Racism and bigotry in 1912

[Stanley C Jenkins]

I have recently been undertaking some military history work, and although there was no hard and fast rule, a pattern can be discerned whereby Jewish people and Protestant non-conformists did not seem to be present in significant numbers in the 19th Century British army - which appears to have been composed largely of Anglicans and Catholics. However, people of all faiths served in the two world wars, many of these individuals having volunteered. The Star of David can be seen on the gravestones of Commonwealth soldiers, while (poignantly) Jewish soldiers were present during the liberation of Belsen in 1945. Returning to Tarn's original question, I have found no evidence of official discrimination against Jews or other minority groups in early 20th century Britain, Canada or Australia. There were one or two isolated incidents, the most notorious of which was he "Limerick Pogrom" of 1904 - but that, as they say, is another story.

 

[Sam Brannigan]

It's worth mentioning that Benjamin Disraeli (raised as an Anglican), who became Prime Minister in the latter half of the 19th century in Britain was also of Jewish ancestory - a sure a sign of tolerance.

I also find the "sub human" description regarding British attitudes to the Irish too strong, but as an example of the (at best) indifference of the British at the height of the great famine £100,000 was allocated from the treasury to provide aid for two million starving people in Ireland, while at the same time £200,000 was provided to beautify Battersea Park in London.

I only mention this to put British attitudes in the highest echelons of society towards the Irish at the time in some sort of context. By 1912, these attitudes would not have changed so much.

Of course, these attitudes are long gone, which was really illuminated by the pathetic, cringeworthy and unnecessary apology for Britain's actions during the famine made by Tony Blair, but it is important to realise they did exist 100 years ago.

 

[Brian Ahern]

There were several titled Jewish British families by 1912 (several more have been ennobled since). The Montagus, for example (original family name was Samuel). Venetia Stanley - Clementine Churchill's cousin and close friend - converted to Judaism and married into this family. The Rothschilds had also long since been titled by this point.

I know that the Lusitania's Gladys Crompton's father was in the military. His family, the Salis-Schwabes, was of Jewish origins but I believe had converted to Unitarianism before he was born.

Also, the Lusitania's Goldiana Morrell was Jewish and had a son in the Queen's Own Rifles.

But I don't believe that the Morrell family's name was originally Morrell, and it is telling that Edith Rosenbaum, the Christie family and the Lusitania's Anne Shymer (Shimer, in reality) felt the need to anglicize their names.

I think the issue is one that there isn't a lot of rhyme or reason to. Jews were widely accepted socially and otherwise on both sides of the Atlantic and also experienced varying forms of discrimination on both sides of the Atlantic. I think that whether one's origins - religious, ethnic, socioeconomic - helped or hindered one depended on how one "carried it off".

On the Titanic, there were several interdenominational marriages - the Rothschilds, Dodges and Cavendishes (and maybe Stengels - she was Christian; don't know what religion he was).

According to Dorthy Parker's bio (nee Rothschild; niece of Titanic's Martin), Martin's family actually encouraged their sons to marry Christian women for the sake of gaining more of a foothold in mainstream USA.
But the same book also said Elizabeth Rothschild was the heiress to the "Great Bear Springs Water Company", when I believe her origins were actually quite humble and she wasn't an heiress of any kind. So who knows.

The same thing was true of Catholics on both sides of the Atlantic. We always hear that they were excluded from high society, but in the States, the Iselins and Carrolls (both New York 400 families), along with most branches of the Drexels and several branches of the Vanderbilts were Catholic. In Ireland, the Earls of Fingall and Granard, and the Viscounts Kenmare and Gormanston were Catholic. Elsewhere in Britain, the Dukes of Norfolk, the Marquesses of Bute, the Earls of Abingdon, and the Barons Petre, Stafford, Llanover, Lovat, Clifford, and Stourton were Catholic. So were a lot of ancient, highly-honored families like the Blounts, Blennerhassets, Welds, Fitzherberts, Throckmortons, Actons, Sulyardes, Mostyns, de Traffords and numerous others.

 

[Evangeline Holland]

As a descendant of an Anglo-Irish marriage which took place in the year 1910, I too am challenged by Tarn's statement about Edwardian England's attitude to the Irish. The floor is yours, Tarn. What evidence can you offer in support of your controversial statement?

Hm...it wasn't as though Anglo-Irish relations of the Edwardian era represented the thoughts of everyone in Britain, but the Home Rule movement brought out virulent hatreds in people ranging from the bottom of the social scale all the way to the top. And different areas had differing opinions too--which is why we have the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland today; Ulster (synonym for No. Ireland) was against Home Rule, and the southern counties wanted it badly.

"Scenes of Edwardian Life" by Sir Charles Petrie has a pretty good section on Edwardian Ireland and the Home Rule movement. Incidentally, the Third Home Rule bill was introduced to Parliament April 11, 1912.

Regarding viewing this period as the "good old days", as a black American, it does feel odd at times to adore the time period considering the accepted racism and sexism of the times, but I feel it is my duty to show the good and the bad, as it feels wrong to view the past through rose-colored glasses because it only perpetuates racism and bigotry.

