Public funding: Should skin color or ethnicity matter for conservation related public funding?

[TaperPin]

Can you provide some names of these cattle rustlers of color that were linched or some of the ethnic cleansing examples. I would like to research and read more about them. Thanks.

If you are actually interested in this you are in luck! There are 1000s if not 100,000s of sources for history buffs. It’s called a research library. You can read all about what a great guy Tom Horn was, saving us from the sheep herders, mass graves of Chinese rail workers, the times all Mexicans were driven out of towns by mobs, and the near absence of blacks even though there were thousands of buffalo soldiers out west. Guess why they didn’t want to stay? I bet you’ll never be able to guess. Yep, western history is full of surprises - you’ll have have a good time learning all about it.

 

[Wrench]

In the age of bullchit identities, I'd sure like to be a black Yakima native of latino decent.....instead of the average white guy.

 

[gbflyer]

Our little town could really use a public wastewater treatment system. Our grant applications have come up short, the largest reason is because we don’t have enough of a Native Alaskan population. There is nothing right about that.

 

[mtwarden]

Looks like for land acquisition under LCWF up to 10 points can be given to Justice 40 communities - this up to a maximum 10 points out of 140 points.

Somehow I don't see that tipping the scales unfairly on large land purchases for conservation.

If I'm not mistaken, a Justice 40 community could be any poor community or even a not so poor community, that is overburdened by pollution. I'm thinking of several small communities around Montana that were screwed by mining companies backing out on their obligations for cleaning up and skipping town leaving their pollution behind for someone else to take of.

 

[Arthas]

If you are actually interested in this you are in luck! There are 1000s if not 100,000s of sources for history buffs. It’s called a research library. You can read all about what a great guy Tom Horn was, saving us from the sheep herders, mass graves of Chinese rail workers, the times all Mexicans were driven out of towns by mobs, and the near absence of blacks even though there were thousands of buffalo soldiers out west. Guess why they didn’t want to stay? I bet you’ll never be able to guess. Yep, western history is full of surprises - you’ll have have a good time learning all about it.

I am confused why you have failed to mention catholics, Italians, and Irish in this.

 

[Arthas]

Looks like for land acquisition under LCWF up to 10 points can be given to Justice 40 communities - this up to a maximum 10 points out of 140 points.

Somehow I don't see that tipping the scales unfairly on large land purchases for conservation.

If I'm not mistaken, a Justice 40 community could be any poor community or even a not so poor community, that is overburdened by pollution. I'm thinking of several small communities around Montana that were screwed by mining companies backing out on their obligations for cleaning up and skipping town leaving their pollution behind for someone else to take of.

You are correct in that justice 40 can be applied to any group that meets the criteria. Legacy mining communities were intended to be a recipient of funding from the inception of the program. As the language I have provided, skin and other characteristics such as lgbtqia+ status are included in the criteria and accounted for in the screening tool. It is plainly and factually incorrect about 10/140 points not tipping the scales in LCWF allocations. If it can't tip the scales, why is it there? Those pts are there specifically to tip the scales if 2 choices are otherwise equally weighed in the decision making process.

As far as whether skin color or such status is a small or larger percentage of the criteria, that is inconsequential. It simply does not matter whether skin color tips the scales by 0.0001% or 99.9%. Once race or such things are allowed as criteria for resource allocation such as funding the flood gates are open. 0.0001% can become 10% or 15% or 40%. If it can be applied to funding, why can't it be applied to tag allocations? Why couldn't 10 points in LCWF turn into 20 points?

 

[trasko]

There is a lot about politics I don't care for. Most all of it actually. However when it comes to government folks doing their jobs and making a plan which involves protecting the environment, helping disadvantaged people and mitigating climate change I'll let them do their job and I'll focus on mine. My concern is more on lobbying and which buddy of some politician ends up with the money in their company rather than the minutia of which town/population benefits slightly more than another. We're all in this together.

OP/Arthas: Despite my view I appreciate you're looking closely at this. Someone should and I don't have the inclination or patience for it.

 

[Arthas]

Pennsylvania is investing millions to ensure people of all backgrounds, abilities have access to public lands

This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for our regional

www.northcentralpa.com

As I have demonstrated previously, race is a key factor in the allocation of funding and decision making. Here the state is Pennsylvania. If your state is blue, your state is implementing a similar plan.

Here is PAs plan and language regarding race.

 

[LuvsFixedBlades]

I don't like politics.

I don't like political posts.

My $0.02 says....I don't condone any policy based purely on race, skin color, religion or sex. That's what equality actually means.

IF there is a bill proposing support for underserved communities based on something like post natural disaster recovery, serious economic hardship, border towns with trafficking problems, etc., then put it to a vote and try to get them some help.

Giving tax breaks, handouts, incentives or otherwise to specific groups based on skin color, race, religion, sex, etc. just perpetuates the problem. Which, in my humble opinion, just keeps the masses divided and weak. Which is exactly how the gov't likes us.

