In a recent exposé, Times writer David Botti attempts to make the case that these green oases have long been part of the "colonizing of America" by people with white skin, which automatically makes them evil and something that needs to be abolished.
Because they transform the landscape of people's homes from "pristine wilderness" to "identical rows of manicured nature," according to Botti, lawns are a source of triggering for him – which, since he has to work in an environment of oppression due to the presence of anti-white racists like Sarah Jeong, is hardly surprising.
Botti also insists that a nicely manicured lawn comes "on the backs of slaves," pointing to a painting of George Washington, America's first president, which depicts people with black skin cutting grass with scythes.
"It's grueling, endless work," Botti writes, apparently unaware of the fact that millions of white Americans perform this "grueling, endless work" in their own yards every single day, with no black people in sight.
"By the 1870s we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses," Botti adds, suggesting that anybody who has a lawn – our guess is that Botti lives in a lawn-less, New York City flat – is somehow oppressing black and brown people in the process.
Like most leftists these days, Botti sees a white demon under every rock, and is apparently oblivious to the fact that conveying this through his writing only reveals his own anti-white racism to whomever is bored or ignorant enough to actually read his work.
As one example, Botti inserted vintage video footage into his article of two white women standing in their yards, talking about how they moved to their communities specifically to live near other white people. To Botti, this is evidence that lawns are "racist."
But there's just one problem: Neither of the two women mentioned anything about their lawns in this particular clip. Botti merely extrapolated his own anti-white bias into the footage, and declared this to be "evidence" that only white people have lawns, and that lawns are thus "racist."
As absurd as this is, what's more absurd is the fact that the Times, which used to be at least somewhat reputable when it came to journalistic standards and integrity, actually published it.
Had any other group or skin color been denigrated like this – using such flimsy "evidence," no less – the Times would have laughed it out of the editing room. But since white people were the target, Sarah Jeong and her team of anti-white racists more than likely cackled as they rushed it to print, failing to realize how this garbage only further proves that the Times has devolved into little more than a supermarket tabloid rag.
"Well, seeing as how Washington was the only land-owner out of all of them he would have been the only one liable for taxation at that time in our history," wrote one Breitbart News commenter in response to this news.
".... but clearly, since the lawn was built on the backs of the sheep's teeth.... (even though Washington was paying all of the taxes to support the nation's government, owned the lawn itself and provided for all of the sheep's needs out of his own pocket and material goods)... Washington clearly did not build that and should be made to equally divide any and all profits with the sheep, regardless of their previous mutually agreed upon employment contract so that the employees get a double portion and the owner, who took all the risk and paid all the expenses for everything and everyone involved as well as taking the initiative to create the business and the jobs in the first place.... should get the left-over crumbs... if there are any."
For more stories like this, be sure to check out Libtards.news.
Sources for this article include: