Environmentalism as Racial Gatekeeping: A Movement Rooted in Racism

By Yamila Frej

Over the past two months, police brutality, civil unrest, and increased media coverage of national racial tensions have prompted a cultural change in the way that Americans regard race and injustice. From implicit bias to the school-to-prison pipeline, discussions about individual and institutional racism are occurring more often, and people have been taking the time to educate themselves on America’s relationship with racism. 

However, when reflecting on the nation’s racist roots, the environmental movement most likely isn’t the first example that pops into mind. Nevertheless, the beginnings of environmentalism in America were often exclusive by design, and many people at the forefront of today’s advocacy – including marginalized communities and people of color – would not have been offered a seat at the original ‘green’ table.

Environmentalism Back Then 

Much of America’s green ‘pioneering’ began with the conception of its national parks. Though these parks are frequently viewed as the epitome of untouched wilderness, many like Yosemite National Park were established through the violent and forced migration of Indigenous peoples off of their sacred land. In order to clear these areas for public use, the National Park Service (NPS) picked and chose which parts of the wilderness to exhibit to Americans – particularly those that framed conservationists as heroic explorers. 

By expelling Indigenous peoples from the environment that they had cherished and preserved for generations, the NPS lost the opportunity to learn from these environmental defenders and include them in stewardship efforts and conversations. This eradication of Indigenous participation allowed NPS to rebrand environmentalism as an inherently American value, which paved the way for the exclusive and elitist outdoor culture that followed. 

Additionally, some of the most monumental environmentalists expressed their desire to conserve nature and white supremacy hand-in-hand. For instance, Madison Grant, renowned zoologist and co-founder of the American Bison Association, published an ode to eugenics in 1916 titled, “The Passing of the Great Race,” which admonished an influx of immigration, racial intermarriage, and encouraged the increase of Nordic peoples in America. Endorsed by Hitler as “[his] bible” and by Theodore Roosevelt as “a capital book,” Grant’s work reinforced the idea that America’s wilderness was property solely for white men to “preserve.” 

Even more, John Muir, a founder of America’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club, frequently scorned Black and Indigenous communities. When he encountered these groups while mountaineering through the country, Muir frequently contrasted their “dirty” and “lazy” ways with the pristine animals that he cherished. Still lauded as the ‘Father of Our National Park System,’ he perpetuates the belief that a white man being one with nature is the environmental ideal, erasing evidence of any other humans from the equation. 

And while the Sierra Club issued an apology for Muir’s racist views just last week, not enough is being done by the United States to acknowledge the painful history of the ‘American’ great outdoors. 

Environmentalism Now

Even as the climate movement becomes more intersectional, hatred and xenophobia still thrive off of today’s environmentalism. For example, the gunmen responsible for murdering dozens last year in the El Paso, Texas and California Gilroy Garlic Festival massacres referenced sustainability and environmentalism in their last-minute manifestos. The shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand also identified as an eco-fascist, or one who believes that overpopulation and immigration have caused the climate crisis, which can only be repaired by anti-multiculturalism and white nationalism. 

This eco-hate isn’t something new or limited to shooters. Neo-Nazi activist Richard Spencer mentioned the natural environment as a reason to fortify the alt-right in his 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Similarly, conservative political commentator Ann Coulter wrote an opinion piece titled “Choose Between a Green America and a Brown America,” in which she blamed Latin American immigrants for pollution. Behind a facade of advocating for degrowth in resource consumption, these activists just want degrowth in human immigration. 

Moreover, in an article published in The Guardian, three Black hikers recounted the stereotypes and discrimination that they have encountered from the hiking community. For some, it was a warning from their parents about the dangers of being Black and alone in the outdoors. For others, it was the fear of historical lynchings in the woods that prevented them from venturing into nature for leisure. But for all three, a lack of diverse representation in nature publications and media strongly dissuaded them from allowing themselves to experience the natural environment. Even more, once they had finally mustered the courage to explore this space, they received menacing or confused stares from others on the trails. Ultimately, these hikers were made to feel unwelcome, unsafe, and excluded from the great outdoors, just as they had been taught to feel. 

Looking Forward

The modern climate movement strives to call on any and everyone to protect the planet, but how can environmentalists encourage diverse stewardship without implementing diverse media representation? It’s hard to promote inclusive care for the environment when you don’t promote inclusive participation in the environment. Outdoor magazines and publications need to break the idea that hiking belongs to white culture, and that caring for nature is a white ideal. 

Groups like Outdoor Afro and Black Girls Trekkin’ are already doing a good job of redefining environmentalism, and with mainstream media like National Geographic acknowledging historically racist coverage, things seem to be on the right track. Promoting diversity in the outdoors will also strengthen diversity in the environmental movement; a relationship with the environment can only help one’s advocacy.

Climate organizations also need to continue highlighting environmental racism, justice, and uplifting Indigenous and marginalized voices in their work. The climate crisis isn’t the grand equalizer that feel-good environmentalism has tried to pin it as; it affects indigenous communities and other people of color disproportionately. To overlook these stories or deny them a platform during advocacy directly contradicts the purpose of activism. 

If you’re realizing that you may be gatekeeping as an environmentalist, ask yourself, why? People in the outdoor community should not judge an environmentalist who has never hiked before, or lives in an urban area, or doesn’t share similar personal experiences with nature. There is nothing wrong with joining the environmental movement through a concern for urban issues versus joining through a love for the outdoors, and vice versa. If anything, it is more important that marginalized community members join climate spaces because they will most likely be hit first and worst by environmental changes. Though climate change is not an equalizer in its impacts, it can be a mode of advocating for intersectional equality, racial justice reform, and cross-cultural and multi-background cooperation. 

Photo Credits: NOOA, Unsplash

Article originally published in Gen Rise Media.