This is so ridiculous. I spend a lot of time hiking the mountains around LA. White people are not a majority and I'm not even sure a plurality. I'm not Latino but still somehow wound up in a mostly Latino hiking club. I hear so many different languages on the trail. I see people of every ethnicity.

This really could be as simple as minorities tend to be more working class, and don't have the wherewithal for a big road trip to the national parks. But put hiking trails near their communities, and they utilize the heck out of them.

Makes me think of this: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1536491555426652162. Progressive non-profits are getting destroyed by this kind of internal strife.

As if I needed any more reasons to not read the gaurdian.

Some of these are paywalled but I don't see where the ones that aren't support the claim re: hiking that "...any attempt to organize around it without making overt, aggressive attempts to include minorities is a sign of white supremacy"

Observing that, say, parks are being patronized by certain demographics is far from condemning those parkgoers as white supremacist.

The only bits you link about white supremacy seem to be about climate change which has a whole different angle (marginalized communities being first in line for ill effects in many areas) and isn't particularly relevant to the original claim here.

> Observing that, say, parks are being patronized by certain demographics is far from condemning those parkgoers as white supremacist.

I suspect that this is the point GP was trying to make. A criticism of anti-racism I've encountered many times is that most arguments for something (e.g. parks) being racist or white supremacist are unfalsifiable and based solely on a specific demographic outcome (e.g. national park visitors are disproportionately white) while ignoring other factors.