Jews. Messianic millennialist evangelicals believe the Second Coming is close at hand, and Israel and the Chosen People figure quite prominently in their beliefs.

My wife is a PhD in chemistry, dealing with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry on a daily basis, so Iīm afraid Iīm rather well acquainted with these tools...!

I wish I had known!

[Errata]

The East End Jews weren't being all that cooperative and in that light Anderson's comment become more factual and less biased. And "low class" specifically referred to Eastern European Jews. I think we are reading it with modern eyes and assigning bias where it might not be.

I have always been unclear as to whether the Jews were not being cooperative because they refused to cooperate, or because they had nothing to tell. Being Jewish, I tend to examine seemingly antisemitic statements pretty hard. I did it for a living at one point. And I gotta tell you, there are some pretty blatant antisemitic statements attached to this case, but even I have no idea if Anderson was antisemitic. There is a level of distaste that can be perceived from his writings, but honestly I get the impression that he is more disturbed by their poverty than by their Jewishness. It's that they are dirty, not that they are dirty Jews.

What I can say with absolute surety is that there was an astounding lack of sensitivity when dealing with Jews during this investigation. And it was a sensitivity that the authorities were both capable of, and had shown previously. Certainly every police officer knew what to say and what not to say to the rich/noble, knew how to alter their language, be less confrontational. So it was a skill they had.

When we are talking about low class Eastern European Jews, we are generally talking about fleeing the pogroms in the Pale. People who have had their houses searched once a week for years. People denied work, denied justice. People burned out of their homes, people who miraculously escaped when they were locked in their synagogues and burned to death. Or hanged. Or shot for sport. I mean, it was terrible, and everyone in England knew about it. It had been in the papers, there were fundraisers, missions, charities, all evolved to help these specific people.

So you gotta ask yourself, what were they being asked to cooperate with? To the best of my knowledge there is no record of any Jew refusing to be questioned, or refusing to give a statement. Schwartz certainly walked right in there and gave a statement. So that's not the problem. The problem is that they became exceptionally frightened when their houses were searched, when they taken away by the police for further inquiry, and let's face it. They totally knew that cops were watching their every move. That they were infiltrating their neighborhoods. The not speaking Yiddish part was probably a dead give away. So they became uncooperative (meaning terrified) when the English police started doing exactly what they had just fled, and in their reality, those actions were the precursors to the burnings. And their only protection was complete and total avoidance.

Now, if the cops had thought about it for two seconds, they would have probably figured out that everything they wanted to do was going to generate an insane amount of fear. And that the practical application of a little sympathy would go a long way. For example, when you go to search the houses, have a Rabbi with you to show that you are not hiding this from the community, and have him be able to reassure the residents that this is not a Pogrom. If you take away someone for further questioning, allow a family member to come with you and wait for their relative to get done. I mean, there is any number of things they could have done to calm the community. But they didn't.

So a spectacular lack of sympathy. It is not inherently racist, since we all think our problems are worse than someone else's problems. On the other hand, if the decision was based on the idea that Jews were a bunch of rats nesting in the East End, and don't get to complain that they get rousted out and searched, then it is racist.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

What a great post Errata! Thank you.

[Cogidubnus]

It is indeed a great post...and makes me think a good deal better of Warren, who's concerns now seem (to me at least) more than just those of public order...

All the best

Dave

[Paddy]

Errata

Now, if the cops had thought about it for two seconds, they would have probably figured out that everything they wanted to do was going to generate an insane amount of fear. And that the practical application of a little sympathy would go a long way. For example, when you go to search the houses, have a Rabbi with you to show that you are not hiding this from the community, and have him be able to reassure the residents that this is not a Pogrom. If you take away someone for further questioning, allow a family member to come with you and wait for their relative to get done. I mean, there is any number of things they could have done to calm the community. But they didn't.

How do we know they didnt do this? I thought the Rabbi was involved?
I get the impression Anderson means low class meaning not working, as in not working class. They were very hard working people but there was a criminal underclass, one only has to read the papers. However your post made me think how scary it would have been for them.

Pat

[DVV]

I really don't think that the Jews in London would have feared a pogrom, whatever they had suffered in Eastern Europe.
I don't know if Anderson was antisemitic, but his famous "diagnosis", albeit erroneous imo, was not.

