Comments like these make it appear as if colonialism was just “forced” into an article where it shouldn’t belong. However, reading the actual segment, it seems that it’s not really that out of place at all. It’s talking about how locations for parks came to be and is also offering some references to native tribes and nature.
Do you have any data to back up this assertion? The latest list of sponsors I've found, from 2019, shows these companies in the $1,000,000+ category. Can you spot a single one that is "left leaning"? (I'm tempted to make a bad joke here about a misunderstanding around the name "Progressive Insurance".)
Wouldn't be a HN comment without a hand-waving dismissal of an incredibly nuanced and historically complex topic due to a perceived inconvenience of frequent observation.
If there was any light where your head is, you'd see your last meal.
That was jarring I have to admit. 3 of the 4 sections are injecting unrelated political or religious incantations? By the end I almost forgot what the article was supposed to be about.
Yeah, I was surprised at how in a story about the benefits and challenges of fitting nature into modern lifestyles, one of the four points was "don't forget about colonialism" and another was "try segregating into identity groups". It seems at least a little bit shoehorned in, and it's clear I'm not the only one who was at least a little turned off by it.
What is the point of being frustrated by referencing important things. For most of the world, colonialism is one of the most important things that ever happened, as it directly affected most of the humans alive.
Would you be similarly frustrated if an article on recent history references WW2?