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

I have been re-reading the comments in this thread and have just spotted Sam Brannigan’s suggestion that the British government was so different to the fate of the Irish famine victims that, “at the height of the great famine (only) £100,000 was allocated from the treasury to provide aid for two million starving people in Ireland”.

I should have replied much earlier, but having just been re-reading The Great Hunger by Cecil Woodham-Smith, I feel that it should be pointed out that the £100,000 concerned was expended on corn shipments from the United States that did much to alleviate the famine in 1845-46. In addition to this sum, the government allocated another £50,000 for public works, and another £50,000 under the provisions of the Labour Rate Act — so that is at least £200,000 in state aid.

However, the main burden of poor relief fell upon the poor law unions in Ireland and subsequently England (ie after the armies of starving and destitute had swarmed into England). I cannot readily find the figures for this form of relief, but it must have been very considerable. In addition, private charities such as the Quaker Relief Committee and the British Association contributed vast amounts of money — about £470,000 in the case of the British Association (which had initially been set up largely by Jewish businessmen).

The efforts made to save the victims of the Great Famine were, in fact, the largest scheme of poor relief ever undertaken within the United Kingdom. It is surely part of the tragedy that this huge effort (much of it on the part of private individuals) has never been properly acknowledged — perhaps because it was totally insufficient to save all of the starving people.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

And whatever else the Treasury was spending our money on, it certainly wasn't any effort to "beautify Battersea Park in London", which didn't exist at the time of the potato famine. When it was created a few years later, the actual sum spent was over £300,000. Most of that was the cost of buying Battersea Fields, an eyseore and haunt of 'highwaymen, vagabonds and travelling roughs' where the police dare not venture. Battersea Park and others like it were created not as mere cosmetic additions to the fabric of London, but as the 'lungs of the city' and a means of providing some relief for all Londoners from the depressing monotony of brick and concrete. No doubt money was spent on projects far less urgent than the needs of the poor throughout Britain as well as Ireland, but Battersea Park is innocent of all charges.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>and the Lusitania's Anne Shymer (Shimer, in reality) felt the need to anglicize their names.

Returning, albeit briefly....

Anne Justice Paterson was the wife of Robert Shimer for about four weeks in 1911. She could not locate him in order to divorce him (although he DID surface nearly a decade later, in order to press Germany for a settlement after the death of his 'wife') and I've often wondered why she anglicised the last name rather than eliminating it entirely. She died wearing the ring from her first marriage (stolen in transit, later) and why she did not revert to 'Anne Paterson' still eludes me.

 

[George L. Lorton]

She could not locate him in order to divorce him (although he DID surface nearly a decade later, in order to press Germany for a settlement after the death of his 'wife')

How $Noble$ of him. Why indeed didn't Anne revert to her maiden name. Did her husband get any compensation, Jim form the German Government for the death of his Wife.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

Naw, George....the court rejected his claim as 'Devastated Husband.' Her sisters, and the estate of her late mother, DID receive nice settlements.

 

[George L. Lorton]

I'm glad her family got something. As for her so called Husband it seems he got what he deserved as well.

 

[Aly Jones]

I'm Replying to some ones post about idains.Was there idians in living in England in 1912?I knew that asian Chinese were permitted in England in 1900 but i never heard about Idians.
I know about America having alot more different races in 1912, but what kind of race did England have living in 1912 and was were they picked on the Titanic cause of there race?

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

People of all races and creeds were living in the United Kingdom in 1912, with particular concentrations in and around sea ports such as London, Cardiff, Hull and Liverpool. Many cities, for example, had their own "China Towns", while people of mixed race known as "laskars" were often employed as crew members on British vessels. Recent studies in genetics have suggested that there have been people of African origin in Britain since the Roman occupation, some 2,000 years ago.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

>>>>> There was the 'polite' racism that many practice. Blacks, Jews, etc. were not physically assaulted, but they were made fun of. <<<<<

I can only comment about the UK because I am an Asian who has lived and worked here for 23 years. The 'polite' racism that you mention - sometimes called 'passive' racism - is almost as prevalent in the UK as it was in 1912, only it is not as open. It has become so much a latent way of life that I doubt people even realize that they are being discriminatory.

 

[Marilyn Lena Penner]

Racism is still around. I'm amazed and embarassed at how racist I can be in thought. I grew up where and when everyone around me was white. Now, most of my neighbours are Tamil or Muslim, and there are more Black and Far Eastern peoples on my routes than are Europeans. (And they can be more bitterly racist out loud than I can be in thought. Their remarks about each other shock me.)
I couldn't imagine what was said in 1912, if we're being racist in 2009.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

>>>>> I'm amazed and embarrassed at how racist I can be in thought.<<<<<<

I understand exactly what you mean and admire you for your brave confession. I too admit to occasional 'inverse' racism in thought. But as human beings, whether in 1912 or 2009, we cannot control our own thoughts and so we have to excuse ourselves and each other for such ideas. But it is the ability to avoid putting such thoughts into PRACTICE that all of us can do better.