You are here

Bringing Color to the Public Lands Landscape

Share

Wayne Hare

Well-familiar is the cry that our parks are in danger of losing mass appeal because visitation is flagging (this year seems to be bucking that trend, but that's fodder for another post). More serious, in my opinion, is that the diversity among park visitors seems to be lagging.

Park Service officials realize this, and are working on ways to boost the racial diversity in the visitorship.

But perhaps the best essay I've seen yet addressing this issue is one that surfaced today via the Writers on the Range syndicate. Written by Wayne Hare, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger in western Colorado, the essay raises some thought-provoking issues tying diversity to the future of our public lands.

The most recent U.S. Census indicates that sometime around the year 2050, people of color in this country will outnumber the current white majority. If the emerging future majority doesn't find intrinsic value in our birthright of publicly owned lands, how much tougher will it be to fund and protect these special areas?

You can read Mr. Hare's essay here.

Comments

First of all, it's a very interesting discussion, and I sense we are all taking it to heart. I appreciate Kurt's bibliography, though I'll insist that it wasn't necessary for us to have a serious discussion about this - it certainly adds to the richness of the discussion. I'm thankful to RangerX for being sincere and honest and putting himself out there on this issue, even if I vehemently disagree with him. And, I'm thankful that Wayne Hare has come in to add to his thoughts on the issue and see a lot to think about there.

Secondly, specifically to Jon, be careful how you use statistics. Per capita statistics are general averages and don't speak to specific populations. While economic class is an important consideration in determining park visitation (and I least of all would ask us not to consider it), it's not the only thing that explains the statistics around visitation, according to the study by Dr. Roberts that Jeremy posted. Furthermore, the strong correlation between economic class and race at the general level is itself a source of concern for us. To the extent that race has been used as a cause for economic inequity, it is worth exploring whether the reasons for that are similar or different from those that cause various kinds of inequity in the parks.

Thirdly, I think it's strange that we are talking about this problem in the parks as something that we think we need to do something about, as though diversity is spread in just the manner that Bush talks about spreading freedom to Iraq. It's not something we create; we don't just add a few numbers here, subtract a few numbers there, and voila have diversity. In fact, the language is still hierarchical, as though "we" make this happen. Here is where I can agree with RangerX to the extent that the answer isn't to set an artificial target of a certain type of person and make it our life's work to go out and get them; however, it's not because I think the target isn't so worthwhile, it's because I don't think the process is right. It still is paternalistic. The problem is much more deep rooted built on centuries of abuse and mistrust, perception, misperception, and deeply ingrained prejudices and stereotypes.

