UKC

There's a route in the Llanberis Pass which the first ascensionists saw fit to christen Zyklon 'B' (which, for anyone who doesn't know, is the gas used in the gas chambers during the Holocaust).

The route has been in the last two guides under that name, spared by editors who I suspect did not recognise the significance of the name.

It seems to me that now (ie the forthcoming new guide) is the time for a spot of censorship. Deliberately racially offensive names are not big and they're not clever, and it's not as though the route is so well-known that renaming it is going to cause a lot of confusion. However I am having difficulty persuading the editor, and it's possible that I'm a feeble-minded prude.

What does anyone else think?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: i would never have known that it got its name from there until you pointed it out....

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Are you certain that the first ascensionist named it with racially offensive intent? I know nothing of this route or the first ascensionist. Should sexist route names or any other sort of offensive - ist names be changed also?

In reply to stoney in exile: I think theres a difference between being mildly sexist or mildly racist and downright offensive. Why else would you name a route after something used to murder millions. If I had to vote I would ask for it to be changed. Not big, not clever.

In reply to Chris Fryer: Then you are certain that you have never used any product or service from offshoot companies from the company that produced the gas?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Maybe the 1st ascentionist didn't know the significance of the name and had just heard it somewhere and thought it sounded good. Maybe he should be asked if he knew the significance when he named it.

I mean, where do you draw the line if you start censoring routes - anything that isn't PC? I happen to agree with your example here but still feel that naming a route is a kind of free speech. Take that away and it changes everything.

In reply to Chris Fryer: i guess that raises the question - where do you draw the line?

personally, dont think that it is a very clever name, so ahve no desire to defend it as a name.

however, surely there are ppl who will find something that to you is "mildly sexist or mildly racist" to be totally unnacceptable, and we end up renaming thousaands of routes around the uk to make them all politically correct.

In reply to Matt Wilson: beat me to it!

In reply to ruairi:

Well, I agree, not everyone is going to recognise the significance of the name. Does that mean we shouldn't rename it, though?

In reply to stoney in exile: No, I'm not CERTAIN the intent was to offend. Given that the name is only famous for one thing, though, it seems very likely. Anyway, even if there was no intent to offend, does that matter? We wouldn't let a route called Niggers Go Home stand with that name, whatever the intent of the FA. As to changing sexist route names, I think you have to judge these things case by case, but personally I would be more reluctant to change these.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

How do you know that it isn't a referrence to the suffering of the victims of the holocaust?

Be careful when you censor, as the original meaning might not be obvious to you at the time, but might mean different things to different people.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I say ammend it with a historical note as to the reason why, and the original name. If the first ascentionist was aware of the intonations then it deserves to go, and if they were not aware of it's signifcance [i.e. ignorant rather than malign (lets face it its not a phrase commonly used in everyday conversation is it?)] they will not object to its ammendment in this manner.

Who was it, and can they be asked to explain this rather odd choice?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Who was and when was, the first ascent?

I would have to ask myself the following questions:

1) What was the intent of the first ascentionist in naming this route?

2) Is it to highlight the holocaust, in an indirect and perhaps clumsy manner, is there a point to be made otherthan what may be the obvious?

3) Are people genuinely offended by it?

4) Is it, whether intended or not, reminding peole of the holcaust and is this a good thing (I would say it is)?

5) Is it anti-semetic and should it be recorded in that context?

I think most people will be aware what ZB refers to. I understand the dilema though and as an editor you leave yourself open to accusations of condoning offensive route names if it stays in and censorhip if it does not.

I would go with leaving it in, it is part of climbing history and if it reminds a few people of the horrors then good. Alternatively it may also highlight (with a suitable comment in the book) that route names exist in the public domain and new routers must have a responsiblity to ensure their names do not reflect badly on the climbing community.

In reply to Martin Brierley:

A good point. Although...does anyone know of any routes named Agent Orange, Napalm, etc etc? They should probably be censored too...but only if the guidebook people have talked to the route namer and found out the reasons behind it.

In reply to Martin Brierley: Yeah, that's right, all those skin heads with swastika's are venerating those butchered .......

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A route called Blind Nigger in the lakes springs to mind.

In reply to Martin Brierley:

Exactly - nobody knows the context in which it was first named. A route called "go home ni**ers" could have been named by a black climber as irony, etc.

Lots of route names have been censored in the past. I mean, was John Redheads "Menstrual Discharge" really that offensive?

Who does the buck stop with? Where does it all lead?

Route names should not have to be vetoed.

In reply to stoney in exile:
"Then you are certain that you have never used any product or service from offshoot companies from the company that produced the gas?"

