No to what?
You'll need to explain to me how the meat of the article, let alone the headline, isn't blatantly racist taken in the context presented.
I don't need to explain squat to you pal.
Wouldn't all races from the inner city benefit from the outdoor experiences you hold so dear IF they felt the same way about it as you do? Not my people, or your people, or their people, but just all people?
They sure would. Outer city, too. My people are all people. I'm not a fan of othering, like
@BCMoto is. It divides, and prevents us from achieving common goals. The community I grew up with had people from all backgrounds - our commonality was being working class in a shitty neighborhood, regardless of skin color.
Am I to presume that white folks from the inner city either have better resources to get to the great outdoors or don't really matter because, statistically, they're already over represented?
You can presume whatever you want. My personal feeling on the matter is sadness that this national conversation about race and equality is leaving out disenfranchised white americans, both urban and rural. But you're not talking to the captain of zeitgeist here, I'm just a guy.
My personal experience camping in Colorado and Arizona, South Dakota and the Midwest is the Latino community is well represented. Much less so inside the National Parks. What conclusions should I draw with this, and only this, information? Yeah, seems to be a lot of this going around lately.
Dude I love drawing statistical conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Edit: that's sarcasm. Anecdotes can supplement statistical evidence, to uncover the 'why' and 'how' of the statistical 'what' that we observe. Your anecdote is not a 'why', nor a 'how'.
You state that "No, we aren't asking for free handouts. We're asking for a discussion on how to make the outdoors more accessible to people who might not even be aware that it exists". So first, how would you propose accomplishing that agenda without money? Fundraising? I'll donate (with a caveat). But I suspect it will be with taxpayer funds, which puts a hole in your "no one is asking you, personally, to do anything" (except pay for it).
I mentioned a hypothetical rail system before, and buses as an intermediary measure. Yes - absent philanthropy, tax dollars would fund or subsidize it. And the interstate system was built with tax dollars and operates at a huge deficit. Do you complain about that too? I'm no accountant, I'm no bursar. I'm raising ideas here for discussion.
Other ideas people have raised that use our existing infrastructure and impart no personal responsibility on you, Bill, are extending invitations to people who might be apprehensive about getting outdoors, who don't have any history of experience with the outdoors, and who could use a mentor / guide to get started.
And second, and my much larger issue with this "proposal", is that it is being directed to minorities only.
Minority representation in parks is serving as a diagnostic tool for access to said parks. It doesn't need to be directed to minorities only; we'll know that we've achieved parity when we get to a point where attendance at parks is reflective of the overall population.
Again, you'll need to explain to me how that isn't the very definition of racism.
Again, don't need to explain squat. You're the one reading race into the post of mine that you quoted.
Your question on how to get folks to the outdoors without uprooting is a good one to me personally. First, do they have any interest? If yes, let's keep going. If no, then stop. Otherwise, it stinks of well intentioned do gooderism.
How can someone have an interest if they're unaware of an opportunity? Why would they have an interest if their experiences have led to a belief that the outdoors are full of dangers that preclude their enjoyment? Again, these are obstacles to overcome. I agree that not everyone's going to genuinely have an interest in the outdoors - we're leaving those who would, if they had more information or experience, in the lurch.
So back to yes, they have an interest. Make them pay a portion of their cost or work it off beforehand a/k/a Habitat for Humanity model. You'll find out immediately if they're truly interested or not. Those that are won't complain for the opportunity. Skin-in-the-game trumps lip service/philosophical mumbo-jumbo every time. Those that are looking for a free trip be damned.
One of my friends came from a pretty well-off family. They regularly travelled from the midwest to Utah and Colorado to hike, camp, ski, and climb. My pal didn't have skin in the game - he was along for the ride provided by his parents. Eventually he had to make the fiduciary investments required to maintain a relationship with our outdoors, but he still enjoyed ~15 years of experience and exposure for free. Is he damned for the free trip?
You're very concerned with paying for costs incurred. Do you internalize every cost you incur? Do you account for every ounce of pollutant your vehicle emits when you press on the pedal? Do you pay the real cost for the wear and mileage on the roads you drive, or only the prices legislated by the government institutions that manage those roads? Do you pay for the opportunity cost of all the real estate taken up by those roads?
Your idea here is an edification of yet another barrier to entry. Something as simple as 'free for kids, or for the first few times' would be solid. On the personal outing with newbies front, maybe don't make them pay for anything the first time out, and let them know that they'll need to chip in for food and gas at bare minimum moving forward. That's just a suggestion.
Your comments on restructuring your life/forgone opportunities applies to everyone regardless. We make our choices based on OUR choices, not someone elses. Those choices have benefits/consequences. You weigh yours, I'll weigh mine.
Wow, I'm enlightened. Never occurred to me before. Thanks man.
I'm not looking for pity, nor sympathy, nor empathy. I already feel that in spades for people who don't get to experience life outside of an urban hellscape. Again, this conversation is about how we can improve access to the outdoors so that those choices don't need to be sacrifices.
So, in order to avoid gross generalizations, I'll be specific and personal. My brother was married to a black woman (her self identification, not my description, African American offended her). My oldest nephew is the corrector of all racial injustices. He's educated, well spoken and has an agenda/chip on his shoulder. After his umteenth attempt of white guilting our daughters, I asked him to knock it off (with no effect). When he turned his attention on me and my inability to understand his burden because of my whiteness, I asked him to provide me with a copy of his application essay to NYU, that I was sure it would enlighten me to his struggles. You see, he was never a very good student nor was he an athlete. But he was awarded a full ride. Never saw the essay, but he sure behaved better around the girls since then. Hmmm, what conclusion should you draw from this, and only this information?
My guess? He's struggled with his identity his whole life and has needed to justify himself and his experiences to any number of people in varying positions of power over his future. You're just another person demanding supplication before your altar of apathy to those experiences. I've experienced the same my whole life; it's exhausting - not that you'd know. This conversation - right now, with you - is exhausting, because I don't think you're asking me these questions seeking understanding. I think you want me to apologize for ever considering that my experiences have been colored by my skin and last name, despite every memory I have to the contrary.
You still haven't seen that essay. Have you assumed what it contains? If you believe that NYU only accepted him due to his race, then do you fault him for taking advantage of the opportunity? How can he divorce his life experiences from his application? What could he have done that would suit you?
I'll acknowledge you're good at this, though.
Good at what?
Inferring your opinion as to what your quoted party meant, then drawing it along racial lines has been used to death ("these people" "your people" "my people").
I'm hoping that you recognize the irony of this statement once you reread my post that you quoted, for your own sake.
I'm responding to these comments because you asked and I don't believe in rhetorical questions. I feel a lot of this discussion is a distraction from the main point, and I'm hoping that we can refocus this conversation on the matter at hand: improving access to our nation's natural beauty for our fellow americans who would never otherwise experience it.
Cheers,
