When gazing at one of America’s stunning natural views, it’s hard not to wonder, “What does this have to do with systemic racism?” This thought crosses my mind after seeing various signs around national parks and historical sites. According to an internal document that was reviewed by The New York Times, National Park Service (NPS) employees are flagging certain historical interpretations as potentially misleading or inaccurate. This move aligns with an executive order from former President Donald Trump, which indicated a need to address concerns about how American history is portrayed in these settings.
Trump’s order from March aimed to combat what he termed the “Revisionist Movement,” claiming it undermines America’s accomplishments. The directive sought to ensure that federal sites dedicated to history showcase a narrative that emphasizes the country’s achievements while acknowledging the journey toward a more united society.
Our national parks and monuments are clearly saturated with this crap.
At Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, the exhibition panel “calls the systemic and violent racism and sexism that existed at the time.”– Anncoulter (@Anncoulter) July 23, 2025
The Times points out that a significant amount of the flagged content addresses the struggles for equality experienced by Black Americans, from slavery to civil rights. This raises questions, especially considering many criticisms seem rooted in racial issues. Take, for instance, Muir Woods in California, named for the naturalist John Muir. Standing under those towering ancient redwoods evokes awe, but then I see the sticky notes placed there by park employees, and it shifts the mood entirely.
Since 2021, there has been an initiative called “History Under Construction,” which involves revising existing signs. One note references Muir’s racist language in his diaries, even ignoring the genocide that Indigenous people endured. Another adjustment remarks on Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service, and his role in conservation, but somehow connects his work to the trees’ current revitalization.
You might wonder, should we just disregard the whole forest in light of this? Many of the revisions to the Muir Woods signs seem trivial, if not absurd. For example, previous descriptions of the Big Basin State Park—California’s first park to protect redwoods—now include a note about its founding being linked to an elite women’s club that excluded women of color.
In another note, William Kent, who served in Congress from 1911 to 1917 and is noted for his anti-Asian policies, is highlighted. How does his discriminatory rhetoric relate to hiking trails, though?
The future of such displays is unclear; the sticky notes have already been removed. The New York Times mentioned that the text panel at the San Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in Florida is still awaiting review. Photographs reveal that the panel described how the U.S. Army imprisoned various Native American tribes. Some employees expressed concerns that outlining this history could negatively reflect on the U.S. government.
This approach seems particularly neglectful of the wider historical context, such as the Seminole Wars, which were catastrophic for all involved. A shift in how these events are discussed is evident, especially compared to earlier descriptions from NPS documents.
In the end, it’s unlikely that those who contributed to these contemporary criticisms will have a say in the future portrayal of history at NPS sites.