Let me try to explain what I'm getting at from an example in my experience and also to let you know that I certainly don't have answers or a magic plan to end racial mistrust, just a sense that we need to challenge ourselves to examine the ways that racism infects us in even the most subtle, unintentional ways. For several years, I was involved with an anti-war group in Washington, DC, called the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN). DAWN is an open, non-hierarchical (meaning no leaders) group of people who met on Tuesday nights and planned actions together against U.S. militarism and against social injustice. It was for the most part a great and strange mix of people - socialists, liberals, libertarians, anarchists, gay, straight, atheist, Quaker, Jew, Muslim. In two ways, it seemed to fall short in diversity. There were often far more men than women; there were usually far more whites than people of color. On the second issue, that's troubling in a city that's 2 to 1 black to white. DAWN was an open group, allowed everyone to come in, met in a racially diverse neighborhood that was accessible to anyone in the city and most in the equally racially diverse suburbs, but the group was still with only a handful of exceptions, a group of whites. The question often came up on how to get more racial diversity in DAWN since it was embarrassing for the group not to have that racial diversity. One answer seemed to be that there was a group somewhat like DAWN called "Black Voices for Peace" that was founded and run by the late Damu Smith. I visited Black Voices for Peace on a few occasions and found a group that was almost the mirror of DAWN, overwhelmingly black, with a scattered white person. Instead of being non-hierarchical in the process, Black Voices for Peace was mostly run by Damu, though he had a board of three prominent people in the African American anti-war community who made the decisions. It was not a group that many people in DAWN would have felt comfortable, with prayers, without a voice in decision-making, much less so about race. Damu was a complicated man (he died a year ago of liver cancer) who had his own radio show, worked on race and environmental justice issues (though environmental justice is such a small issue in DC), and was often fond of speaking out against white people, even as he was quick to embrace and hug me. Anyhow, when confronted by the white/black divide in the anti-war movement, Damu said the problem was that white groups come to black groups out of their sense of guilt and look to bring them along. He wondered why after so many hundreds of years that whites didn't take the lead from blacks, from those who have been oppressed for so long. Of course, that would never fly to people in DAWN, not because they were adverse to the problems of racial oppression but because of the hierarchical way in which things had been framed. So, the reality has lingered on. In 2001, at Bush's first inauguration, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson spoke to a mostly African American audience by the Capitol. At Dupont Circle, a mostly white audience rallied. Even if both groups had mostly voted against Bush, were both upset that democracy had been dealt another blow, they did it separately (and perhaps unequally as well). I can list example after example of this and the charges of tokenization and so forth. For instance, when a white group wants racial diversity (as almost all say they want), they tend to trot out the same people of color time and time again.

I've thought long and hard about the failures of DAWN on the issue of racial diversity. If the answer wasn't going out and simply recruiting people of color to join the group, and if the answer wasn't simply giving up one's beliefs and letting someone else control a group just to attain diversity, then what is the answer? I know that if I had any inkling of that answer, I'd be following through on it. It's not fun to live on these streets and be yelled at with racially derogatory remarks, at least a couple times a month. It's certainly not fun seeing how the gentrification of the city have plenty of racial elements as well, with the white population growing and the African American population declining. I live in an apartment building that happens to be about 90% Latino (mostly from El Salvador) - most of the rest are African Americans. English is the second language here, and there have been incidents of accusations against us because we are white. It's hurtful because I hate racism so much, but I have some sense that there are solid reasons where the pain being thrown back at me comes from. There are a million privileges I have had for being white, though I haven't asked for any of them. Nevertheless, I have some responsibility to do something about it. I strongly believe the first step is just this sort of dialogue where we talk about race, how it affects us, and listen to people. We're going to find all kinds of complex differences and experiences that explains why we don't just all get along, and we're going to have numerous setbacks. Yet, we have to keep talking about it. We have to learn from it. I had no idea when I moved to DC that perhaps my moving here was part of a process that could be tied to race. I thought I was just working on a Ph.D. But, that was naive of me. People are getting displaced constantly due to a lot of forces we are unwittingly a part of. We need to educate ourselves about them. My Salvadoran neighbors were in many cases displaced by political and economic upheaval in El Salvador's rural areas brought about by actions of the United States government. I didn't ever call for this upheaval; I've fought against it. Yet, whatever economic advantage I have, whatever social advantage, have led us to be the neighbors we are.

We have to keep talking; that's how we'll build a rich diversity full of rich experiences. When I talked with Damu, I'll admit there were some ways I liked him less, but it was no longer about race but about ideas. I didn't embrace him as just a man whose color led me to embrace him but because he was a man struggling for the same things I was, albeit in different ways. It was the problem of race that separated us, made us suspicious in ways we can't always imagine (another reason to talk), but it was something else that kept us separated. That sounds bad, but that's progress.

