Image credit: Andrew Henderson/The New York Times
On Saturday the New York Times published an article concerning the ongoing battle between the famed Marcus Gavery Park (or is it Mount Morris?) Drummer’s Circle and new residents who live nearby. The timbre of the ‘discussion’ on this issue among the parties involved and larger community has ranged from completely civil to completely outrageous on both sides of the debate; in this weekend’s article the Times exposes an alleged email from one of the area residents that serves to underline just how heated the issue has become over the years. This and other blogs have followed the controversy with no shortage of opinions on the issues and how it could be resolved.
An Old Sound in Harlem Draws New Neighbors’ Ire - NYTimes
Drumming up trouble in the park – Uptownflavor
Drumming up a Protest – NPR
‘Battle for Harlem’ feature on the Drum Circle (forward to 5:25) – Al Jazeera’s Inside USA
Video of the Circle - YouTube
On a lighter note, it turns out noise complaints aren’t only a racial or gentrification issue, it’s just a not liking noise issue. In this case the pitter-patter of little feet are the culprits.
The Noise Children Make – NYTimes
UPDATE: An anonymous commenter posted that a compromise has been met and the drum circle relocated to address the noise complaints. He or she also questioned the timing of the article and that it is meant to incite more controversy rather than tell the complete story. If that is the case it makes one wonder that maybe good news isn’t good enough news…
Related: Africa Dance Drum Life
Gecko
July 8, 2008
anon – you should DEFINITELY send an e-mail to the editor of the NYT Metro Section. I am absolutely appalled that the Times would allow an article like this to be printed so long after the issue has been resolved. The editor needs to know about this, and based on my experience with e-mailing the Times, I’m sure you will get a response from him/her.
The article has proven to be nothing short of incendiary, and has caused lots of hateful things to be said (on both sides) on many blogs. And unfortunately, no one seems to address the real issue here – and that is, the drum circle is a valid artistic expression of a culture that is now having to accept the reality of existing in a newly multicultural neighborhood. Both sides need to respect one another, and from what you have said, it sounds like that has happened in the resolution. But the hundreds of thousands of people who read that article in the Times are once again left with the impression that it’s all about race. Yes, gentrification has both positve and negative aspects to it, no matter the neighborhood being gentrified – and make no mistake about it, ANY neighborhood in NYC, expecially in Manhattan, if fair game for gentrification given the limited amount of real estate here and the number of people with the means and desire to live in this city. But compromise on both sides is what it’s all about – the fact that a significant amount of additional afforadable housing was added to the 125th Street rezoning plan is a good example of such a compromise. Will some people “lose out” as Harlem gentrifies? Unfortunately, yes. Will some long-time Harlem residents benefit greatly from gentrification? Definitely. Will the housing projects continue to exist as new condo developments emerge? Of course. It hasn’t been an easy process, but it is a process that will continue to move forward. The important thing is that those of us who live in Harlem continue to talk with one another about these issues, to challenge the changes that have greater potential to harm rather than help our neighborhood, and to embrace those changes that will make Harlem a safer, cleaner neighborhood in which to raise our children.
Spinning
July 8, 2008
original anon, I can see why you would be wary of posting about this, let alone writing to the NYT. But given what you’re saying – and having seen the article for myself – it seems like writing to them might be a very good idea.
You can always request that your name and address not be printed, and AFAIK, the Times generally only prints the given name and town/city of writer in their “letters” sections.
original anon
July 7, 2008
Thank you for posting the update, and responding to my original comment.
I don’t know the answer to your question about why the reporter would exclude this information from his article. He must have known, since everyone he quotes in the article is aware of the situation.
If I had to guess, i think from reading the article it’s clear that the writer had possession of the email, and wanted to write about it, but without a current conflict to tie it to, there was no story. So he conveniently omitted the fact that the central story to his article was actually resolved months ago. And the horrible email was sent over six months ago.
I have certainly considered writing to the Times, but it’s hard to know if that would backfire. I personally have always avoiding engaging the press on this issue, since i didn’t think it was a PR issue that should be waged in the public square of the New York Times, but an issue between members of the same community that was being mediated by local community leaders. I have always hesitated from even posting on UF in any of the many threads on this subject. i just couldn’t withhold my feelings any longer, and i certainly thank you for giving my words a fair reading.
Justin
July 6, 2008
Thank you for your comment. I wonder why the reporter didn’t try to get the full story? As this is literally close to home for you maybe this warrants writing into the Times to have them do a follow-up or something. I’ve posted an update on the UF post.
anon
July 6, 2008
The thing about this article that doesn’t make any sense, is it’s timing. It makes it appear, as does your entry, as if this battle is still on going, when in fact, a compromise has been reached that both parties are happy with. The new drummers circle has been constructed with consultation by the drummers on location and design, and is far enough from the building that the residents are no longer an issue. So why do this article now?
I am a resident of the building, and the thing i cannot live with is how that awful “email” is portrayed in this article. When that email hit my inbox i was horrified and offended, and i emailed the resident back (and everyone else on the list) to express my outrage. Most of my neighbors did the same. But i guess the reporter didn’t want to report about those emails. Instead, he paints us all with the same brush, and implies we all had a hand in those terrible words.
It is things like this that only serve to fan the flames…and in this case the flames had long been reduced to nothing but a few simmering embers.
At the very least I would want people to know there are many “innocent bystanders” here in this building who had nothing do to with that email, and rejected it’s racist and sick comments immediately….and i would also hope that a reporter would do their job and report that this conflict is resolved.
He didn’t even locate the drum circle on the map properly. (the former location or the new location)