No I'm not, in fact I'm pretty sure I know who it is, and I've almost certainly used their products. Is this at all relevant? Should I not drive a BMW either because of the origins of that company? Not sure of the point you are trying to make

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: sexist routes.....more reluctant to change these...

perhaps, but than you are probably looking at it from a male point of view.

I am not yet convinced of the arguments for changing it. Would the same argument you use to change it also apply to any route name with Hitler in it? What about Stalin? Banzai? Katana? etc

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Tricky. Does this extend to scatological route names too? There are plenty of those around. I find them offensive, but does that give me the right to change them? What about mildly offensive jokey names that don't (in my opinion) work? What about Justin's B4 I Farted on Hen Cloud, for instance?

In reply to Anonymous:
Sorry that was me.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The thing about a route named "go home Niggers" is that you can put a definite slant on it.

"Zyklon 'B'" is a name which gives no indication of what it's in aid of.


Incidentally, you've improved my grasp of history today, I'd never heard of ZB before.

would a route named 'Agent Orange' be more or less offensive? and if not, then why?

I'm sure that the Orange mountain bike company had a bike called Agent Orange at one point, which didn't seem to cause a fuss.

In reply to Chris Fryer: I am sorry I am not able to make my point obvious. If the name of the gas is repugnant, then surely the company that made its profits from it and the companies that it has become must surely attract similar odure. A close friend lost large numbers of his family in the camps, some of them almost certainly to the gas. He HATES anything to do with the company and the companies it has become. He always prided himself in carefully researching the products and services that this company and its descendents provide. But even he was forced to use some of its pharmaceutical products because he had no choice. Heartbreaking.

In reply to Chris Fryer:
If we follow your thread of thought we are knackered. No Japanese or German cars, No south African Goods, No Russian goods, the list is endless of people who have committed atrocities. We have to move on and routes like that will be a catalyst for remembering some of the worst things. Better to remember and avoid the same thing happening again than to rewrite history.

In reply to sutty: what if it was called anthrax? what about botulinum, or sarin, soman, tabun, vx, etc, etc... i'm not trying to be funny, but for certain routes a name like that might be considered appropriate. to my mind there are plenty of routes that have more offensive names.

In reply to peaky:

I agree with you about Menstrual Discharge.

There are certainly routes called Agent Orange but I had understood this, possibly ignorantly, to refer to the defoliating tactics used in putting them up.

In reply to someone else: I think references to WW2 in general are different from this.

I don't know the FA was - anyone got a Llanberis guide to hand and like to look it up?

Of course renaming's a slippery slope but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it: we can't simply publish ANYTHING that FAs choose to call their routes. There are lots of controversial examples: Wogs, Cooler than Jesus, the Creag Dubh names. I wouldn't be in favour of renaming any of those but for me this is a step too far.

In reply to John R: do people find it offensive: well, I do. But that's what I want to know, really. How many others do too?

In reply to Chris Fryer:

BAYER AG

worked in an office in Sheffield with the man from "Join the professionals", whose brother worked for Bayer and regularly made it known that they had profited from producing Zyklon B

In reply to sutty: Not my thread of thought, but stoney in exile's. Just about every country has committed atrocities at some time. There are South Africans who bear a grudge against the UK due to the concentration camps in the Boer War. I personally agree with you Sutty. Remember, but dont bear a grudge.

In reply to Stoney: I can see your friends point of view, but I'm not as emotionally involved as that, although I do have Jewish relatives.

In reply to michaelw: I know who it was, I just didnt want to sttart a vendetta against them. Like I said, not my position to judge.

In reply to Chris Fryer:
sdfsdf

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well, no, I wouldn't consider scatological references, still less schoolboy humour, a reason for renaming. But isn't this rather different? I don't see sensitivity about the holocaust as a matter of political correctness (and if Sloper agrees with me I must be right about THAT at least, mustn't I?).

In reply to Chris Fryer:

Yes, you can't hold a nation directly responsible for it's ancestors actions.

I visited Belsen concentration camp once. Amongst the weeping visitors were groups of German Soldiers.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I’m uncomfortable at the prospect of censoring route names. Not mentioning something terrible will not make it go away, it will just lead to it being forgotten and such things should not be forgotten.

In the case of the particular route you mention we don’t know if there was an offensive purpose. Perhaps the route was named with the purpose of raising the issue rather than revelling in it. Maybe we can ask the first ascentionist. Who was it, by the way? Haven’t got my guides here with me at work.

Zyklon B and the purposes to which it was put should not be forgotten. Perhaps the route name will serve to bring these issues to the attention of people who would not otherwise have known. As, indeed, it has now done with this thread.

