Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[Chava]

Hi Observer!

A bunch of Yiddish words are now found especially in London slang. 'Schmutter' (I would say 'schmatte') means clothing and the schmutter trade is the rag trade. 'Schtum' meaning 'keep quiet'. 'Schmuck' meaning a fool. 'Shikse' meaning a non-Jewish girl is pretty widely known. All those words start with 's'!

I'm sure there are others, but it's hard for me to know what's in general-population English as I grew up in a family that routinely used Yiddish words in English speech so I'm used to many more words than that!

[joelhall]

It does Joel, however you have given me some interesting food for thought so its not all gloom, thank you.

Monty

yeah i have a habit for playing devils advocate. helps to think of things in a way you might ordinarily overlook

[Observer]

Hi Chava

In the East End, I think it's certain that some Yiddish words were recognized outside the mainstream of Jewish society.

But the word 'Juwes' ain't one of them! So whether Jack did or did not speak a few words of Yiddish, its relevance to the graffito is nil. The Yiddish word for Jews is 'Yidden'.

Wrong thread for this but

Would I be right in saying that cockney rhyming slang has some Yiddish elements? I think I read that once. Schmuter, is still used in the rag trade. Regardless of Jack having some Yiddish, Stride's assailant knew how to insult them. How long had Schwartz been in the Country? Would he have been aware that Lipski was an insult to Jews? Had he heard the insult before, had he been on the wrong end of a "Lipski"? This one revelation in Schwartz's statement inclines me to believe that he may well have witnessed Stride being attacked.

all the best

Observer

[Monty]

Eddowes Jewish connection

Chris,

Sorry I didnt reply did I?

Lodging house keeper Frederick Wilkinson inquest testimony.

Monty

[Monty]

It does Joel, however you have given me some interesting food for thought so its not all gloom, thank you.

Monty

[joelhall]

Joel,

Interesting post but I feel we are crossing wires. Though Observer sums my point up better than I could.
Monty

no doubt. seems to get that way here

[Monty]

Chris,

Eddowes was said to have worked for some Jews, she was merely an example. However, thank you for mentioning Stride as that adds to my point.

Joel,

Interesting post but I feel we are crossing wires. Though Observer sums my point up better than I could.
Monty

[Observer]

Hi Chris

Hi Monty

Are we getting our Double Event victims mixed up here? As I recall, it is Elizabeth Stride who is said to have been able to speak Yiddish. As far as I know the same was not said about Eddowes, and nor do I know the story that Eddowes worked with Jews. Is there a reference you can point me to? Thanks in advance.

Chris

And lets not forget that according to Schwartz an anti Semetic insult issued from the mouth of Stride's assailant. Lets say that this man was also Eddowes killer, I wonder if the incident with Stride could have prompted the writing in Goulston Street?

all the best

Observer

[joelhall]

Joel,



I admire you confidence yet ask you to cite your evidence as to why its doubtful.

because noone has provided any evidence for it whatsoever. i do not think im doing them a disservice at all given the social climate of the time which is once again rearing its ugly head... mass immigration with less of the native population in regular work. this works against the idea of integration. in fact it causes much hostility. integration only happens if people want to do it, it cannot be forced onto people.

also living in the same area is not integration. again referring to peterborough, lincoln road is a good example. so is the example given of ex-pats in spain. there may be different groups in the same locale but this is not integrating.

'Even if thats true the attempt would have been phonetic.'

maybe, but this is not helpful if you try to read the language phonetically when it is written by someone in their mother-tongue. if youve ever tried to pronounce these words as written with english pronunciation youll see what i mean.

'For, with, its not important. The important thing is that she would have communicated and would most likely have been aware of certain yiddish phrases. I defy anyone who works with people of another culture, religion etc not to pick something up with regards to their lifestyle, religion, language etc.'

its a very important distinction. for means working alone, receiving instructions, likely in english as she was english. so she could understand them. with means alongside, in a mixed environment, at the same level. it is well to be accurate in meaning when looking for evidence. in taking on an english women its extremely doubtful theyd speak to her in their own language, as she wouldnt have a clue what they meant. working for rather than with, shed only have heard their conversations which didnt include her. working alongside, there would have been a common factor allowing some degree of understanding. this is how foreign phrases are picked up.

also i can say with experience not picking up language, lifestyle, etc does happen. though again you refer to working with and not for. its an important difference.

