Again I don't think so-called "racism" has anything to do with a discussion of market preferences, in this case the desire by certain groups to visit national parks.

Has anyone been to a blues festival lately? Has anyone voiced concern about the fact that the majority of musicians onstage are black and the majority of people in the audience are white? Is Buddy Guy worried about the lack of African-Americans buying tickets to his shows? The answer is NO. He's been asked and he could care less. Shouldn't the people who produce blues music be alarmed that there are not very many black faces at their shows? Not hardly. They have many satisfied customers whose ranks are growing, regardless of what color those customers may happen to be.

The same is true of the current rap and hip-hop stars who are draped in platinum and gold because they are selling millions of records to white-middle class suburban kids who now emulate the gangster/prison styles of low-rise pants and high-rise underwear. Should we be asking why? Isn't this a form of cultural imperialism on the part of rappers? It never fails to amuse me to see spoiled rich white kids in high-end parts of town walking around acting like inner-city hoodlums.

"This isn't simply about adding more of a certain kind of visitor or having more of a certain kind of employee; it's understanding how the realities of today are connected with the realities of yesterday." Well put Mr. Macdonald.

When all is said and done it's far more important for the NPS to be stewards of the lands that they have been assigned to administer and to not fret about what color or percentage of its visitors is of a certain racial or ethnic type. Their job is to please their customers (whoever they may be) and protect the site. Nothing more----nothing less.

The reason I asked the author of the article to specify what the NPS should be doing is that he raised that very question. (A question he never answered.) He says in paragaph 2, that the NPS is looking into ways to boost 'diversity' among park visitors.

Perhaps the NPS could host private parties inviting the 'right' demographic. (She says sarcastically).

Kath and others who think I am recommending that the Park Service or some government agency do something to address diversity: I’m not suggesting any NPS or government program. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with any government program. I would like to see people of all colors, including the color white, not buying into myths and stereotypes perpetrated by Marlboro, Hollywood, and etc. I would like to see us all get wet, get cold, and get along. That seems like it would be of no disadvantage to anybody and just maybe an advantage to all.

I would like people of the color white, when they look out onto a sea of white faces – be it a day hike on a portion of the Appalachian Trail, or a Blue Grass concert in Telluride – to recognize that what they’re seeing isn’t ‘market determination’, and to simply be curious.

I would like to see people of color get outdoors and take advantage of a unique advantage of being an American by enjoying the many wild and scenic public lands that are their birthright as well. I would like them to not say to me, “We don’t do that.” Because we do. For example, buried next to Admiral Peary in Arlington National Cemetery is Mathew Henson, the black man who actually led Peary to the North Pole.

Contrary to what is sometimes put out there, there are no quotas. They’re illegal. There are no official double standards of abilities, except that often for a person of color to make the same achievements as a white person, he or she has to rise even further above the crowd. Contrary to what is sometimes put out there, white people are seldom actually ‘diversified out of a job’ by a person of lesser abilities. But it’s a great excuse. And if skin color occasionally does give a person an advantage, um…you get the point. An NPS associate regional director for the Intermountain region recently wrote, in response to negative feedback and complaints on the supposed lowering of standards to hire more diversity:

I cannot find a single directive, regulation,
order, or practice that has mandated a reduction in qualifications in
order to obtain a more diverse workforce. This is an example of
individual racism turned into institutional racism.

