NYT States Lawns are Racist

For those of you that need more proof the mainstream media and outlets such as the New York Times are liberally backed and ran, here it is.

The NYT, arguably one of the most noted papers in the world recently came out with a new expose explaining why lawns are racist.

Yes, you read that correctly. Lawns, as in your front or back yard. Apparently, it’s not enough that anyone who represents something other than their agenda is racist. Now, even inanimate objects can be classified as such.

Narrator David Botti, in his seven-minute video, explains the history of American lawns, why they are a symbol of extreme racism and slavery, and that they are contributing heavily to world pollution and climate change problems.

According to Botti, the creation of lawns transformed the “pristine wilderness” to “identical rows of manicured nature,” as part of the “colonizing of America.” Furthermore, they were created “on the backs of slaves.”

To give evidence to this, he zooms in on a painting of George Washington who is standing in a field among other men who are cutting grass with scythes. Botti said, “It’s grueling, endless work,” as we can well imagine with such primitive tools.

He continues with the history lesson by saying, “By the 1870s, we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses.” He goes on to explain how it was something for the rich and the powerful. Having a lawn meant you were doing well, a sign that you had ‘arrived,’ so to speak. Everyone wanted one, but few could afford the work that it took to create them.

Botti continues telling us how the first sprinkler was invented in 1871, about the beginning of “so-called trade cards” that “advertised the hell out of lawn and garden products,” and how it quickly became a full-fledged industry.

Obviously, as time went on, new technologies and inventions allowed for more and more people to acquire a manicured lawn.

Botti then cites historian Ted Steinberg by calling lawns the “outdoor expression of ‘50s conformism.” He then shows a vintage film of two women in their yards speaking about why they moved to their current neighborhood. Both say it was to be around other white people only.

However, this implies that their neighborhood and not their lawns are racist. In fact, the word lawn or anything remotely similar in meaning isn’t even mentioned.

The video then mentions one of Steinberg’s works American Green: The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn and another book by Virginia Scott Jenkins, The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession.

According to Jenkins, lawns are a status symbol in America, one that denotes your life holds a certain amount of meaning. She says their popularity grew as the golf and garden industries, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture promoted them.

She writes that for Americans having a lawn is “a symbol of man’s control, or superiority, over his environment.”

She and Steinberg also make claims that lawns and the maintenance they require are harming the environment. As one review says, “Steinberg makes a convincing case that ‘turf hysteria’ and the ‘giant chemical orgy’ of modern lawn care have led to water pollution and the shunning of native plants.”

To drive this point home even further, the Times refers to a 2005 NASA report that says there are more lawns in the US than there are irrigated cornfields. They also try to insinuate that more water resources are used to cultivate our yards than is used to ensure our nation has healthy crops.

The NYT ends by showing an article written for the Times back in 1914 about President Theodore Roosevelt mowing his lawn. The headlines read “Col. Roosevelt refused to discuss politics today” and showed him mowing his lawn instead. “He got in a lot of good, vigorous exercise. For three hours he pushed a lawnmower out on the lawns at Sagamore Hill. And the exercise did not seem to tire him at all.”

While the expose means to show how lawns have evolved over time and are not really something to be proud of, what becomes even more apparent is just how far the Times reporting has come as well. They went from actually reporting the news, simply and as it is, to completely skewing it in favor of a particular political viewpoint, all too often found on the left.