So, in the parks, I don't think you just go out and recruit people of color and "do something" about the problem of diversity. But, we cannot run away from the problem, we cannot be in denial that it doesn't exist, we cannot deny that we all as members of this society are part of its race problems. We need to talk and to listen. That's the only step that makes any sense to me. The research that Dr. Roberts shared, the experiences that Wayne Hare shared, that we are sharing now is extremely important. It undercuts the bogus logic of domination that has been part of race relations and environmental protection. It is the first step in a journey whose end we cannot map out, a hike into the wilderness, of a very important topic to us all, if we are truly to heal all the hundreds of years of abuse and mistrust. Let's hope that as we move to talk about other important issues, that we integrate this into our conversation, not just because we should out of some sense of guilt, but because we must if we are going to get a handle on the causes of everything else that's going on.

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


When did it become the job of the NPS to attract a balanced cross section of ethnicity's to Our parks?


Anonymous is absolutely right. He said in one sentence what it took me a paragraph to say. Wayne sounds more like the marketing manager of a major corporation worried about his product's market share in the minority community than a ranger. The National Parks are not and should not be run like Disneyland worried about appealing to this or that demographic. The mission of the National Parks is to protect unique ecosystems, land forms and wildlife. Only secondarily to accommodate visitors. Attracting more visitors of any color is almost contrary to the mission of protecting the land. Yosemite's plan is already looking at ways to limit visitation to Yosemite Valley. What is Wayne suggesting, anyway? Advertising directed at minority communities?

Why are outdoor activities predominately white? Someone made the comment about fatherless households, something I hadn't though to before. If men are the primary instigators of outdoor activities then it makes sense that when 70% of black children are born out of wedlock and raised in a household with no father, there is no one to take them to parks.

It is also interesting to think about the demographics of usage of parks in areas with a high percentage of minorities. The U. S. Virgin Islands is something like 90% black, including the island of St. John, which is home to the U. S. Virgin Islands National Park. But who do you find snorkeling and hiking to the old sugar mill ruins? Not the locals, but Caucasian visitors. Same for the Natchez Trace Parkway in largely black Mississippi.

Similarly, there's the large Navajo lands just south of Mesa Verde National Park, a park devoted to early Native American culture. But who are the visitors? Not Native Americans. Glacier National Park is bordered on the east by the Blackfoot Reservation. Do they visit the park next door?

It may be culture, education, whatever. But bottom line: The National Parks should not be run like tourist attractions worrying about market share. They should be run to protect the land first and foremost.

Wayne is worried that the changing demographics of the country will mean that the parks will be less valued. The United States is also getting older with senior citizens becoming a larger and larger percentage of the population. Does Wayne propose that we make the parks more attractive to seniors so that they will continue to support the parks? Maybe put in funicular railroads to the tops of mountains seniors can no longer hike to? Following his reasoning on demographic trends that would be what the NPS should do.


I agree with Ranger X's inital observation that this is "meaningless drivel, mindless mumbo jumbo." The focus lavished on this issue is another example of a politically driven agenda awkwardly intruding upon what the natural mechanisms of the market place have brought about through free choice.

Many of my Hispanic and black friends don't understand why I go tramping around in the woods and swamps here in Florida. It seems weird to them. Maybe they should be asking me why more white folks don't have family barbecues and get togethers at muncipal parks and public beaches? Or why are most of the people fishing off the highway bridges and mucipal piers of the Sunshine State minorities? Shouldn't there be some program to get more white people introduced to joys of the fishing pole? Where does it end?

If the issue is economic disadvantage, which many have raised, then the skyrocketing cost of entrance fees is not going to encourage these groups with a price advantage over other forms of recreation.

I say let's preserve and protect the parks for whomever decides to come through the gates and let the market place decide who that will be, not some lame government intiative to "enhance" diversity. This subject is a red herring from the most important threat facing the parks today: government managment.


Actually, The Park Service, for whom I rangered in the backcountry for 7 years, often refers to the lands it protects as museums for the enjoyment and education of its visitors. Setting aside public lands was never meant to be for the exclusive benefit of the land, but for the "enjoyment of future generations." Specifically, the initiating legislation states the mission of the National Park Service to be " (the) purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." That would be future generations of PEOPLE.