When I say I don’t want to see the NPS do something through a program, I’m perhaps not being entirely honest. I was with the Park Service long enough to hear a great deal of officialdom about diversity, and long enough to see it come to nothing. If an agency is going to make so much noise, perhaps it should actually walk the walk. The Park Service has ranger training academies set up at about 10 mostly white community colleges. What if just ONE were set up at a mostly black or native school? And guess what? Several years ago this was suggested. The schools are overseen by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia – where all permanent rangers receive their training alongside the FBI, Secret Service, and ATF. FLETC objected. Ten academies in mostly white schools, but one at a mostly black or native school was ‘problematic’. So I don’t know what the NPS answer is. I’d like to see hiring managers held accountable for walking the Park Service’s talk. I know from direct experience, that if they can sincerely regurgitate the Park Service message of support of diversity, that they really don’t need to actually DO anything. No accountability what-so-ever. However, I was just making an observation and asking a question. Einstein said it was more important to ask the questions than to have the answers, and the Buddhist faith emphasizes curiosity. I’m not Einstein and I’m not Buddhist, but I’m only asking of you – not the government – to be curious, and ask questions. That’s it. I’m asking people of color to ignore the myths. That’s it.

But my essay wasn’t really about the Park Service, or even being outdoors. It was really about why we choose to limit our own selves by buying into revisionist history and stereotypes. And more importantly, why, after 600 years of being together, we choose to be so separate from each other while maintaining so much suspicion, animosity, and ignorance of the other. The outdoors, where we all get tired, wet, cold, and hungry – regardless of race - would be a great classroom and a great place for us all to ‘just get over it.’ We wouldn’t even need funiculars.

"And more importantly, why, after 600 years of being together, we choose to be so separate from each other while maintaining so much suspicion, animosity, and ignorance of the other."

I think the whole issue of "diversity" is about focusing on differences rather than bringing people together in the first place. The reason the NPS pays lip service to this trendy and meaningless notion is that it knows where it's bread is buttered and has to bow to all of the politically correct mandates emanating from the mandarins in DC. I agree with your observation "that if they can sincerely regurgitate the Park Service message of support of diversity, that they really don’t need to actually DO anything. No accountability what-so-ever." They know deep down that it is a meaningless game but one that they must go through the motions for to advance a career.

If it had meaning and some clarity of purpose it would naturally emerge as a meaningful construct. As it is now diversity is a silly numbers game that only divides us further by driving a wedge through society based on the notion that we are better off with representative numbers in all things. If this ever truly comes to pass I guess it'll be the end of professional football, baseball and basketball in America because there are not enough white people to represent the race in proportion to their numbers. I wonder why no one ever brings up the lack of diversity in the NBA? Maybe because merit and skill trumps skin color when you want your team to be a success. Just a thought.

Mr. Hare has taken several thinly-veiled slams at me. The first instance referenced people who "pretend that they lost their job because of somebody else's need to hire a diverse staff." This was clearly in reference to my previous statement, "I was 'diversified' out of a job at SEKI. My boss, a Hispanic woman, wanted to 'diversify' the staff, so she hired a Hispanic woman for my position." The second occurred in his last comment: "Contrary to what is sometimes put out there, white people are seldom actually 'diversified out of a job' by a person of lesser abilities."

In the first instance, Hare implies that I'm "pretending" that the reason I wasn't rehired was due to my boss' desire to see more Hispanics on the staff. I'm not pretending and have plenty of anecdotes to support my claim.

As for Hare's second assertion, that "white people are seldom actually ‘diversified out of a job’ by a person of lesser abilities", that is clearly another slam, but Here left a loophole by using the word "seldom". By using this word, Hare admits that it sometimes happens. Sometimes is too much, especially in light of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits using race as a hiring factor.

Hare also previously stated (and reiterated): "People like to invoke, 'It's culture, not color.' I hear that all the time. But we've been together over six hundred years! Do we really have different cultures?"

First, "we've all been together over 600 years"? The first Africans arrived in what is now the United States of America around 1620, less than 400 years ago (Columbus arrived in the hemisphere 515 years ago, still not more than 600, and certainly we weren't all "living together"). I get it, though. Use a bigger number and it'll back up your point.

