Criticism of Central Park as a Representative of American Democracy

Of course, the idea of American manifest destiny is all well and dandy when there is no one on these lands--when the unknown is truly unknown, unexplored, and uninhabited. You know, exploration. But we know this has never been a thing. While the article goes into a whole section of the importance of the park, the importance of the uniqueness of the park, and the importance of the park to the people of New Yorker, during the section titled "Central Park History (part 2): Building The Park," the article glosses over something that I think is of great importance to the history of central park that many may forget or just may not be taught. To modern New Yorkers, it's almost impossible to think of what the land Central Park now occupies looked like prior to its creation. Luckily, we have records. Prior to the construction of Central Park, the land was swamp land where the architect Vaux described horrible odors leaking from the ground itself. Likewise, the swamp land was also home to  a variety of people, people who have been historically persecuted throughout history. As described in the article:

“When the plans were made for the site of the park the land was owned and occupied mainly by free black men and Irish. Before the park could be constructed all of these people had to be removed from the land. Many had deep roots in this community and found the displacement a hard one to live with. Many saw the park as a way of removing the blightful poor from their land. (an accusation that came with nearly every urban development done in the future.) Making the neighborhoods that touched the park more affluent and agreeable to the parks main supporters. The ruling of eminent domain in 1857, 1,6000 people were moved from their homes and the communities were raised form the earth. The land for the first section of the park was now ready for construction."                            

"The land for the first section of the park was now ready for construction,"is the final last sentence of the displacement of poor people and poor people who were Irish and freed black, races frequently persecuted throughout history. And may I interject and say that it comes rather abruptly. It seems, in the end, not only does the park represent the best of American democracy, but also the worst of American democracy. Just the same as American democracy is founded in liberty, individuality, and justice for all, American democracy also comes in with the corrupt tie ins of the horrors of capitalism, and how, in the end, the one with the most money, who seemingly has the “best” interest for all, wins out over the everyday American. The articles failure to address the gentrification effects on the Irish and freed blacks contributes to a long history of horrible erasure in the United States of America, and, as always, highlights the difficulties of money for the project and not the lives they destroyed by uprooting 1,600 people from their communities.

               Of course, it’s important to note that the article’s audience seems to be targeting young teens. The rhetoric and voice of the piece represents this through its simple sentences and lack of specific anecdotes for the specific events they are given. For example, instead of exploring something that may have occurred in a specific year, the author lists the year and about a sentence or two containing broad events that happened on a specific date or within the same year. However, just because the audience is geared towards a younger audience does not mean they can simply omit history. In fact, I find the lighthearted nature of the article offends those who were displaced so that th government could build Central Park. This is a problem with memorialization, however. In the attempt to educate the public sphere—and in turn affect the public memory of a memorial—complex pieces of the story are cut in order to demonstrate a specific narrative or lens.

               In fact, according to another article, the park was not at all intended for the everyday people at all. One article on ny.com discusses how, the park was:

In the first decade of the park's completion, it became clear for whom it was built. Located too far uptown to be within walking distance for the city's working class population, the park was a distant oasis to them. Trainfare represented a greater expenditure than most of the workers could afford, and in the 1860s the park remained the playground of the wealthy; the afternoons saw the park's paths crowded with the luxurious carriages that were the status symbol of the day. Women socialized there in the afternoons and on weekends their husbands would join them for concerts or carriage rides. Saturday afternoon concerts attracted middle-class audiences as well, but the six-day work week precluded attendance by the working class population of the city. As a result, workers comprised but a fraction of the visitors to the park until the late nineteenth century, when they launched a successful campaign to hold concerts on Sundays as well.

Indeed, this would fit into the elitism of Olmsted and Vaux’s philosophy of the park being a non-interactive exhibit of sorts where people would dress up fancy and make a day out of Central Park. Additionally, Olmsted’s philosophy that the park would serve as a filter to good manners—meaning that the people who come in and would be properly taught how to treat a park, and then they would go out into the world and know how to treat their city—could be argued as an attempt to filter and rid of cultures that are seen as “ghetto” or “poor” and “barbaric.” Olmsted’s attempt to use the park as a way to influence individual and social memory of Central Park, meaning that an individual would experience the park and the philosophy that comes with it, be affected on an individual level, and then demonstrate those manners within the confines of the city which in turn would influence the collective memory with their transformative experience within the park as an individual memory, was corrupt and unjust. However, it doesn’t mean that Olmsted’s philosophy could not be redefined, as I have shown in my personal narrative.