"Definitely A Foreigner" Discussion

[How Brown]

Over on this thread....


http://www.jtrforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=77690 (http://www.jtrforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=77690)

...Archaic said the following and I was wondering if others would like to provide some proof of her comment...


... including the prejudiced notion that he was almost certainly "a foreigner".--

Unless I'm mistaken, Archy is inferring that not only the Press had created a bad scene with their unflattering remarks about "Leather Apron" prior to the first missive ostensibly emanating from Jack The Ripper ( which of course, they were in great part responsible for ) but that the Police were solely or more inclined to be on the lookout for "foreign" gents rather than "native born" characters during the WM.

How would you explain the arrests of native born characters and non-foreign looking chaps during the WM, Archaic ? As momentary lapses of some preconcieved prejudice that you as well as others seem to feel the Police were prone to implementing in their administration of their duties?

I'd like to see one bit of evidence....that demonstrated a policy that showed rank and file police officers practiced anti-"foreigner" rousts, detainments, interrogations, were disrespectful to and/or exhibited prejudice to foreigners or any written documents within the police departments of London that provide tangible proof that native born British police were anti-foreign in their day to day routine....this should be easy,since I hear this all the time.:playball:

Its not like the Citizens Councils of Mississippi in 1964, who were very influential within the state and local police jurisdictions of that state as they used their clout to keep negroes out of White institutions. There was, regardless of your political bent, a policy to inhibit the movements and expressions of speech by negroes within state and local police departments and that is undeniable.

Show me the goods.

[Archaic]

And from Chicago police reporter James Maitland who was in London during the time of the Whitechapel killings: When (the Tabram murder occurred) I had a talk with the chief of the secret service of London police. He said to me what I knew before.
"This man" said he "is a fellow, probably a foreigner, who has got in trouble better imagined than described, and a desire to get even has over-mastered him and the taste of blood has made him mad."

Please note, this is the specific quote I was responding to on the Tabram thread when I referred to "the prejudiced notion that he was almost certainly a foreigner".

In the face of a heinous crime, there is a deep-seated human desire to believe that the perpetrator must be somehow different from ourselves, and the more different the better.

Like all of you, I have read countless news reports, eye witness statements, and remarks by officials which all evinced the same
wish to believe that the killer could not be an Englishman
because an Englishman could not be so depraved.

Because the murders took place in the East End, the Jews were handy scapegoats. We know that "foreigner" was a common euphemism for "Jew", but I suspect that a large proportion of uneducated persons would have described anybody who looked a bit different or perhaps dark-complected as a "foreigner," whether they imagined them to be Jewish or not.

The real prejudice I see at work in 1888, both in the quote mentioned above and in society's view of the Ripper, isn't so much a belief that the killer must be Jewish, but a belief that the killer must be DIFFERENT from the rest of us.

[How Brown]

Like all of you, I have read countless news reports, eye witness statements, and remarks by officials which all evinced the same
wish to believe that the killer could not be an Englishman
because an Englishman could not be so depraved.---Archaic

Dear Archaic:

While there is no argument that the Press used caricatures of individuals who looked swarthy and give the definite impression of being foreign born and some contemporary Ripperologist theorists( Larkins opted for Portugese sailors,Stephenson for Frenchmen...) had their own peculiar views.....thats not what I asked you,dear lady. I'm not trying to be cute nor ensnare you in some sort of semantic game, be disrespectful to those of foreign born ancestry or posing on a soapbox.

I asked you or anyone else to provide one written dictum or give one example of physical impropriety on the part of the Met or City Police towards anyone of foreign birth during the Autumn Of Terror. We could also include the Politicians, if that would facilitate the request.

Like you and every other Ripperologist and his brother, I have heard ( to use only as an example ) Mr. Rumbelow state several times on documentaries the sentiments felt by the People that no Englishman could have committed these crimes. There's no argument in that and frankly,who am I to doubt what Mr. Rumbelow stated as he has had nearly 40 years experience in acquiring data which would definitely include collecting oral history from the area to prove his point. He,however, does not state that the Police abused their duties despite what the People may or may not have felt.

I'm stating to you that the position maintained or posed by some individuals in our field is that this concept that the Police practiced a double standard towards any ethnic entity in London during the skein is patently false, unsupportable, and is basically a misrepresentation of the Police procedure in the East End.

Why do I "push" this you may wonder? Very simply in that considering all the other stumbling blocks the Police of the time faced, to add on an unwarranted premise to the reasons for the "failure" on the part of the Police to apprehend the Ripper, its too convienent to use this myth as part of that "failure" and is frankly unfair.

That is...unless you or someone else can show otherwise.