discobastard...
For accuracy, the journalist did not herself make any comment or apology, nor did she take responsibility for her words. (and that, to me, is wrong for a journalist). Her editor came on here to take responsibility for the words of the journalist, and to apologise for the "misunderstanding". She did not apologise for causing offence, or for misrepresenting Brixton and our community.
As a reminder, here is the offending passage:
'The district, which used to be quite an unpleasant part of the city in the 80s (it was associated with bombing and riots then), has whitened its image and become a nice, multicultural area—and the new project adds another lively and optimistic touch to the transformed atmosphere of this place.'
So, this district used to be unpleasant, being associated with riots and bombs. Since then, it has changed, becoming a nice multicultural area.
Aside from the factual inaccuracy about bombs, can you not see how this might make us natives feel rather put out?
It suggests that Brixton is newly multicultural, when in fact it has always been one of the areas of London where disenfranchised people of every stripe felt comfortable and welcome, even in the teeth of judgement from elsewhere in society (and I'm not just talking about the West Indians who settled here after Windrush).
It suggests that Brixton has been a pretty nasty place until fairly recently, and it ties the yarn project into that improvement. It implies that any improvements and positive changes have been imposed on us from outside, rather than developed from within our own community. We've been colonised by those friendly people with money who were brave enough to venture into the dark heart of Brixton. It's bollocks, do you see.
And I haven't even got to the word "whitening" yet... Let's leave that aside since our reading may not be what Anna Rudenko meant to say... but you can understand, I think, how such a term might be inflammatory...?
It was clear to me on my first reading that Rudenko was not writing in her mother tongue. And I am prepared to make allowances for that, even though what she has written is sloppy, lazy, poor quality journalism.
What pissed me off was the implication that Brixton has sprung fully formed as some kind of corporate advert-type delight out of the ashes of destroyed inner city turmoil. It was rude, dismissive, short sighted and cliched.
Yes, she's young, yes, she's Ukrainian, and yes she had no sub looking over her shoulder. But that simply gives us the unfiltered, honest views of someone like her, and it stinks.
Of course there are more important battles (gang rapes, kids getting caught in crossfire, the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe etc.) and we know all about them. A few wooly flowers and cheery faces does nothing to address these issues, by the way, and it also pisses me off that while Brixton is looking more cheery and corporate, these continuing issues are swept into the corners.
As for the rest of the discussion: some of us find it kind of annoying that Brixton has been thoroughly ignored for decades, but now that it's deemed to be "nicer", people are rushing in to tie their colours to our masts, to get a bit of kudos for being part of the "regeneration".
It might not annoy you, but some of us do find it irksome.
