The insanity continues: The latest objects to be declared racist are these

The insanity continues: The latest objects to be declared racist are these
Mickey Fearn (Image: FrontPagemag)

If you thought the efforts to ferret out racism ended with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, think again. The latest objects to be declared racist are … trees in national parks!

How are they racist? They remind blacks of lynchings in the days of slavery. So says Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service deputy director for communications and community assistance (try saying that 10 times real fast…).

Keep in mind that Yellowstone, the first national park in the nation, was created in 1872 in Wyoming — several years after slavery ended. And the last time I checked my history, Wyoming wasn’t a slave state. Talk about inconvenient facts.

Said Fearn, who is himself black, “African American people feel safe in cities and less safe in nature.” Really? You mean like Chicago, which eight shooting fatalities over the Mother’s Day weekend alone?

Fearn went on to explain that “preserving wild places is a white concept, going back to Rome.” In response to which Daniel Greenfield writes:

[I]f preserving wild places is a white concept, then clearly national parks are just white privilege and need to be dismantled in a truly multicultural society.

Contending that black people aren’t visiting national parks because of slavery memories doesn’t make much sense at this latter date. And it doesn’t appear that other minorities are visiting national parks either. Asians probably don’t have memories of lynched in the wilderness. (Was anyone being lynched in the wilderness at all?)

And Canada, where Fearn had visited, didn’t have major slave issues, but also has low utilization rates by minorities. So yes, it’s clearly slavery.

But it gets even better. According to WCBM:

Now Alcee Hastings, an impeached judge, and a coalition of minority groups is demanding increased “inclusiveness” at national parks. High on their list is the claim that, “African-Americans have felt unwelcome and even fearful in federal parklands during our nation’s history because of the horrors of lynching.” What do national parks have to do with lynchings? Many national parks have trees. People were hung from trees. It’s racial guilt by arboreal association. Trees are racist down to their roots.

Rush Limbaugh added:

Now, why is it only trees in our national parks where there wasn’t ever any racism or slavery? Why is it only trees in our national parks remind African-Americans of their ancestors being lynched? Why doesn’t every tree remind them of that? You African-Americans in the audience — and I know that there is a beaucoup bunch of you out there — I bet you, not a single one of you has the slightest reaction like that when you see a tree. You talk about a constructed media narrative.

“What do national parks have to do with lynchings? Many national parks have trees. People were hung from trees. It’s racial guilt by arboreal association. Trees are racist down to their roots.” That’s the Alcee Hastings group. (interruption) Cut all the trees down? There aren’t any trees in the inner city, right? Many people thought that’s what was gonna be racist about it. (interruption) Well, I know a tree grows in Harlem. There are trees. But not like there are out in the suburbs and not like there are at the national parks.

It’s not just trees that make national parks racist. The uniforms worn by park rangers and the vehicles they drive remind immigrants of the ones worn and driven by border patrol agents. Why that association would bother immigrants who are legally remains to be seen.

Related Articles:

Joe Newby

Joe Newby

Joe Newby is an IT professional. He has written for Conservative Firing Line, Examiner, NewsBusters, and Spokane Faith and Values.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.