If any route name associated with dreadful things is censored then we’ll end up with a lot of blanks in our guidebooks. Do we lose Khmer Rouge and Swastika on Gogarth?

I’d be all in favour of the suggestion put forward above of some annotation in the guide to educate about the meaning of the name and its historical significance. In the case of route names where there is little doubt that the name was chosen with the intention to offend then the guide editor should be able to make plain that those who named the route were pathetic and deserve nothing but contempt. Name them and do your best to shame them.

In reply to peaky:

My ex visited Dachau and said it was the most horrible and eerie place she'd ever been to.

In reply to al:

"sdfsdf"

wtf?

In reply to Martin Brierley:

Agent Orange is a route at Harrisons, I believe

In reply to John Rushby: ...which was renamed as 'Blind Route' at some point - not sure if the renaming was the work of Wilf and Andy who did the first ascent or the guidebook editor.

In reply to Matt Wilson: I've visited Dachau too - a heartbreaking experience.

In reply to Chris Fryer:

Right. Such things should not be forgotten.

In reply to Matt Wilson:

I don't want to take this off topic but suffice it to say that it still makes me want to cry even now at the memory, and I went there about 10 years ago. Harrowing, and Belsen wasn't even one of the worst camps. A friend of mine who I cave with once saw a film secretly made by the inmates of a camp. It showed such things as people being skinned alive, etc.

This is part of the issue, these things should not be forgotten. Suppose I'd named a route "Belsen" after my visit, due to how it had affected me - should this be brushed under the carpet and censored? I don't think so.

In reply to peaky:

I agree, the important word here, going back to the original question, is "context". What was it and why was it named ZB? Only the guyt hat submitted the name knows that.

& what would be the next step after renaming such routes?
To recall all old guidebooks & destroy them so we can pretend all routes have always had nice names? - I don't think that's somewhere we want to be going.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I have to say I'm against changing the route name John. A lot of good reasons for this point of view have already been forwarded by other people on the thread, but I think its worth adding that you shouldn't overestimate the importance of the guide you're editing! If I write this:

Zyklon B

on this forum then what you take from it is your own interpretation, regardless of the intent behind it. If the authors of this route did intend this name to be offensive (come on! Do you really believe that?), then I think it should still stay in. After all, malice aforethought or not, you can't tell, and the words remain unchanged...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's all a matter of time and distance. If I'm honest, I don't find ZB too offensive. Tasteless, and I wouldn't have called it that, but not particularly offensive. It's almost become a metaphor, like Guillotine, but I guess others will be quick to disagree.

Gratuitously scatological names I do find offensive, as well reflecting the infantile humour of the first ascentionists, who are, I suspect, often rather grateful later for the stroke of the censor's pen.

In reply to Anonymous:

Damn, me again. I'll have my normal PC back again shortly.

In reply to Martin Brierley: without being too offensive, I would suggest your knowledge of histroy is somewhat lacking as are your logical faculities if you cannot distinguish between the potential offence of AO v ZB.

Agent Orange was a defoliant used to destroy cover and consequently limit the effectiveness of infantry ops.

Zklon B was a trademark [cyanide deriviative] developed and used soly as means of effecting genocide.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So long as the name is not overtly in support of the use of ZB (which it is not), it can be interpreted as people wish and some people will take it as an inspiring name as a memorial to those that survived. The name should be left just as is - as ambiguous as names like 'Swastika'.

Once we start censorship on the grounds of possible offence, rather than overtly offensive naming, it is the thin end of a big wedge. Anything can be construed as offensive if you look hard enough. The name of ZB is not offensive in its own right (although the 'use' for which it is most famous clearly was) just as, for instance 'The Rack', 'Burnt at the Stake', 'The Torture Board' , 'The Human Skewer' aren't.

For every name you can think of, there will probably be someone to whom it stirs uncomfortable memories (and the Jews aren't the only people to have suffered attrocities this century). 'Suicide Wal'l may be a pretty uncomfortable name for a few people.

In reply to L Applat:

There's a route called "Sarin" in Cheedale.

In reply to L Applat:

I was the one that originally brought up AO and napalm as examples of other possibly offensive names. Read this and then see if you think AO was OK. Any chemists out there can explain what dioxins are and what they do to people.

Agent Orange was the code name for a herbicide developed for the military, primarily for use in tropical climates. Although the genesis of the product goes back to the 1940's, serious testing for military applications did not begin until the early 1960's.

The purpose of the product was to deny an enemy cover and concealment in dense terrain by defoliating trees and shrubbery where the enmy could hide. The product "Agent Orange" (a code name for the orange band that was used to mark the drums it was stored in, was principally effective
against broad-leaf foliage, such as the dense jungle-like terrain found in Southeast Asia.

