Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This Looks Promising

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    I do think there is a bit of a problem here, in that - although there is obviously some overlap - Ripper researchers and academic historians (and academics in the social sciences) will inevitably tend to be interested in different things.

    I've just realised that (completely unintentionally) I illustrated that when I asked about the most significant contribution to "our knowledge of the case". That's to view it from a Ripper researcher's perspective - we want to know facts that are relevant to the case. Not just the identity of the killer, but the lives and actions of all the people involved. But it's still a much narrower and more factual focus than most academics will have. They will be more interested questions and ideas about society on a much broader scale.

    I'm sure there is common ground, but frankly my advice would be to rewrite the material on that website so that it doesn't sound like a group of academics graciously inviting others to be "represented in the revisions in the history of the Whitechapel Murders" (whatever that means). I can see that two of the names at the top are not academics but Ripper researchers, but I think something has gone wrong somewhere, because the non-academic target audience is described as as "local history groups and residents; school teachers/educationalists, sex-workers, women’s charities and other organizations who work alongside them", and I struggle to see where Ripper researchers fit into it!
    I completely agree with you here, Chris.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

      I completely agree with you here, Chris.
      Yes, that word ‘revisions’ stuck in my craw somewhat. Perhaps, though, it’s the academics whose methods need revising. Judging by The 5 and The Thames Torso Murders they need some advice on how to handle source material.

      As for where we fit in among the target audiences, I think we might just squeeze into the ‘local history groups’ category, and, if it wasn’t for me bad back, I’d give the ‘sex workers’ category a go.




      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
        Yes, that word ‘revisions’ stuck in my craw somewhat. Perhaps, though, it’s the academics whose methods need revising. Judging by The 5 and The Thames Torso Murders they need some advice on how to handle source material.

        As for where we fit in among the target audiences, I think we might just squeeze into the ‘local history groups’ category, and, if it wasn’t for me bad back, I’d give the ‘sex workers’ category a go.
        Well, Hallie Rubenhold is not an academic, and despite the impression given on her website she does not have a doctorate. So the academic world can at least be absolved of responsibility for her doings.

        And Ripper researchers are neither local historians nor a group. Perhaps we're meant to be included in "social, cultural and crime historians, criminologists and other academics". But as the wording stands, obviously we aren't.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

          Well, Hallie Rubenhold is not an academic, and despite the impression given on her website she does not have a doctorate. So the academic world can at least be absolved of responsibility for her doings.

          And Ripper researchers are neither local historians nor a group. Perhaps we're meant to be included in "social, cultural and crime historians, criminologists and other academics". But as the wording stands, obviously we aren't.
          I think I might have at least one leg in the local historians camp. If these murders had taken place in Paris or New York, I doubt I’d be remotely interested in them. You mention Cornwall Street and my interest is immediately piqued.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

            I think I might have at least one leg in the local historians camp. If these murders had taken place in Paris or New York, I doubt I’d be remotely interested in them. You mention Cornwall Street and my interest is immediately piqued.
            I think Ripper researchers have legs in all kinds of places, but I don't think "local history groups" would be an accurate overall description (and I don't think it was meant to refer to us).

            Comment


            • #36
              No, I’m sure it wasn’t meant to include ‘us’. But what are we?

              When HR and her acolytes started their campaign of hate against ‘Ripperologists’ I had a bit of an ‘I’m Spartacus’ moment, but am I really a Ripperologist? I’d struggle to name the favoured suspect of most of those I’ve got to know on here. Does Debs have a preferred suspect? Does Rob Clack? Did Robert? I couldn’t tell you.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                I think Ripper researchers have legs in all kinds of places, but I don't think "local history groups" would be an accurate overall description (and I don't think it was meant to refer to us).
                Are 'we' even referred to? It reads to me as if they want to move away from people like us and aim for a different group of people, academics and historians. And how are these people being approached? I have only seen mention of this conference in Ripperology circles.

                Interesting that the Gentle Author (who writes the Spitalfields Life blog) is making a big fuss over the ripper tours at the moment (all ripper tour operators and not just one). So I will be surprised if his input is not asked for.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                  No, I’m sure it wasn’t meant to include ‘us’. But what are we?

                  When HR and her acolytes started their campaign of hate against ‘Ripperologists’ I had a bit of an ‘I’m Spartacus’ moment, but am I really a Ripperologist? I’d struggle to name the favoured suspect of most of those I’ve got to know on here. Does Debs have a preferred suspect? Does Rob Clack? Did Robert? I couldn’t tell you.
                  I think the normal term for people without an academic affiliation would be "independent researchers".

                  I was trying to avoid using "Ripperologist" (though I haven't entirely succeeded), because that term has a lot of baggage. But I think whatever one calls it, Ripper-related research doesn't have to be suspect-oriented. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with being suspect-oriented.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post

                    Are 'we' even referred to? It reads to me as if they want to move away from people like us and aim for a different group of people, academics and historians. And how are these people being approached? I have only seen mention of this conference in Ripperology circles.

