Forget the fact that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist. Or that “whiteness” should be eliminated. Now, liberals are suggesting trees in national parks are racist.
Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service’s (NPS) Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance stated that trees remind blacks of lynchings during the days of slavery. Despite the fact that Yellowstone National Park, America’s first national park, was created several years after the end of slavery in 1872, and that Wyoming was never a slave state, this NPS director thinks a forest will offend blacks.
Fearn, a black man, says, “African American people feel safe in cities and less safe in nature. Preserving wild places is a white concept, going back to Rome.”
While this is comical to most, and proves that liberalism is a mental disorder, what Fearn misunderstands is that trees can’t think or discriminate like people can. In fact, Fearn’s statement is in itself racist and bigoted.
Daniel Greenfield wrote in FrontPage Magazine:
So if 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 better. WCBM explained. Alcee Hastings, an impeached judge, and a coalition of minority groups, are 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? Trees exist everywhere. Forests exist from the West to East Coast of America and everywhere in-between. Most, if not all, federal, state, county, and city parks have trees. People were hung from trees. Jesus was nailed to wood. Trees must also be anti-Christian. Trees are shredded to make paper. Paper must be racist too.
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.
If trees are racist, they must also be sexist and/or “homophobic.” Maybe even some trees identify as bushes or grass, stating they were born as the wrong tree. They really aren’t trees at all.
This is the insanity that proves liberalism is a mental disorder.