"Foreign Criminals in New York"
Underneath is an article penned by a prominent police commissioner in the September of 1908. Indeed, the piece was written a little after the target century of Jewish immigration (Epstein 151); however, the police commissioner writing, Theodore Bingham, describes conditions that he believed were wrought the decades before, while immigration from Eastern Europe to America was in its "hay day". He describes the condition of "prevalent" crime amongst the immigrants -- Armenians, Russian Jews, Frenchmen, and, in particular, Italians. Covering everything from arson to pick pocketing to prostitution, he offers statistical insight about, and solutions to stave off, crime in New York. This article remains famous for its introductory and third paragraphs, citing with presumed anti-Semitism the common suspicions that Jews were masterminds in the field of crime, and made up a good percentage of the bulk of New York City's criminals.
Press the "Pause" button while reading the slideshow to allow for some time to read each page of Commissioner Bingham's manifesto on his judgments concerning immigrants criminals, "Foreign Criminals in New York." An analysis follows underneath the slideshow.
Press the "Pause" button while reading the slideshow to allow for some time to read each page of Commissioner Bingham's manifesto on his judgments concerning immigrants criminals, "Foreign Criminals in New York." An analysis follows underneath the slideshow.
An authority on Jewish immigration, Lawrence J. Epstein, writes concerning the reaction of Jews, specifically, to Bingham's above manifesto: "Refutations from the charges" meaning the claims made by Bingham, "came from various sources. One letter writer in the Jewish Daily Forward, signing himself only as 'Gonif (Thief) from the Tombs,' noted that as a professional thief for a decade himself, he was in an enviable position to know that the commissioner was incorrect. This correspondent blamed the charge on the fact that Jewish criminals were arrested more often because they refused to shoot a policeman trying to arrest them. The other reason, the thief noted, was that Jews were good prisoners and so left early, enabling them to return to their criminal ways sooner that their Gentile counterparts. Eventually, the actual crime statistics revealed a picture far different from the one the commissioner had originally painted" (Epstein 151). Following, in Epstein's research, are the supposedly true statistics of the number of Jewish criminals thriving in New York City, which suggest obviously that Jews only made a minority of the criminal population in New York City. Research made by Ron Arons reiterates these conclusions.
"... Jewish criminality was far more pervasive than most Jews have been taught or would want to believe.
In the early 1900s New York City authorities criticized the Jews, suggesting that they were responsible for
half of the crimes being committed. Publicly, Jewish community leaders complained that this was an ex-
aggeration of the truth. Privately, however, these same machers (big shots) established multiple organ-
izations and agencies in New York to deal with the problem... [T]hey were, in the main, highly successful
in reducing the level of Jewish criminality not only in New York but also across the nation... Most people
point to immigrant status as the root cause of breaking the law. Yes, a portion of almost every im-
migrant group succumbs to the lure of the fast buck. Most do so as a means of survival and, to a lesser
extent, from a lack of knowledge of how the "system" works. But according to the admission records I
found for Jewish Sing Sing" -- a famous prison in New York state that was noted by Arons for its high rate
of Jewish inmates during its years of operation -- "between 1880 and 1950 were divided almost evenly be-
tween inmates who stated they had immigrated and those who claimed to have been born here. It is true
that most of these criminals born in America were the children of immigrant parents. Yet, although being
an immigrant of the song of immigrants may be a contributing factor, it is neither necessary nor sufficient
to explain how or why these Jews became involved with criminal elements" (Arons xiii-xiv)
All of this seems to deftly refute Bingham's claims; they would be substantial in sentimentally and sensically refuting any arguments made in his piece, except that the only paragraphs they are complaining about in the twelve-page manifesto are the first and third paragraphs. After this, any mentions of Jews, called Hebrews in this article, are brief and slightly inconsequential. Any heavy blame for thriving vice in New York is laid craftily on the Italian immigrants, not the Jewish ones. One wonders, then, why Jewish immigrants became so incensed by the Commissioner's views; of course, to have one's own race marginalized, even once, by a prominent figure in the New York City police department in a respected periodical does not increase social status or esteem for the offended people. However, no credit is given to the Commissioner for his deep analysis of the situation of crime in New York, or the solutions he poses to cure the city of at least some of its criminal woes. It seems a missed opportunity of ethnic inclusion that Bingham didn't suggest that Jews could be considered for preferred employment in the police force, especially in the Lower East Side where a majority of inhabitants were Jewish immigrants, since they were most likely to know Yiddish, the dominant language of the new-coming Russian Jewish immigrants. The Jewish readers of this article appear too heavy-handed and one-sided in their criticism, for even their provided information, such as that of "Gonif from the Tombs," could be as easily challenged as Bingham's statistical information, which, due to the fact he didn't gather the information himself (Epstein 151-152), was called into question in the public sphere after the publication of this article. To throw more unwanted light on the deficiency, Arons suggested in his research that many Jews had difficulty admitting to the existence of widespread criminality in their communities in New York; organizations were established, in time, to provide more assistance to immigrants and create a network of support and brotherhood. He proceeds to hint at the continued reluctance, more than a century and a half later, to admit to this prevalence of vice (Arons xiii).
