Even leaving that aside, though, I think there's a danger of falling into relativism here. As in, when middle-class people are mindless consumerists, that's deplorable and a result of the evil, all-pervasive influence of capitalism, &c. &c. But when urban teenagers (a large proportion of whom may be black) are mindless consumerists, it's just part of their culture, and for a white, middle-class journalist to talk about it is unacceptable, even 'borderline racist'. Let's not confuse trainer-fetishism among kids in certain London neighbourhoods with 'black culture' generally. That really would be racist.
But that same journalist speaks about it with a kind of disdain I haven't seen him evince for other clothing fashions (even though he does do disdain well, as we all know), AND also this disdain somehow extends to MTV Cribs for some unapparent reason (white station it may be, but overwhelmingly that particular programme features black hip-hop and dancehall stars, no?). To me, he's laughing, knowingly or not, at what he sees as the 'excesses' of a culture the status of which in society is
seen as non-white. There's a nasty undercurrent of disdain for (critically) what
he seems to see as black youth culture, and its supposedly silly ways. It's the equivalent of rich people laughing at the nouveau riche - they're just not doing it
right, with
class!
Plus, evidence mounting up, he chooses a very white show (Dallas) as some kind of
absurd relative paragon of virtue. I mean, what the fuck, where did that even come from? I've watched Dallas, and what he says is ludicrous, as if the characters were deeply profound in some way. The examples he chooses, at the least, have not been very well thought through for their underlying connotations. Does that make him a racist? No. Does it make me suspicious that he harbours deeply unpleasant views under the jovial wit? Yes.
This stuff is hella difficult to prove, which is the problem with classist/racist discourse. I saw someone describe the riots as being carried out by 'feral apes' the other day. Now, it's impossible to prove, but I dont' think he plucked the very specific term 'apes' out of the air. Of course Brooker's analysis is more subtle, but to me, pretty unsubtle still in its underlying political convictions. It just depresses me when the general societal view (not accusing you of this, just a general frustration) is that someone has to be David Harvey to be espousing views that come from a deeply questionable place, race-wise. It's an incredibly nuanced subject.
Also, he doesn't mention the irony that it is those who are materially wealthy who are criticising those who aren't, for wanting more. I'm not excusing mindless consumerism from anyone or saying that it is part of anyone's culture, merely pointing out that it's very easy (and incredibly unfair) for those who have always had, to criticise the wish to have, for those who have (mostly) always been have-nots. Because there's a very different status attached to not having the ability to get material goods, which Brooker clearly has never known (bit of empathy would be welcome), that has to be taken into account from the standpoint of someone who has always had a certain living standard/purchase power. Of course these kids are 'playing within' consumerist rules, but they're just like any other 15/17 year old kids in that sense - very few have explicit political formulations at that age, or at least it seems to me that it's unlikely. Unrelated, but the way the tabloids were talking, something can only be protest if it is explicitly formulated as such, with treatises - which pretty much rules out any mass protest in history.