(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegefix.com ...
SPOILER ALERT!
Here is the ONE WEIRD TRICK alluded to so you don’t have to bother clicking. It doesn’t name names. It just describes names that might be changed.
***********
The study also reported that 214 names appropriate Indigenous language, 205 names replace an Indigenous place name with a colonizer name, and 52 names honored violent individuals. Others, such as Yellowstone National Park, were “the work of white urban power elites,” including Teddy Roosevelt. The former president helped grow the National Park Service.
The researchers wrote that “white hegemonic symbols embedded in parks can contribute to a perception that white people are the primary stewards and knowledge keepers of nature” and as a result make racial minorities feel excluded. “Black people are 13% of the US population yet they are only 1% of US national park visitors, while white people are 76% of the US population and 96% of visitors,” the paper noted.
“Black people are 13% of the US population yet they are only 1% of US national park visitors”
______________
Because they are offended, excluded, and diminished by names like Yellowstone. Of course. Why didn’t I think of that? The white urban elites should have named it should re-name it Donquesheeta Park. That’ll diversify the visitor profile.
Somebody should remind these idiots that without the “white urban power elites”, they would not have a free country and they would not be allowed to play with themselves thinking up things to be offended about.
Oh yeah, they think history should be erased..however, they’d be speaking German, Japanese or Russian now, and there would be concentration and reeducation camps everywhere
The article summarizes the report.
Here is a link to the actual published report which is much more specific about the names the researchers found offensive:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10302
The report was published in the “People and Nature”, a publication of the British Ecological Society. Since the report pertained to US National Parks, why wasn’t it published in the United States?
Also of interest the research was funded by the David H. Smith Conservation Fellowship Program at Duke University. Here is a link: https://researchfunding.duke.edu/david-h-smith-conservation-research-fellowship-program
The funding of the fellowships comes from the Cedar Tree Foundation. Link: https://cedartreefound.org/who-we-are
Of interest the Cedar Tree Foundation grants were given to support local conservation issues when David Smith, the benefactor was living. After his death the foundation began supporting environmental justice, environmental health, and other leftist causes.
So many foundations are coopted by leftist administrators one the wealthy benefactor dies, and the foundation funds are diverted to social justice causes, and not the mission envisioned by the foundation benefactor. Perhaps it is time to reform foundations. One obvious reform is to eliminate the tax free status of foundations. The second is to have a sunset provision so foundations are not a perpetual source of funding. Require foundations to spend all of their funds within 20 years of founding. The funds must be spent on specific projects, directly pertaining to the mission stated by the original benefactor, not simply rolled over to another foundation. At the end of the 20 year period, the foundation funds must be completely dispersed and the organization terminated.
Well, me and my friends here at Dumb Swede Springs sure are relieved to hear that!
Regards,
So?
What so they propose? Forcing blacks to go to national parks?