Following This to It's Logical Conclusion

As I was reading Cavey's latest post on Obama's Science Nazi (he has gone beyond Czar IMHO), Black Americans = Trees Oops, "Arbor-Americans", a thought crossed my mind about what Holdren was really saying.

As I pointed out in a post yesterday in a post, in a 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” Holdren praised what law professor Christopher D. Stone said in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren called it a “tightly reasoned essay.”

As I was rereading the quote from the CNSNews.com story in Cavey's post I came across this line that didn't leap out yesterday: "Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans."

But as I looked at it the way Cavey did, something leaped out.

Stone talks about giving rights to nonhuman objects. then he compares it to when black Americans finally got their rights. So is Stone saying that blacks are not human??? Or only became human when they were given those rights? It seems like that to me.

So why aren't the NAACP & other black organizations up in arms about this??

__________
PS Grazie to Cavey for helping me to see this by setting my mind to thinking about what he found.