As for do we have different cultures, the answer I'd tell you, that most multiculturalists and anthropologists would tell you, is a resounding OF COURSE! While there some can say we have a prevailing culture in this country, there are many separate cultures. We have a gay culture, hundreds of different aboriginal cultures, Asian cultures (look at the China Towns across the country and tell me they don't represent distinct cultures in America), rural cultures, urban cultures. There are millions of first-generation and illegal Mexican immigrants, whose culture is very unlike ours (different language, food, religion, etc.).

Speaking of this last culture, I was at Multnomah Falls in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (operated by the USFS) on Sunday. I saw Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, the whole rainbow of color. One Mexican male made rude sexual comments (in Spanish - he assumed I didn't know Spanish) about my future wife (there's a personal anecdote for you, something I don't need a study to prove because I can see it). Clearly, that behavior is not tolerated in our mainstream culture as it is in Latin America (I remember having to watch videos during Peace Corps orientation about Latin American cultures and the difficulty female volunteers face there) or in African-American urban culture (seen a rap video lately?). I'm sorry, but I don't really want to run into that type of BS sexist patriarchal machismo anywhere, let alone the backcountry where I'm miles and hours from social safety. But hey, what can diversity do for you?

Why was there so much "diversity" at Multnomah Falls, Oregon's number one tourist destination? Because it's easy to get to, and people across all of all colors are lazy. And fat. They don't want to hike. You can see the Falls from the freeway, the parking lot, or behind the gift shop. In addition to being too lazy to walk, people don't want to have to plan ahead or carry food and water great distances while they walk, so the Falls also works because it has a restaurant, lounge, gift shop, and ice cream stand. If there is one predominant US culture, it's the culture of Lazy.

Ranger X you're priceless!

I have no idea what Mr. Hare has to say about this, but I have plenty of my own thoughts on these remarks.

Mr. Hare has taken several thinly-veiled slams at me. The first instance referenced people who "pretend that they lost their job because of somebody else's need to hire a diverse staff." This was clearly in reference to my previous statement, "I was 'diversified' out of a job at SEKI. My boss, a Hispanic woman, wanted to 'diversify' the staff, so she hired a Hispanic woman for my position." The second occurred in his last comment: "Contrary to what is sometimes put out there, white people are seldom actually 'diversified out of a job' by a person of lesser abilities."

I think this is unfair. He took slams against ideas represented in your posts; those aren't necessarily slams against you. If he were taking slams against you, they would be ad hominems; however, he was careful to leave you personally out of it. That's not a "thin veil"; that's a way to talk about ideas, positions, and stances without making this about you per se, but about the position.

In the first instance, Hare implies that I'm "pretending" that the reason I wasn't rehired was due to my boss' desire to see more Hispanics on the staff. I'm not pretending and have plenty of anecdotes to support my claim.

Actually, he doesn't have anything to say about you. Obviously, you feel that you lost your job because of your boss's desire to see more Latinos on the staff, and Mr. Hare doesn't think that happens very often. However, no one is asking you to defend yourself. I haven't heard that from anyone or from any quarters. Seldom or not so seldom, these are experiences worth sharing and considering. In your case, without judgment about the particulars but just considering what you are sharing at face value, there's a wealth of things to talk about. What you point to is a process that is rather patriarchal used to correct a wrong that came out of a patriarchal society. I think that's a strong point to consider. It speaks to the depth of the pain of the situation and how racism has had a bad effect on everyone, including those who have belonged to groups that have been in general privileged. It speaks to the need for us to break down generalizations and be open.

On the other hand, your sarcasm about anecdotes, I don't feel, is very helpful or relevant. You never heard me say that an anecdote was what you caricature it to be in your response. However, I'm still around and willing to have the epistemological discussion when you want to have it.

As for Hare's second assertion, that "white people are seldom actually ‘diversified out of a job’ by a person of lesser abilities", that is clearly another slam, but Here left a loophole by using the word "seldom". By using this word, Hare admits that it sometimes happens. Sometimes is too much, especially in light of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits using race as a hiring factor.

