Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
October 11, 2023
LA Times Reports That Birds Are Racist. Yes, Birds.
White flight just got a whole new meaning because Black Birds Matter.
We now have flight supremacy.
But it is not the Jim Crow you are thinking of.
Birds are often seen as a symbol of freedom as they can fly wherever they want. But that is actually not true. It turns out, Bob Dylan was actually right when he said “No one is free, even the birds are chained to the sky.”
According to a Los Angeles Times report, the whiter an area is, the more diverse the bird population is.
In other words, birds are racist. And no, it does not mean white doves go to one neighborhood, and black crows go to the other. Diversity is actually a racist thing when it comes to birds.
“In a new study, the researchers argue that the difference in bird populations is a lasting consequence of racist home lending practices from decades ago, as well as modern wealth disparities,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
I don't know about you, but all this sounds like a bit of ostrich to me.
The article alleges there is a "phenomenon by which wealthier, and typically whiter, areas attract a larger and more diverse population of birds." And that “when it comes to the Los Angeles Basin,” “researchers say that bird species are remarkably segregated.”
The totally serious article alleges that “historically redlined non white communities,” have less tree canopy and greater housing density than green lined neighborhoods. Which has subsequently resulted in less bird biodiversity. The article also alleges that “historically redlined non white communities,” contain a larger population of synanthropic birds, which is a specific species that have adapted to a more urban environment, such as specific pigeons.
And that “Greenlined areas”, have more trees, which attract a greater diversity of birds.
They compare San Marino, which has nearly 26% of tree canopy coverage, with Boyle Heights, which has just under 13%.
“People who live in more affluent areas have more tree cover, not just in the green spaces, but actually in their backyards as well,” Danielle F. Shanahan, an adjunct professor with Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, told the Los Angeles Times. “And of course, that correlates with the biodiversity metrics, so things like birds.”
Right, makes total sense.
But wouldn’t the fact that a specific species like the ‘urban pigeon’, that has taken the time to adapt to urban environments, actually mean the opposite of what the article alleges?
I am not aware of a single bird species that has evolved from an urban environment. So wouldn't the fact that some have adapted to roof tiles or other urban settings mean some sort of evolutionary inclusion?
But according to this LA Times article, birds actually carry a racist legacy with them as they fly high through the sky.
All I can say is, the birds are very lucky they don’t know they are racist. But I really do wonder what their point of view is in all this.
Someone should tell these people that birds of a feather flock together. It really is not as complicated as the article tries to make it seem.
But I really do not think that the birds had anything to do with Redlining, as they probably knew that would become ill eagle.