For me, the story of THE CENTRAL PARK V started with me seeing a newspaper with the headline "WOMAN RAPED IN CENTRAL PARK" lying on the lunchroom table as I arrived at work.
The first thing I thought was "And water is wet."
I kept on tippin' down the hallway in my pencil skirt and not-very-sensible pumps. But I doubled back. It took me about 5 to 7 seconds to realize that I'd just seen a headline, not a tiny blurb in a back section where rapes are usually reported in the newspaper.
When black and brown women, mostly domestics on their way to white homes on the other side of Central Park, were being gang raped their rapes were barely worth a sentence of two.
But somehow, on that particular day, the rape of a nobody --someone with no celebrity status at all-- had made it onto the front page.
I went back to the lunch table, put my briefcase down and snatched up the news paper. I just skimmed the article. I didn't even read what happened to her, not really. I read just enough to see the word "wilding" and understand that this was now the vogue term for a gang rape involving a vicious beating. But all I was looking for was the information that I already knew was there.
The rape of a white woman is the only rape that could make the first section of a major newspaper. But it took class and status, both, to put her on the front page. So not only was she white, but -- as I recall-- she had a degree from a primo school if not an ivy league school and a fancy financial job to match.
The woman must be
1) white
2) ivy league school (or a close equivalent)
3) making today's equivalent of 6 figures
4) and likely have black assailants
When The Central Park V were rapidly arrested, I'd be willing to guess that 96% of us black and brown folks, living in the area at the time, knew they didn't do it. We knew the cops had randomly picked up some black and brown kids.
At the same time, the white people reading the same newspapers, 95% of whom considered themselves non-racists while holding extremely racist views, looked on with glee as these boys were arrested.
And the only initial evidence of their guilt was that they were in the park SOMEWHERE while being black or brown.
Non-violent, non-N-word-using racists who don't believe they are racists don't look for chains of evidence that make sense. Before the coerced confessions came they absolutely could not conceive of young black boys, as barely more than children, browbeaten and lied to, who would say almost anything, confess to just about anything for so long as the accusations will stop and they can see their parents -- after hours and hours of interrogation.
I believe they were interrogated without their parents upwards of 12 hours.
And white folks reading the news had no problem with this or the legitimacy of their confessions. Why? White racists see big black rapist men no matter the age or size of the black boy.
Marmalade Maggot was living in NY at the time too. That Racist-In-Chief, currently in the White House leading the country off a cliff, took out a full page ad in major newspapers calling for these boys to be executed. Some 25 to 30 years later, when he was running for president, he refused to take his accusation back despite another man, a rapist by profession, having confessed to the crime.
When you finally get to watch DuVernay's series, don't forget to keep an eye out for just how the white mainstream press helped put those boys in prison. At least one of those kids was inside for 13 years.
The first thing I thought was "And water is wet."
I kept on tippin' down the hallway in my pencil skirt and not-very-sensible pumps. But I doubled back. It took me about 5 to 7 seconds to realize that I'd just seen a headline, not a tiny blurb in a back section where rapes are usually reported in the newspaper.
When black and brown women, mostly domestics on their way to white homes on the other side of Central Park, were being gang raped their rapes were barely worth a sentence of two.
But somehow, on that particular day, the rape of a nobody --someone with no celebrity status at all-- had made it onto the front page.
I went back to the lunch table, put my briefcase down and snatched up the news paper. I just skimmed the article. I didn't even read what happened to her, not really. I read just enough to see the word "wilding" and understand that this was now the vogue term for a gang rape involving a vicious beating. But all I was looking for was the information that I already knew was there.
The rape of a white woman is the only rape that could make the first section of a major newspaper. But it took class and status, both, to put her on the front page. So not only was she white, but -- as I recall-- she had a degree from a primo school if not an ivy league school and a fancy financial job to match.
But ya know what?
Just as we saw in O J Simpson case, a crime against a white woman doesn't matter a lick until the accused is black.
I promise you, if this woman had been raped and beaten just after school on a basketball court setting just to one side of at a 99% white private school, there would have been gasps of shock that it could happen in such a place. But that's would have been a major news story for a month, max. And that's only if the rich Mommy and Daddies of the "misunderstood" white teenaged gang rapists let the story get anywhere near a major newspaper
There certainly wouldn't have been a NYC cop manhunt put together to find the rapist of one woman.So let us review. There are 4 criteria that must be met for a rape to make the front page in 1980s/1990s America
The woman must be
1) white
2) ivy league school (or a close equivalent)
3) making today's equivalent of 6 figures
4) and likely have black assailants
When The Central Park V were rapidly arrested, I'd be willing to guess that 96% of us black and brown folks, living in the area at the time, knew they didn't do it. We knew the cops had randomly picked up some black and brown kids.
At the same time, the white people reading the same newspapers, 95% of whom considered themselves non-racists while holding extremely racist views, looked on with glee as these boys were arrested.
And the only initial evidence of their guilt was that they were in the park SOMEWHERE while being black or brown.
Non-violent, non-N-word-using racists who don't believe they are racists don't look for chains of evidence that make sense. Before the coerced confessions came they absolutely could not conceive of young black boys, as barely more than children, browbeaten and lied to, who would say almost anything, confess to just about anything for so long as the accusations will stop and they can see their parents -- after hours and hours of interrogation.
I believe they were interrogated without their parents upwards of 12 hours.
And white folks reading the news had no problem with this or the legitimacy of their confessions. Why? White racists see big black rapist men no matter the age or size of the black boy.
Marmalade Maggot was living in NY at the time too. That Racist-In-Chief, currently in the White House leading the country off a cliff, took out a full page ad in major newspapers calling for these boys to be executed. Some 25 to 30 years later, when he was running for president, he refused to take his accusation back despite another man, a rapist by profession, having confessed to the crime.
Please Note:Mr. Grab-Em-By-The-P*ssy hasn't taken out an ad endorsing Harvey Weinstein's execution. And we know why. Birds of a repulsive white feather flock together.
When you finally get to watch DuVernay's series, don't forget to keep an eye out for just how the white mainstream press helped put those boys in prison. At least one of those kids was inside for 13 years.