And, where did you see Hare justify racial discrimination in hiring? It seems he went at pains to show you that there is no policy to do this. I think he was pointing to a fact of practice, not something that the government does on principle. Again, I'm not sure why you are making the argument more personal than it is? It's good form in argument not to call someone out because the individual is irrelevant to the general point. There are plenty of personal things to share, and we are dealing with people attached to these arguments, but his point is worth considering regardless of your defensive posture against what he's saying. I'm really curious why you feel the need to be defensive. I wonder if that's a relevant talking point to consider here. You have had some very negative experiences when it comes to race and your experience with the National Park Service. I don't know how that speaks to the larger points about diversity, about coming to grips with the history of racism in the current picture, in our place in it, and what we might do about it. Your story is part of that puzzle; I wonder why you see it as antithetical to what Mr. Hare suggested in his original piece or continues to suggest.

All that said, we are not an equal opportunity society in any number of ways. We all know this; I know that you know it to based on other things I've read by you on different issues. Things that we can do to make each other of the processes that keep us from opportunities is worthwhile, including an analysis of the opportunities themselves. For instance, I'm against war. I have a lot of trouble getting enthusiastic about the issue of gays in the military or women in combat because I fervently believe that there shouldn't be a military at all. Maybe, there shouldn't be a Park Service at all or a national parks system. All of that will change the way we view the remedies of diversity, but if we are going to acknowledge the current reality and accept that, then we had better be willing to work on opportunities within that reality. If that still leads to injustices, then when are we going to fess up to those and do something about them? I don't think we can on the one hand say that race doesn't and shouldn't matter and then prop up the social mechanisms and systems that make it reality. If we are going to do the latter, then we have to acknowledge the former. I am for fighting systems of oppression because one's race does not matter, but the history of racism is a reality and a present. And, fighting the systems that make racism the reality it is has to start with considering the larger puzzle and with people sharing their experiences openly. Being defensive prejudices what I think should be an open discussion, and so I think that's also worth considering. I often find myself defensive about things; there's often a lot of justification for being defensive, but there's often something else behind it as well that's pertinent at another level.

Hare also previously stated (and reiterated): "People like to invoke, 'It's culture, not color.' I hear that all the time. But we've been together over six hundred years! Do we really have different cultures?"

First, "we've all been together over 600 years"? The first Africans arrived in what is now the United States of America around 1620, less than 400 years ago (Columbus arrived in the hemisphere 515 years ago, still not more than 600, and certainly we weren't all "living together"). I get it, though. Use a bigger number and it'll back up your point.

Are you seriously going to quibble over 85 years? I mean, we can get ridiculous and say, "Well, maybe the Americas weren't what was assumed?" "Maybe, the Vikings should be counted." I mean, geez. Do you think the point was to make up some ungodly big number. Would over 500 years be less of a point than over 600 years? Does cherry picking a literal error over a figurative estimate make your point or your criticism hold more water? It's hard to understand how what you've said here is relevant to Mr. Hare's points about race and culture. It's worse than a strawman since at least a strawman is relevant. It's like saying someone doesn't know what they're talking about because there's a typo or a grammatical error in their statement. You sound like people I've argued with who insist that anyone who calls a "bison" a "buffalo" is incorrect because "buffalo" are those animals over yonder. However, you not only can figure out that "600 years" means "long enough," and any more precise way of saying things is not more helpful to advancing the discussion.

As for do we have different cultures, the answer I'd tell you, that most multiculturalists and anthropologists would tell you, is a resounding OF COURSE! While there some can say we have a prevailing culture in this country, there are many separate cultures. We have a gay culture, hundreds of different aboriginal cultures, Asian cultures (look at the China Towns across the country and tell me they don't represent distinct cultures in America), rural cultures, urban cultures. There are millions of first-generation and illegal Mexican immigrants, whose culture is very unlike ours (different language, food, religion, etc.).