The product was tested in Vietnam in the early 1960's, and brought into ever widening use during the height of the war (1967-68), though it's use was diminished and eventually discontinued in 1971.

Agent Orange was a 50-50 mix of two chemicals, known conventionally as 2,4,D and 2,4,5,T. The combined product was mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel and dispersed by aircraft, vehicle, and hand spraying. An estimated 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were used in South Vietnam
during the war.

The earliest health concerns about Agent Orange were about the product's contamination with TCDD, or dioxin. TCDD is one of a family of dioxins, some found in nature, and are cousins of the dibenzofurans and pcb's.

The TCDD found in Agent Orange is thought to be harmful to man. In laboratory tests on animals, TCDD has caused a wide variety of diseases, many of them fatal. TCDD is not found in nature, but rather is a man-made and always unwanted byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process. The Agent Orange used in Vietnam was later found to be extremely contaminated with TCDD.

Also, if i'm gonna make this point then i'm gonna make it completely - napalm isn't that bad either but it's all about context. When it was first used the Vietnamese used to jump in specially prepared tanks of water and wait it out cos Napalm doesn't burn in water... so the Americans added phosphorus to it, which does... Nice thing to do? I don't think so.

It's all about context and sorry for ranting but there you go.

M.

In reply to GrahamD: For those that aren't aware.

ZB was developed and produced for one purpose and one purpose only, to eliminate those lower forms of life than der ubermenche, i.e. Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, artists etc.

In this way it is different from other weapons, indeed even other gas agents such as VX Sarin etc.

ZB was not an impersonal weapon, but one developed for and used against an entire culture and consequently, those affected future generations it has a certain import which cannot be taken lightly or in vain.

Many Jews, Gypsies etc were killed by machine guns, rifles pistols etc and yet, as general weapons which are impersonal in a way that the machine of the holocaust was not, these do not bear the same connotations.

I am avowedly anti historical revisionism and think that the holocausts under the Nazi's, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, in Rwanda etc should be widely understood. However the context in which ZB is used does not achieve any of these pruposes but allows the denegration of the moemory of millions in suggesting [even tacitly] that the route is a 'killer gas' or worst that the product [and hence the purpose] over time by the erosion of the memory acquires a degrtee of respectability.

In reply to L Applat:
But from a Vietnamese point of view it probably has some of the same resonances as ZB for Jews - given that it left a legacy of illness and deformity for several generations amongst civilian populatiosn in areas that were defoliated.

There are masses of names which IMHO were not named to be offensive, but simply to shock by their association (lots of examples already in this thread) - I find it hard to imagine that ZB's first ascensionists named it either to raiuse awarenss of the Holocaust or to offend Jews. It's part of climbing - not necessaily a good part, but I don't think it should be censored. (And I have Jewish ancestry and distant family died in the camps, by the way - if that makes any difference.)

In reply to steve unregistered: I don't think the name should be deleted but ammended with a note of the route name kept in the 'historical section' with a commentary.

Why should your family history make any difference to you absurdly woolly thinking above?

That some may feel the same about AO as Jews feel about ZB is not the issue. AO was a defoliant [a 'defensive' weapon] which had unpleasant side effects ZB was designed as a means of mass murder.

All murder is offensive but we only tend to find mass murder, and the methods thereby, abhorent. ZB is the acme of this and perhaps why its use, without reference to intent in such a context is different from the 'fry the fat floozy' or 'Culloden' or 'Third Burglar' [ammended as per guidebook].

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Personally, I don't find this route name offensive. If someone had suggested in the route name, that ZB was a good thing, then we almost certainly learn something of the nature of the first ascensionist. I wouldn't like to meet that person. I disagree with censorship. Route naming is virtual graffiti. If every climber put up a route, and named it, we would find ourselves with a small number of route names that are less creative than the rest, for whatever reason. I think this is something that we just have to live with. Not everyone is as creative with route naming as one might like. It's a pleasure to come across a route with a good name, and thankfully, there are many. When I come across a route with a name that isn't so, I will generally skip the page, and accept the fact that some people just aren't that clever. At the end of the day, though, you can't stop people climbing.

In reply to L Applat:

ZB was developed and produced for one purpose and one purpose only, to eliminate those lower forms of life than der ubermenche, i.e. Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, artists etc.

No, it was originally developed as a fumigating insecticide. The Nazi's then adapted it to their purposes by such methods as re-labelling it, and removing a "safety irritant" from it.