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert:

"I think it helps, Fisherman, because you are taking what you believe (correctly) about Victorian attitudes towards "low class Polish Jews" in general and applying them to a specific individual who happens to have written quite a few evangelical works."

No. And thatīs where you repeatedly misunderstand me. I am not saying that because the Victorians generally lived in a society that endorsed racism without even realizing it was there, Anderson must also have done so. I am not applying the overall rule to any single individual, unless I clearly see that it ought to be done - like in the case of that Colney Hatch medico. And that is an interesting example - imagine any bigwig medico stepping out on the stairs outside his institution today, giving the cameras a superior glance and saying "Jews, as we all know, are the lowest people on earth. What low mischief others may do, Jews will take it to an even lower level. They are unsavoury, sickening people when at their worst."

How long do you expect that medico would remain in office? Five minutes? Three? But back in 1888, judges, fellow medicos, politicians, newspaper editors and business tycoons would instead have nodded their heads in ackowledgement.

I am outlining the sort of thinking that was prevalent in these questions in the society in a general sense. And I do so because we need to realize that there is every chance that this may well have coloured Andersons and Swansons thinking. And if it did, the sentiments in the society in which they lived, as well as the scientific view about the built-in differences between Jews and gentiles, was nothing that was going to change this.

In our world, anybody who says that a Jew, for built-in biological causes, cannot do what gentiles can, is a proven racist. Science teaches us that this is a wrongful perception.
If anybody back in 1888 said that Jews COULD do what gentiles can, because we do not differ in any biologically ruled manner, then that somebody would be subjected to severe criticism too, and by the same supreme judge: science.

This is the context I am after. After that, Iīm sure that in-depth studies of Andersons writings will offer a picture of the man that allows us to make a useful guess about whether he was a raving anti-semite or somebody who differed very much from his contemporaries by early on realizing all peopleīs equal value.
But others have tried this, and as we both know, nobody has come away with any certainty on the score. The man remains a total enigma. Racist or non-racist? Canīt say. Truthful or a deceiver with a professional background in deception? Wouldnīt know. Given to muddling things up and forgetting, or a sharp mind? Hard to tell.

Therefore I remain at my stance: Since I am not after proving that Anderson would have been of a derogatory stance towards Jews, I donīt think I need to read all of his religious texts. Since I am after showing that the societal context offered science-endorsed racism, I direct my efforts to showing this instead. Preconceived notions WILL have been at work in the investigation, whether Anderson wanted and/or endorsed it or not, as shown by for example Sagar. So even if Anderson was a man that would not step into this trap - which was not regarded as a trap at all in 1888 - much of the work that was aimed at digging up useful suspects will have had a starting point of accepting that a Jew with a psychiatric diagnosis was about as good a bid for the Ripperīs role that they were going to get.

"I wish I had known!"

Well, that was just an example of very bad luck, Sir Robert. Have a stab at any other discipline of science, and you will easily find topics I know not a iota about. Sadly!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hello Errata.

Indeed, a very well written post and well considered. At this point, it might be useful to point out a few things from the other side of the coin, as it were.
-without criticism in any sense.
From what I have been told, directly by and through my own family, is that there were many "East Enders" who had no problem at all with the Jewish population into the East End. The great majority, I was told, were friendly, polite and helpful.
The same apparently applied to the sizeable Irish contingent in the area, although this particular group, particularly the male population, had, so I have been told, the reputation for violence, drunkeness and rowdy behaviour. These impressions however, of course, are just impressions left from a minority, I'd think, on balance. There were smaller and larger "gangs" or "groupings" of "foreigners" throughout the areas of East London. Some areas had a greater concentration of Jews, some a greater concentration of Irish. Some areas still remained predominently "home-grown" East Londoners. Their own reputation was in some cases, pretty bad as well. Hoxton was notorious as an area of thieves. Haggerston to a certain extent also. In the case of Hoxton, this reputation carried on for many many years.

I am not trying to eclipse any written word before me on this thread..just thought I'd shoot this tit bit in for perusal.

best wishes

phil

[Errata]

I really don't think that the Jews in London would have feared a pogrom, whatever they had suffered in Eastern Europe.
I don't know if Anderson was antisemitic, but his famous "diagnosis", albeit erroneous imo, was not.