                    Interesting that the Gentle Author (who writes the Spitalfields Life blog) is making a big fuss over the ripper tours at the moment (all ripper tour operators and not just one). So I will be surprised if his input is not asked for.
                    Adam says they want to include Ripper researchers. Which I would say two out of the three organisers are.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The language of woke academia was used as that is the done thing for the audience and participants they clearly want to attract.
                      The victims of tour guides, sex workers (or should that be rough sleepers wrongly accused by the patriarchy of being sex workers), users of local libraries (guilty).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yes, Ripperologists and academic historians have different interests, but that doesn't mean those interests can't be shared and be of interest to both, and it doesn't mean that the interest in the lives and actions of the people involved can't be expanded into what was going on in the much wider world. The Whitechapel Murders are history and they have their own history from 1888 right up to right now, on this very page, where we are perhaps showing what Ripperology is and our attitudes to it.

                        Ripper studies is a cosy, tightly self-contained world, where we moan among ourselves and celebrate our successes or have a good old moan among ourselves. Nobody hears us. If Hallie Rubenhold has shown us that our voice doesn't shout loudly enough to get heard. Many people clearly think we're misogynistic, cellar-dwelling fantasists drooling over thoughts of prostitutes and blood and photos of dead women, pointlessly arguing over whether Jack the Ripper was Lewis Carroll or the Duke of Clarence, and going on for years about Lechmere and the Maybrick 'diary'.

                        I see the conference as an opportunity for Ripper researchers to take their interest into the wider world, to show such academics as might attend that we're not all about and to see how their interests can extend ours. As I see it, 'Jack the Ripper' is history. It slots into the bigger picture of what was going on in 1888 and is part of it. Our interests are as much a part of that history as those of the academic are. I'm interested in what we are interested in, but I'm also interested in what the academics are interested in. But the thing is, nobody has to attend the conference or submit an idea for a paper. If it's not our cup of tea, we don't have to attend.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                          I think the normal term for people without an academic affiliation would be "independent researchers".

                          I was trying to avoid using "Ripperologist" (though I haven't entirely succeeded), because that term has a lot of baggage. But I think whatever one calls it, Ripper-related research doesn't have to be suspect-oriented. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with being suspect-oriented.
                          Ripperology is a silly term coined tongue-in-cheek half a century ago to describe those people who were interested in the mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper. That mystery is pretty much all there was half a century ago. Things have changed. They've changed a lot. It is very far from being just suspect-oriented. At least it is for most of the people on Forums. Here are some of the very best Ripper researchers I know of. There aren't endless, circular arguments going on about this or that suspect.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Paul View Post
                            Yes, Ripperologists and academic historians have different interests, but that doesn't mean those interests can't be shared and be of interest to both, and it doesn't mean that the interest in the lives and actions of the people involved can't be expanded into what was going on in the much wider world. The Whitechapel Murders are history and they have their own history from 1888 right up to right now, on this very page, where we are perhaps showing what Ripperology is and our attitudes to it.

                            Ripper studies is a cosy, tightly self-contained world, where we moan among ourselves and celebrate our successes or have a good old moan among ourselves. Nobody hears us. If Hallie Rubenhold has shown us that our voice doesn't shout loudly enough to get heard. Many people clearly think we're misogynistic, cellar-dwelling fantasists drooling over thoughts of prostitutes and blood and photos of dead women, pointlessly arguing over whether Jack the Ripper was Lewis Carroll or the Duke of Clarence, and going on for years about Lechmere and the Maybrick 'diary'.

                            I see the conference as an opportunity for Ripper researchers to take their interest into the wider world, to show such academics as might attend that we're not all about and to see how their interests can extend ours. As I see it, 'Jack the Ripper' is history. It slots into the bigger picture of what was going on in 1888 and is part of it. Our interests are as much a part of that history as those of the academic are. I'm interested in what we are interested in, but I'm also interested in what the academics are interested in. But the thing is, nobody has to attend the conference or submit an idea for a paper. If it's not our cup of tea, we don't have to attend.
                            Hi Paul, personally, I am not commenting on the validity or usefulness of a conference like this, I hope it will be successful and achieve its aims. I was commenting that the language of the invitation and 'call for papers' does not seem to include a request for submissions from a specific group that I would necessarily identify with. In turn that suggested to me that it was a move away from being involved with 'Ripperology' and not including it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Perhaps Rubenhold should be approached. I know 99.9% on here are probably blocked from contacting her. But if this conference is serious then perhaps extend her an olive branch.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                                Perhaps Rubenhold should be approached. I know 99.9% on here are probably blocked from contacting her. But if this conference is serious then perhaps extend her an olive branch.
                                How can we? Her book is seriously flawed and she and her minions are still rubbishing us. The latest I heard is that Ripperologists rate the victims by their physical attractiveness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X