Posted on 09/01/2019 2:44:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Once again, a traditional symbol has become a target of those who attack private property rights and the American way of life. In this case, the symbol is the lawn – those closely-cropped grassy areas that surround most single-family homes. The basis for the attack is very typically environmentalism and racism.
The messenger is an article in The New York Times. Its title is unassuming enough – “The Great American Lawn: How the Dream was Manufactured.” The vehicle is an embedded seven-minute film, produced by David Botti.
The Attack
The film’s first minute summarizes the environmental concerns:
Later, Mr. Botti makes the link to racism. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson planted large lawns at their estates. These lawns were planted and maintained through the back-breaking labor of enslaved people.
The film furthers the racist narrative by asserting that mechanization made lawns available for the “privileged masses” about the year 1870 with manual lawnmowers. Then it fast-forwards to returning G.I.’s from World War II who settled in the suburbs with green lawns – unless they were black. The narrator condemns “a symbol of an American dream that is recognized by most, but only attainable to some.”
A Rebuttal
Such attacks are simplistic in their reasoning. Like all plants, grass absorbs carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Thus, they can serve an environmental function.
(Excerpt) Read more at returntoorder.org ...
On my street the unkempt lawns belong to the black community with two exceptions out if eight so 25 percent of of my neighborhoods black community or racists.
As best as I can tell, most of the lawns in my neighborhood are there to provide employment for lawn care companies with Hispanic names and Mexican workers. Not real sure if that’s racist, but those workers sure do seem to appreciate the opportunity to make some money at it.
Can you update me on cauliflower? Were you serious?
—
AOC labeled cauliflower a “colonial” vegetable.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/05/21/ocasio-cortez-planting-cauliflower-is-racist-yall-756734
Lawns are environmentally useless.
—
So are liberals. But if we have to keep one, let’s take our chances with lawns. Nice, fresh, green, well-trimmed lawns.
The wife tells me it’s time to cut the grass. I say “No, honey....there’s a reason it’s called ‘tall fescue’.”
I mow 3 acres on this place and call it fire control if we have a prairie fire in the area.
Lawns are NOT environmentally useless.
They absorb CO2 and produce O2. They keep the soil aerated, and in their decay return nutrients to it.
They are rich in chlorophyll. They are GREEN.
I thought the left loved GREEN.
If the posting is mis-categorized, such an entity could report it properly.
If it is properly categorized, then such comments are just ad hominem trolling.
“They are rich in chlorophyll. They are GREEN.”
They reduce global warming. Lawn is cooler than dirt.
They reduce rain runoff. They hold water that would otherwise cause erosion.
Lawns are good for picnics, weddings, and playgrounds. Dirt is not!
(Time for bed! goodnight!)
Thanks. I thought I couldn’t find her more bizarre but this proves me wrong.
Lawns mean suburb/country living instead of being crammed into a small, dense area - they hate the FReedom of being able to breath and stretch your arms w/o hitting someone...everybody into the manageable communes....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.