I'm not sure that the two of you aren't having more than a semantical argument. I think the overriding concern is that the use of "culture" not be used to cloud the reality of racism in this country or the fact that people have had, for totally bogus reasons, a history thrust upon us on the basis of race. Whatever cultural hierarchies exist are relevant also in a discussion of racism, but one cannot deny the one by asserting the other.

Speaking of this last culture, I was at Multnomah Falls in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (operated by the USFS) on Sunday. I saw Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, the whole rainbow of color. One Mexican male made rude sexual comments (in Spanish - he assumed I didn't know Spanish) about my future wife (there's a personal anecdote for you, something I don't need a study to prove because I can see it). Clearly, that behavior is not tolerated in our mainstream culture as it is in Latin America (I remember having to watch videos during Peace Corps orientation about Latin American cultures and the difficulty female volunteers face there) or in African-American urban culture (seen a rap video lately?). I'm sorry, but I don't really want to run into that type of BS sexist patriarchal machismo anywhere, let alone the backcountry where I'm miles and hours from social safety. But hey, what can diversity do for you?

I love Multnomah Falls.

Anyhow, your anecdotal sarcasm on anecdotes is delightful; you're right, we don't need a study to talk about what you experienced. We'd need a study to know what is tolerated by mainstream culture or by "culture" in Latin America. However, I think it's an interesting thing to talk about sexist patriarchal attitudes and racism. I'm sure it would be worthwhile to study why patriarchy is a part of different culture. I mean, look for instance at Plains Indians tribes during the 19th century. Plains nomadic societies became far more hierarchical and patriarchal as trade for buffalo increased and as labor became more and more specialized in tribal society. This is not an excuse for sexism; the slavery that women suffered was brutal. It is to say that you cannot tie a patriarchal tendency simply to a definition of a culture (or a race or a sex or a class). Many tribes were judged, however, on their essence, on their worthiness as beings, based on certain behaviors that were not independent from the dominant society. Sometimes, criticisms of the acts seen in different people slip into becoming racist or bigoted because they are generalized that way. For instance, does your use of the word "machismo" tie in any way to the culture you were criticizing? Would you use that word to describe non-Latinos? Perhaps, you would. I can't say.

Diversity can be a beautiful thing; I worry about the way you cynically conflate diversity with what you judged to be an incident of sexism that's tied to a particular culture. I don't know how to say it concisely, but you seem to conflate the sexism that exists in a culture with the essence of the culture itself. That's often what's at root in bigotry, that kind of generalization. I hope you meant something else and were being a little too sarcastic for my slow wit.

Why was there so much "diversity" at Multnomah Falls, Oregon's number one tourist destination? Because it's easy to get to, and people across all of all colors are lazy. And fat. They don't want to hike. You can see the Falls from the freeway, the parking lot, or behind the gift shop. In addition to being too lazy to walk, people don't want to have to plan ahead or carry food and water great distances while they walk, so the Falls also works because it has a restaurant, lounge, gift shop, and ice cream stand. If there is one predominant US culture, it's the culture of Lazy.

Well, that's something we can agree on; there are too many lazy people. I hope we are not lazy in pursuing discussions like this with the seriousness and passion they deserve and then taking difficult actions. Hiking up the falls isn't that hard; dealing with a human history of abuse toward each other and the earth is a much harder hike. I see no reason why it has to be as lonely as it sometimes is.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

Jim,

When someone else uses the exact same words and the exact same phrasing I used and then uses the word "pretend", well, that's quite hard not to take personally.

"Let me know that you really want to go down this path because it's a very serious sort of question, and I don't think you'll like at all where it leads."
"However, I'm still around and willing to have the epistemological discussion when you want to have it."

Stop patronizing me. If you want to have a discussion about the liberal scientific method and what constitutes knowledge, that would be great. I still hold by my assertion that anecdote is NOT knowledge and that knowledge is derived empirically and is independently verifiable, which anecdote is not.