'The Jews may well have segregated themselves, mainly out of the fact that the British populace was pointing the finger. Im not addressing that point. Im stating that the assumption the two 'parties' kept away from each other and that the English speaking Eastender would not have know of certain yiddish phrases or words is a false assumption.'

im afraid i have to reiterate, living near to does not mean integrated. they do not have to 'keep away from each other' to be segregated. and to state eastenders not knowing yiddish phrases is an assuption in itself. where i lived there were people from all over the world in close quarters, yet next to noone knew anything of each others cultures.

finally i should point out the classes also followed this segregation practice. the poor boy would sell the toff his newspaper, but i doubt very much he invited the lad to the theatre afterwards. thats the difference between contact and integration.

[Chava]

In the East End, I think it's certain that some Yiddish words were recognized outside the mainstream of Jewish society.

But the word 'Juwes' ain't one of them! So whether Jack did or did not speak a few words of Yiddish, its relevance to the graffito is nil. The Yiddish word for Jews is 'Yidden'.

[ChrisGeorge]

Joel,



Thats not enitirely true.

In my work I have picked up Gujarati. Didnt specifically learn it, just picked it up and I can get by...to a point.

Eddowes is alledged to have worked with Jews at some stage. If this is true Im sure she would have picked something up.

Monty

The point is Chava, that an English speaking person such as Eddowes would have picked up a yiddish word or two is she mixed with Jews. And Jack may have done likewise, and he may have wrote like it.

Language isnt solely restricted to the native tongue.

Monty

Hi Monty

Are we getting our Double Event victims mixed up here? As I recall, it is Elizabeth Stride who is said to have been able to speak Yiddish. As far as I know the same was not said about Eddowes, and nor do I know the story that Eddowes worked with Jews. Is there a reference you can point me to? Thanks in advance.

Chris

[Monty]

The point is Chava, that an English speaking person such as Eddowes would have picked up a yiddish word or two is she mixed with Jews. And Jack may have done likewise, and he may have wrote like it.

Language isnt solely restricted to the native tongue.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

They would have worked for or with gentiles, they would have had gentiles working for them. But they wouldn't have spent a lot of time mixing with them, especially the kind of gentiles they met in the areas around the Ripper Grounds.

"Not spending a lot of time mixing" and "segregating themselves from the general population" are different things entirely. Both statements are generalisations, however.

They would have done business with them but they wouldn't have been shopping in their shops or drinking in their pubs or whatever.

...were those indigenous Brits who bought from Jewish merchants or, for temperance or religious reasons, avoided drinking in pubs, "segregating themselves", too?

[Chava]

Yes - there were and are Jewish enclaves in London, but the notion that the Jews "segregated themselves from the general population" is a sweeping over-simplification.

No, it isn't. They would have worked for or with gentiles, they would have had gentiles working for them. But they wouldn't have spent a lot of time mixing with them, especially the kind of gentiles they met in the areas around the Ripper Grounds. They would have done business with them but they wouldn't have been shopping in their shops or drinking in their pubs or whatever. There was some leakage but not much. And an average immigrant Jewish family from Eastern Europe would have been putting all its efforts into getting out of the East End! Some Yiddish words crept into the English language. The use of the word 'gonoph' which means 'thief' occurs in Bleak House and is I believe the first such use of a Yiddish word in English parlance. (I'd say 'ganef' but my family isn't from Poland!)

It's true that Eddowes may have picked up a few words--I doubt it would have been more than that. But I don't see what the point would be if she did. Unless the Ripper interrogated her thoroughly before he killed her, he'd be unlikely to know that she'd worked for Jews.

[Sam Flynn]

Re. "integration" - one remarkable feature of the immigrant Jews in Britain was that many of them assimilated surprisingly quickly into society. It might have taken them a couple of years to speaka-da-lingo, but that's no big deal. Contrast that with modern British holiday-home owners in Spain etc, who can't be arsed to pick up more of the local argot than is necessary to order a beer or tell someone to bugger off.

The fact that the East End once had a significant Jewish (or Irish) immigrant population is more a feature of its being a port-of-call for all immigrants, than of any "collusion" on the part of the settlers themselves. The same was true of just about any port town in Britain. In Wales, for example, one sees comparatively few Jewish or Irish people outside Cardiff, Swansea or Newport until the end of the 19th Century, after the immigrants had found their feet and they, or their offspring, had started to venture further afield. The same was true of East London. Taking Hanbury Street as an example, we see an increasingly diverse mixture of Jewish, Irish and indigenous Cockney residents appearing from one census to the next.

Yes - there were and are Jewish enclaves in London, but the notion that the Jews "segregated themselves from the general population" is a sweeping over-simplification.