[79 / 9 / ?]
Quoted By: >>849203 >>849206 >>849217 >>849220 >>849228 >>849240 >>849241 >>849262 >>849270 >>849327 >>849340 >>849345 >>849404 >>849406 >>849446 >>849729 >>850059
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/opinion-is-nature-in-the-national-parks-a-white-thing/
>Are minorities and working class people simply uninterested in nature?
Minorities and working class people love nature, because we're poor, and going outside is free.
>Today, a walk through a Chicago city park often provides a window on America's demographic future.
>The National Park Service can solve it's diversity problem. To do this, it needs to establish many more urban national parks.
They already have parks in urban areas, the problem is they're often too dangerous to visit. Re-branding them as "national parks" won't make them any safer or more popular.
>The park service needs to hire more rangers and employees from diverse backgrounds.
You can't force people to take jobs they don't want.
>It also needs to do a better job of interpreting African, Asian, Latino, Native American, labor, LGBT, immigrant and women's history on national park landscapes.
I agree with the Native American part, but you have to be careful how you do it. Take the Crazy Horse Memorial for example, Native Americans find it really offensive to destroy mountains for monuments. As for those other groups, it makes no sense to include their history in national park landscapes. Unless "labor" and "immigrants" are referring to the people that built the First Transcontinental Railroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial#Controversies
>Are minorities and working class people simply uninterested in nature?
Minorities and working class people love nature, because we're poor, and going outside is free.
>Today, a walk through a Chicago city park often provides a window on America's demographic future.
>The National Park Service can solve it's diversity problem. To do this, it needs to establish many more urban national parks.
They already have parks in urban areas, the problem is they're often too dangerous to visit. Re-branding them as "national parks" won't make them any safer or more popular.
>The park service needs to hire more rangers and employees from diverse backgrounds.
You can't force people to take jobs they don't want.
>It also needs to do a better job of interpreting African, Asian, Latino, Native American, labor, LGBT, immigrant and women's history on national park landscapes.
I agree with the Native American part, but you have to be careful how you do it. Take the Crazy Horse Memorial for example, Native Americans find it really offensive to destroy mountains for monuments. As for those other groups, it makes no sense to include their history in national park landscapes. Unless "labor" and "immigrants" are referring to the people that built the First Transcontinental Railroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial#Controversies
