I saw The Central Park Five at the Lincoln Plaza theater on Saturday afternoon and I was very moved by this heartbreaking film. There are certain aspects about how the neighborhoods of New York City have formed, and shifted through time, that have always puzzled me and this film brought out the social, economic, and geographic implications of the city.
I have never been comfortable with Carnegie Hill, neither the physical form itself, nor the idea of the hill. Carnegie Hill is a slope that separates the Upper East Side from the southern reaches of Harlem; it runs approximately from Central Park to the East River, along 96th Street. But Carnegie Hill is more than just a physical form; it is a social and emotional barrier that separates two worlds: the plushness of the Upper East Side with its doormen buildings, elite private schools, and boutique shops rest atop the hill, while East Harlem, with its public housing projects, failing public schools, and aging bodegas sit at the bottom. In short, the Upper East Side embodies an urbane vision of the American dream while the lowlands are more reminiscent of an American nightmare that those atop the hill would rather forget.
But what about Central Park? In the film, Ed Koch refers to the park as a sort of, “sacred” space. This common space, a monument to democracy and open to all, exists as a sort of third position between the excesses of the Upper East Side and the desperation of East Harlem. No individual and no group may exert control over Central Park. And it is here where two worlds collided during the events that unfolded in 1988. When the jogger, a resident of the highlands, was raped that night, the police had no evidence linking the five Harlem residents to the crime; however, it seems that their prejudices immediately lead them to the assumption that the crime must have been committed by “others.” I believe that the geographic segregation of New York City lends itself well to this sort of racism/classism because it reinforces the idea that we, as Americans, are not a single people, but rather a loosely-bound confederation of different peoples. This sort of ignorance put five innocent men behind bars.
There’s a lot going on “between the lines” in this story. At its heart, it shows a fragmented America fraught with distrust and disdain. One victim is upper class and white; five victims are working class and minorities. It seems nearly impossible in America to speak about race without speaking about economics, and vice versa. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke passionately about social justice and one theory about the 1993 Los Angeles race riots is that they were fueled much more by working-class economic anguish than by genuine racial hatred. All of these dynamics–geographic, racial, economic–have a place in explaining how such a great injustice could be brought against five innocent men in a “free” country. But one thing is for sure: this story illuminated the gaps that exist between different groups of Americans and it challenges the notion that Americans are a unified people.
-Logan