"... Jewish criminality was far more pervasive than most Jews have been taught or would want to believe.
In the early 1900s New York City authorities criticized the Jews, suggesting that they were responsible for
half of the crimes being committed. Publicly, Jewish community leaders complained that this was an ex-
aggeration of the truth. Privately, however, these same machers (big shots) established multiple organ-
izations and agencies in New York to deal with the problem... [T]hey were, in the main, highly successful
in reducing the level of Jewish criminality not only in New York but also across the nation... Most people
point to immigrant status as the root cause of breaking the law. Yes, a portion of almost every im-
migrant group succumbs to the lure of the fast buck. Most do so as a means of survival and, to a lesser
extent, from a lack of knowledge of how the "system" works. But according to the admission records I
found for Jewish Sing Sing" -- a famous prison in New York state that was noted by Arons for its high rate
of Jewish inmates during its years of operation -- "between 1880 and 1950 were divided almost evenly be-
tween inmates who stated they had immigrated and those who claimed to have been born here. It is true
that most of these criminals born in America were the children of immigrant parents. Yet, although being
an immigrant of the song of immigrants may be a contributing factor, it is neither necessary nor sufficient
to explain how or why these Jews became involved with criminal elements" (Arons xiii-xiv)
All of this seems to deftly refute Bingham's claims; they would be substantial in sentimentally and sensically refuting any arguments made in his piece, except that the only paragraphs they are complaining about in the twelve-page manifesto are the first and third paragraphs. After this, any mentions of Jews, called Hebrews in this article, are brief and slightly inconsequential. Any heavy blame for thriving vice in New York is laid craftily on the Italian immigrants, not the Jewish ones. One wonders, then, why Jewish immigrants became so incensed by the Commissioner's views; of course, to have one's own race marginalized, even once, by a prominent figure in the New York City police department in a respected periodical does not increase social status or esteem for the offended people. However, no credit is given to the Commissioner for his deep analysis of the situation of crime in New York, or the solutions he poses to cure the city of at least some of its criminal woes. It seems a missed opportunity of ethnic inclusion that Bingham didn't suggest that Jews could be considered for preferred employment in the police force, especially in the Lower East Side where a majority of inhabitants were Jewish immigrants, since they were most likely to know Yiddish, the dominant language of the new-coming Russian Jewish immigrants. The Jewish readers of this article appear too heavy-handed and one-sided in their criticism, for even their provided information, such as that of "Gonif from the Tombs," could be as easily challenged as Bingham's statistical information, which, due to the fact he didn't gather the information himself (Epstein 151-152), was called into question in the public sphere after the publication of this article. To throw more unwanted light on the deficiency, Arons suggested in his research that many Jews had difficulty admitting to the existence of widespread criminality in their communities in New York; organizations were established, in time, to provide more assistance to immigrants and create a network of support and brotherhood. He proceeds to hint at the continued reluctance, more than a century and a half later, to admit to this prevalence of vice (Arons xiii).