It's not that they feared a pogrom per se. But it's like asking a war vet with PTSD to talk to the cops next to a shooting range. People who have lived in fear, just like people with PTSD have well worn paths in their brain on how to deal with the perception of threat, how to deal with fear, etc. Likely no one thought "my place is being searched, ergo we are all going to die." but they would have felt it. And I'm sure some wondered what it meant, and where it would lead. But did they believe in an imminent pogrom? Probably not. But once their fear was triggered would the well worn paths in their brain in how to deal with threat have been activated? Absolutely.

Thought and feeling in these instances are miles apart. In fact it would not be uncommon at all for them to think one thing, and act as thought they believed something else entirely. My best friend came back from Iraq an not only took cover at loud unexpected sounds, but would just have panic attacks over like, the dead microwave someone puts by the side of the road for the trashmen to pick up (he defused roadside bombs). He knew he was home, he knew he was safe. And that didn't matter in the slightest as far as his emotions and reactions were concerned. The average Jew could have been certain beyond any doubt that the English wouldn't harm them. They still would have reacted as though it was a Pogrom. The fear triggered would have been the same.

[Errata]

Hello Errata.

Indeed, a very well written post and well considered. At this point, it might be useful to point out a few things from the other side of the coin, as it were.
-without criticism in any sense.
From what I have been told, directly by and through my own family, is that there were many "East Enders" who had no problem at all with the Jewish population into the East End. The great majority, I was told, were friendly, polite and helpful.
The same apparently applied to the sizeable Irish contingent in the area, although this particular group, particularly the male population, had, so I have been told, the reputation for violence, drunkeness and rowdy behaviour. These impressions however, of course, are just impressions left from a minority, I'd think, on balance. There were smaller and larger "gangs" or "groupings" of "foreigners" throughout the areas of East London. Some areas had a greater concentration of Jews, some a greater concentration of Irish. Some areas still remained predominently "home-grown" East Londoners. Their own reputation was in some cases, pretty bad as well. Hoxton was notorious as an area of thieves. Haggerston to a certain extent also. In the case of Hoxton, this reputation carried on for many many years.

I am not trying to eclipse any written word before me on this thread..just thought I'd shoot this tit bit in for perusal.

best wishes

phil

I wouldn't disagree with a word of this. I would say that the vast majority of problems the Jewish community faced were from outsiders. Not their own neighbors. Certainly during the frenzy of suspicion during the Ripper murders things got tense. And I'm sure things were said by neighbors that they didn't actually mean, it was just the fear talking. And I'm equally sure that after things settled down they worked it out. But I will say that since the dawn of time, people who know Jews have never been the problem for Jews. It's the people who don't know them, don't care to know them, have never had a Jew connected to them in some way who serves as a living reminder that the stereotypes are not always true. You can't say "All Jews are greedy money grubbing monster who want to kill us in our beds." if the nice Jewish lady next door cooks for you on Sunday nights.

In our history, we have almost never been persecuted by the people in our lives. Betrayed by them certainly, Nazi Germany stands out, but almost never out of hatred. Out of fear of reprisal. Or just out of fear. But that's different, and that can happen to anyone, so generally I don't judge people for that. But people we see every day, people we chat with, people whose kids play with our kids, they never start these things. They may not stand by us as we had hoped they would, but they aren't the ones beating us in an alley. I think it very likely that while these Jews did not trust their neighbors for protection, they didn't fear them either. It's the people they didn't know who they feared.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sir Robert:

No. And thatīs where you repeatedly misunderstand me. I am not saying that because the Victorians generally lived in a society that endorsed racism without even realizing it was there, Anderson must also have done so. I am not applying the overall rule to any single individual, unless I clearly see that it ought to be done - like in the case of that Colney Hatch medico. And that is an interesting example - imagine any bigwig medico stepping out on the stairs outside his institution today, giving the cameras a superior glance and saying "Jews, as we all know, are the lowest people on earth. What low mischief others may do, Jews will take it to an even lower level. They are unsavoury, sickening people when at their worst."

Although from working class stock myself, I think one of the most interesting subjects surrounding English history is the public schoolboy and the English upper-class.

Generally, people commenting on the subject are woefully ill-informed.

Those people were a breed underpinned by character rather than nationality.

Anybody could be an English gentleman providing their parents had the money to put them through a public school (it was a product where men went through a process and came out of it with a certain state of being; and in many ways was the model for social mobility despite the popular misconception - if you had the money you were in and in return, at the end of it, you would get a son steeped in the characteristics of the English gentleman).

