No to what?
To me buying into the majority of your premise.
I don't need to explain squat to you pal.
Your'e correct, but if we're going to have a chance of me understanding the errors in my reading comprehension of both the article and your premise, someone will need to explain them to me. You've taken an aggressive pro stance on the article contents, have a strong opinion that you're willing to share, experienced a different life than mine and are here. So again, please explain to me how what I read isn't racist?
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.
Okay, appreciate the clarification. Your previous posts read much differently.
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.
See, here we go. Common ground.
Me too (just a guy, It's Bill by the way, but see you knew that later in your post). The article was very specific on inclusive and exclusive. You're clarification significant, which differs from the article. I still don't buy the premise, but we're finding commonality.
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'.
Again, common ground. And yet, there's a growing faction that draws conclusions with the same amount of information. Certain that the smoking gun is obvious to anyone who's enlightened enough to see. The national media has decided to provide a platform. This is one of the areas that the article goes off the rails for me personally. Clearly I don't make the leap and so I'm the opposite of enlightened. Plus it's been pointed out that I'm white and that effects my ability to "see".
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.
Okay, fair enough, appreciate the clarity. Again, this runs contrary to your previous statement., so your clarification is meaningful in our conversation.
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.
I'm all in with you here. Know I hesitate to take the other road just when we found the same lane.............
So, I do that with family. The response from all but one is "why"? The response after dragging the none believers out is "why" and "it's your thing, not mine"
This is my own family.
Based on that experience, why would I make the presumption that everyone wants to be outside and is just waiting for me to be the ambassador? You want to get outside and make that interest clear, I'm your man. But it's on you, not me. Christ, two-thirds of our friends think we're nuts (no internet? No phone? No TV? No A/C?).
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.
The leap I'm not making is that the Park's don't reflect that parity because of someone's fault. Or societies? Or mine? By that logic, shouldn't the major national and college sports more accurately reflect the makeup of the overall population? On a personal level, I was 6'.0", 150 lbs soaking wet in high school. Our coach tried to introduce me to football. Against my better judgement I showed up. First hour/first day/first week epiphany that track was more my thing.
Again, don't need to explain squat. You're the one reading race into the post of mine that you quoted.
Again you're correct, but if you do want me to understand your position and it's lack of being race based, you'll need to explain it better to me.
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.
Glad you asked, thank you.
My introduction to anything other than Iowa cornfields was through PBS and National Geographic magazines. Personally, I never experienced anything taller than a grain bin until my 30's. Somehow, my life was full before then. Just fuller now.
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?
Darn it, and we were doing so well. We both know context matters. I'll confirm my assumption that you know what you're doing to make a point. I'm pointing out my disappointment. We'll both live.
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?
Yep, the older I am, the deeper my belief in "if there's a will......."
I'm active with Habitat for Humanity. It's a great program on multiple levels. There's so many wins on so many levels, no way to go there without getting on a soapbox. The jist is folks who otherwise wouldn't have (home ownership) opportunities EARN it. It's not easy, it takes commitment, hard work and zero excuses. Those that have enough desire - do. Those that don't - don't.
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.
We have differing opinions here. Again, folks - even kids, maybe especially kids, need to know free lunch doesn't exist in the real world. The cost needn't be excessive, but skin-in-the-game is important. Am honestly curious........do you think kids don't know who pays and who doesn't?
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, what constitutes access to the outdoors in our conversation? Clearly article's definition is National Parks. Is it possible for someone to experience the outdoors in a City Park? County? State? I saw the mountains for the first time in my 30's, how should I feel about that?
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?
You asked. And yes, I'm trying to have a conversation. But like you, I know the depth of the backstory that's unshared.
My brother is an attorney in San Francisco. He has a love of words, their conveyance done well in both writing and spoken. He called me when his son was accepted and we spoke for hours. And hours. His pride was physically present over the phone. He's asked to see the essay dozens and dozens of times that I'm aware of. To no avail. I know my nephew well enough to suspect what it contains. Could be wrong. Likely not.
Hypocrisy in core values rubs me wrong regardless of who.
Good at what?
This.
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.
I'm ironyless.
You have the last word. I'll leave it at this.