How long does "preserve and protect" last? 100 years? Forever? One generation? As long as the Ameican people support that notion? Does anyone think there is not pressure to sell off public lands, including National Parks, to the private sector? Does anyone believe that there is not an extraordinary amount of pressure to drill, log, and mine National Parks? Does anyone know how close Paul Hoffman, Undersecretay of the Interior came to rewriting the NPS management plan and allowing all manner of motorized recreation in all areas of parks. It's a good read in Vanity Fair - of all places - at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/06/nationalparks200606?....

Does anyone believe that legislation last forever? The only thing that actually protects our special places, be they parks, wilderness areas, National Conservation Areas, or whatever, is the current support of the American people. Nothing else. It doesn't just happen by magic. Do we really not need the support and involvement of the future majority?


One poll I read a few years ago said that of ALL government services, people liked the National Parks more than anything. The only thing that could doom the National Parks is if huge population pressures make the parks and their surrounding lands housing developments, shopping centers, electrical corridors or highways. Which is why I will never understand why the environmental movement isn't against increased immigration which is the only reason the U. S. population is expanding so rapidly. Hopefully that kind of population pressure will never happen. But look at countries with a high density of population and you see no open space, no wildlife. I would hate to live to see the U. S. become like that. Meanwhile, preservationists need to work to keep the National Parks from being trampled under too much love.


Wayne: You still haven't said specifically what you think the NPS should do.


This is an exquisite, unnerving and important conversation. I'm glad there's a forum for it.

Here's one important thing for us to (continue) to do. We must include ALL Americans in the story of the parks. Past prejudices and blindnesses on the parts of historians, administrators and park interpreters have erased people of various colors, ethnicities and cultures from the stories of our parks. And if you think that problem's been solved, you're not paying attention. This may be something Service insiders may have been dealing with for a while, but it's not visible to the average visitor.

Kath brought up the buffalo soldiers in Yosemite. Ironically, this proves the point. It was an African-American ranger who researched and wrote about this historical fact... almost one hundred years after the event (and not that long ago).

Go into visitors centers around the national parks and count the black and brown faces on the walls. Look for their stories. It's not that their stories don't exist; it's that we keep their stories from view. Does this sound like a marketing issue? It isn't. It's an issue of whose story we're respecting.

I've watched the Park Service struggle for decades with interpretation at Whitman Mission NHS. Only in the last five or six years has there begun to be more accuracy in describing the mixture of race, culture, gender and religion that found its crossroads there. The details of this story still have not been told accurately (though I'm working on it). By the way, from an interpretive perspective, you would think that two white New England missionaries built the first buildings at Waiilatpu. It was actually two white New England missionary, one free African-American and one Hawaiian Islander (who probably had a wife, but history has left this entirely out of the record).

Until very recently, the story of native cultures in Yellowstone was reduced to a few racially charged sentences here and there on "Sheepeaters" who "feared the park's thermal features." Yellowstone, in fact, was a major cultural crossroads whose influence (pre-Contact) affected people all over the Northern Hemisphere. Only in the last few years have we begun listening to native people's own stories about Western park areas and included them in the stories that visitors see and experience. There's a sad story of this (though it's not specifically NPS-sourced) in Rebecca Solnit's Savage Dreams, where she describes a group of modern Yosemite Indians visiting the Smithsonian Institution only to see an exhibit describing Yosemite Indians as extinct.

The parks belong to all the people, even those who never visit. They are for our children's children. Mr. Hare is absolutely correct when he states that legislation doesn't last by magic. Look at Hetch Hetchy. We will lose the National Parks unless we can help people value them whether they visit or not. I think we raise people's value of the parks by helping them understand how people in the past who were "just like me" found value in the parks and fought to protect them.

Blaming the younger generation for their tvs and blackberries is a bit like saying, "In my days..." It's rather missing the point. How can they care when they don't see themselves in it?


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.