The many German, American etc young men educated at English public schools were and are seen as English gentlemen by their fellows.

In terms of character, it was a system, and still is, which was, and is, intended to instill: discipline, stoicism, unswerving loyalty, fair play, courage, leadership, industry, team orientation and athleticism (among others).

Chrisitianity was a major part of this, granted, but you would need to understand English Protestantism to understand that it is a peculiarly English concept which is light on dogma and heavy on ethics (nothing like Northern European Protestantism or Roman Catholicism). In other words, ethics or principles again is at the core, as opposed to religious doctrine.

Public schools were centred around team sports, school 'houses' and boarding schools with the idea being to instill loyalty to that school, as these were the men who were going to lead future battalions in war; and so it was felt necessary to breed a group of people who put their fellows above even their families. Did you know that junior officers, made up of public schoolboys, were as interested in not letting down their schools as they were of not letting down their families - as shown through WW1 memoirs? This is your answer as to why Anderson would not tell tales out of school. Anderson and his ilk had unswerving loyalty to their fellows - they'd had it rammed into them that any other behaviour was unacceptable, and to do so would have shattered Anderson's very sense of being.

In terms of racism, these people would have had no preference whether Jack was of English or foreign stock, providing he wasn't a gentleman. In the event it was an English gentleman, yes, they would have been horrified; and, yes, they would never in a million years have believed that the murders could have been committed by such a person. The East End of London was an alien world to those people - foreign? middle/working class Englishman? same thing to them - people from another world.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry
if Israel Scwartz was the witness used for the Kosminski ID at the Seaside home, then why was the City police the ones keeping surveillance on Kosminski?

Because, Abby, the City was investigating the murder of Kate Eddowes, a crime committed on City territory. Kosminski just happened to live within the Met's operational jurisdiction.

Scwartz saw an attack in Berner street in Met area, whereas Lawende saw a suspect in City area(Mitre square). If Scwartz was the witness, then the crime scene, suspect etc are all in Met area-and the city would have no part in it, right?

The two forces worked in tandem, Abby, conducting independent but related investigations into a single series of murders.

Am i missing something here? Does not the City involvement in the surveillance point to Lawende being the witness as he saw a suspect in City jurisdiction?

Swanson's words leave no room for ambiguity, Abby. Lawende could not have been the witness who identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home.

[Garry Wroe]

Hello Garry,

This is one of the best posts I have seen on the subject.

Many thanks, Phil. Most kind.

[Garry Wroe]

Should we ask whether Anderson's "profile" evolved from his suspicions of Kosminski, or, as you say, Kosminski appeared to fit that preconception?

Unquestionably the latter, Jon.

[Errata]

In terms of racism, these people would have had no preference whether Jack was of English or foreign stock, providing he wasn't a gentleman. In the event it was an English gentleman, yes, they would have been horrified; and, yes, they would never in a million years have believed that the murders could have been committed by such a person. The East End of London was an alien world to those people - foreign? middle/working class Englishman? same thing to them - people from another world.

Something that has always amused me, and probably because I am not a bit English, are the very peculiar Victorian projections on the rest of history and society. Chivalry for example. Almost everything we know about the code of honor attributed to King Arthur, Tristan, etc. is not chivalry at all. It's the Victorian code of a gentleman. Chivalric heroes are a Victorian construct, damsels in distress were a Victorian construct, even nobless oblige took a rather astounding turn during the Victorian period. And I have English friends who have been very expensively educated, some have titles in a long string of names, and it still catches me off guard when they say to me "Now I want your word as a gentleman on that." None of them have ever changed it to "gentlewoman" because that means something different (one friend did say that, and he wanted me to sew something for him.) They are appealing to my honor, which means being a gentleman.

And I'll tell you something else. I grew up in a wealthy family. I may be American, I may be Jewish, I may be a southerner, I am a lot of things. But if you put me in a room with a working class southern American Jew and wealthy Protestant Englishman, you know who I'm going to have more in common with one? It's not the Jew. Socioeconomic status defines us more than any other passive state of being. More than religion, more than geography, more than anything other than shared trauma and occupation. And if you don't want to talk about work or past horrors, you're back to socioeconomic status. That's the pond we are most comfortable in. The one with all the other ducks in our income level.