 

[Arthas]

I don't like politics.

I don't like political posts.

My $0.02 says....I don't condone any policy based purely on race, skin color, religion or sex. That's what equality actually means.

IF there is a bill proposing support for underserved communities based on something like post natural disaster recovery, serious economic hardship, border towns with trafficking problems, etc., then put it to a vote and try to get them some help.

Giving tax breaks, handouts, incentives or otherwise to specific groups based on skin color, race, religion, sex, etc. just perpetuates the problem. Which, in my humble opinion, just keeps the masses divided and weak. Which is exactly how the gov't likes us.

Equality is a thing of the past in government policy. Equity is now the term you should familiarize yourself with. It explicitly means not equal although exact definitions of equity typically change from institution to institution.

 

[LuvsFixedBlades]

Equality is a thing of the past in government policy. Equity is now the term you should familiarize yourself with. It explicitly means not equal although exact definitions of equity typically change from institution to institution.

I hear you.

Unfortunately, I'm already familiar with the unequal concept of equity.....although, trying to keep up with our rapidly devolving society is challenging.

 

[Aulus]

Promoting exactly what they're supposedly against.

 

[Musky]

Equality is a thing of the past in government policy. Equity is now the term you should familiarize yourself with. It explicitly means not equal although exact definitions of equity typically change from institution to institution.

I don't much care for politics. I just wanted to point out that while you may be right in this instance. Ever since I can remember the government has been giving jobs (manufacturing) to businesses with highest points. Extra points for minority owned business, double extra points if it's a women. Then they just sub it out to whoever comes in the cheapest and skims off the top because that's the going rate. How is that any different than this? Government has and always will never be equality.

 

[Arthas]

I don't much care for politics. I just wanted to point out that while you may be right in this instance. Ever since I can remember the government has been giving jobs (manufacturing) to businesses with highest points. Extra points for minority owned business, double extra points if it's a women. Then they just sub it out to whoever comes in the cheapest and skims off the top because that's the going rate. How is that any different than this? Government has and always will never be equality.

The answer to your question is complex so I will try to touch on the key points concisely. The main difference is the underlying ideologies between the modern woke social justice movement (referred to as diversity equity inclusion or dei) and diversity initiatives in the 90s and 2000s. In the 90s and early 2000s equality under the law and in policy was the stated goal where as now equity is the mission. The diversity and inclusion part have remained relatively similar and will be familiar to people that have experienced initiatives during 90s/00s vs present time periods.

A shift from an equality to equity model means the goals of the policy are almost completely different. Equality models strive to create conditions of equal opportunity in contrast to equity based systems that strive to create equal outcomes. Equality and equity are completely different things despite sharing the same root word.

Equality initiatives were targeted at helping individual success. Institutional missions remain the same with the idea race did not matter for the job so long as the individual had appropriate merit. In contrast, an equity based system establishes a framework that the entire institutional mission must form around or wthin. An individual race or gender identity is often the most important qualification for the job because in order to represent a community or hold a position you must look or identify like your constituents. Will hear things like, "We need to look like the people we serve" in equity based systems. It is the classic diversity of skin color VS diversity of thought debate.

Furthermore, equity is used as a measure of justice or social justice tool in policy. Because modern woke ideology incorporates intersectionality and victim ideology, policy measures are often punitive towards a specific group, in most cases white non hispanics. For instance in one of the executive orders I provided in an earlier post, resources are specified to be direct towards certain underserved communities. There is no logical basis provided in the eo for the communities listed to be directed addition funds based on race over white americans or any other race not listed. Several posters have made the claim that the race metric will solve an income or wealth disparity. Then why are Asians listed and not excluded with whites? The answer is simple. The policy is punitive. It is the same case that is made when calling for reparational payments to certain ethnic groups.

Another point that is new to the current dei movement is the embrace of woke concept of individual truth or truth assigned to certain groups of people. This is how you arrive at modern gender theory and the ability of the individual to determine their own gender. Or that certain ethnic groups have their own truths. This would apply to Department of Interior Sec Deb Hauland recent comments and posts made at Stonewall National Monument (i can provide a link and explain if you have not seen them) for instance.

I could continue but I am sure this is more commentary than most people will read. It's a shame since the current woke dei policy implementation is an existential threat to hunting as a conservation tool and the NA Model but the situation becomes dire when equity based policy is handed to the anti hunting movement as weapon to wield against hunters in every government and non government institution in the country.

Edit,

Add link to a vox article on equity. Long but surprising good summary of what I attempted to summarize. I did not read every word of the piece but from what I did read it is far above vox's typical stand. They even talk about the executive orders I discussed.

Equity is everywhere. But what exactly is it — and why is it so controversial?

How equity became a cherished cause for the left — and a target of the right

www.vox.com