Marissa Levine

London has existed for a long time and has some of the goriest moments of history.  From public exeutions to the first dubbed serial killer, this city has seen a lot. Jack the Ripper tore through the streets of London during the late 19th century causing terror and the rise of tabloid media. In 2015 the Jack the Ripper museum was founded in Cable Street. However there was severe controversy around this project.

The museum was originally founded as a women’s history museum that was deticated to telling the stories of women from this notoriously poor region of London during the Victorian era.  It was not known until the unveiling of museum that people found out the true motive of museum. The only explanation provided was that the museum needed a stronger central focus. The museum would still include information about women, however it needed something to draw people in.  

This lead to several people protesting the museum and lead to an even further protest of anti-gentrification.  The areas of Cable Street and Brick Lane are located in South London which is notorious for poverty and crime. In the past decade, however, these areas have been increasingly gentrified.  With the addition of the Jack the Ripper museum in Cable Street and the several “hipster millenial” cafes, bars and shops many locals were not happy. For example, the Class War organization protested a Halloween event taking place at the museum in fall of 2015.  Another example is with the Cereal Killer Cafe. This is a cafe’s menu is completely based around cereal and opened its first location in 2014. By fall of 2015, the same time as the Jack the Ripper museum protests, the cafe was protested by having paint thrown on its windows.  The owners of the cafe were noted as “out of touch hipters” in a TV interview.

After thinking about this situation critically, I personally have decided that I would not have protested the museum change for a few reasons.  Although I can see how the switch would dissapoint some people, I personally agree with the owner’s decision. As bizarre as it may sounds, crime is something that sell and attractts a lot people.  People love feeling scared in controlled environments. This is why haunter houses and crime tv shows are so popular. Honestly I think shifting the focus of the museum was beneficial. Both are tourist and a woman, I find it way more interesting that there is a museum about Jack the Ripper than about women’s history.  I don’t find this museum to be disrepectful to the victims at all. If anything, it only brings awareness to how gruesome the murders were.

I don’t agree with the protests about gentrification either.  Gentrification is simply bringing more money to the area. I can understand how it does decrease the individuality of the area and decrease it’s historical value, but I don’t think by any means throwing paint is a necessary way to communicate that.  Overall I think it was actually a smart decision to change the premise of the museum (to bring in more money) and that is in no way disrepectfult to the victims or women in general.