In reply to L Applat:

I'm sorry, I don't agree that ZB is any different to any other device designed with the express purpose of killing or maiming. Just because you can put a collective name to the earliest intended victims (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals) does not make it dfferent.

Individuals who knew victims of any murder or war no matter how they were perpetrated could, if they were that way inclined, be upset by the instrument of that death. ZB is no different from, say, a gun (visited Dunblaine or Hungerford recently ?). They were all designed to kill ( or in the case of AO to enable someone to be killed). No moral difference, at least as far as I can see.

In reply to peaky:

I'd just like to add - Although as I've said above, ZB was originally designed for a different purpose, the purposes of it's later modification and usage by the Nazis was known to Degesch, the manufacturing company. The managers were later executed by a British military court.

This is nit-picking anyway really....

In reply to GrahamD:

There is a difference in that ZB has no defensive or just war purpose, and is associated with collective annihilation of a whole group, which most people see as something qualitatively worse than 'normal' acts of warfare.

In general I'd say leave alone, although if it was the intention of the first ascentionists to offend I can see why John has qualms about it being published. After all, if a youthful Harrer had visited The Pass and written a manifesto in route names up one side and down the other, would we feel under an obligation to publish it for him by producing and distributing the guide?

However, putting to one side the intentions of the first ascentionists for one moment, by posing it as a question of taste, what John is asking us to think about is whether some subjects make appropriate route names regardless of the motives of the namers. The best analogy would seem to be jokes about the Holocaust, which as we know formed the basis of a stage act by a relatively well known Jewish comedian a couple of years ago. Now, what you think of that is a matter of taste. I thought it was OK, but that it had already become a little tired.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>.. What does anyone else think?

I think that it could lead to 'route naming (and grading) by committee'.
That may be what some people want.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Zyklon B - first ascensionist Jim Moran, 1984.

Personally, I don't think that the use of phrases like this totally devoid of context is offensive. It's no worse than a child saying 'bum' or 'fart' because he thinks he will provoke a shock. I seriously doubt whether Moran's intention was to be offensive, and on the whole I think discussions such as this one are educative for those who did not know the meaning of the name. When you start pretending that things such as Zyklon B never existed, even though they definitely did exist, you are beginning to distort the reality of what happened - I think it is much healthier for everyone to accept the reality of what happened in the Holocaust and to learn as much as possible about it than to sweep it under the carpet by ignoring those aspects which you personally find distasteful.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: you're a feeble minded prude John

My thoughts are the same as other have said - there are lots of routes which potentially could be deemed to have in someway offensive names, Zyklon B might be more direct, but I think somewhere I have seen a route called "Intermahamwe" (the genocidial Hutu militia from Rwanda) and we have discussed a route called "Ton Ton Macoute" here on RockTalk before - perhaps there were no Haitians around to be offended by that.

Zyklon B is just a name, and on reflection if coming across it in a climbing guide makes some people reflect even for a minute or two on the Holocaust it can't be a bad thing. Already here someone has learnt what it is and again I don't think that can be a bad thing.

I know the derivatation of the word "wog", but I find that far more offensive a route name (its at Chudleigh in Devon for those who don't know) than ZB. I couldn't imagine a offensive name for South Asians or West Indians being allowed to stand as a route name.

In reply to TobyA:

..and here's a thought to ponder: what would be the decision on the acceptability of the name if a member of the, er, popular "rap" combo "NWA" decided to, oh I dunno, headpoint the wall L of "New Statesman" and call it after the full name of the band? Or if they didn't, but John Dunne did and gave it the same name?? Hmmm...

In reply to John Gillott:

From an independant observers point of view, it might be the case that something designed to kill captive civilians rather than any other act of killing may seem worse, somehow.

From the perspective of those close to a victim (whom I'm presuming are the one's who's sensibilities we are trying to protect here), I suspect it makes less difference - they have lost a loved one.

In reply to GrahamD: Even for GCSE level wrong, go resist your common sense paper.

If your son were killed by a serial paedophile rather than in a road accident would you find it more trumatic and distressing when the murderer's name was used as a punk band name or would seing every ford siera promote the same response.

One of the things about democracy is that even the terminally stupid can voice their views, oh well c'est la vie.

In reply to GrahamD:

'...those close to a victim (whom I'm presuming are the one's who's sensibilities we are trying to protect here)'

I'm not sure about that, Graham. It would be different if anti-Jewish sentiment were a mere historical anomaly, but there's still plenty of it about. I think that's what makes this different from references to other acts of genocide or warfare.

In reply to L Applat:

Ah ! the famous Sloper put down because someone has a different view point. Ignoring the schoolboy jibes and sticking to the point, of course I would see being killed by a paedophile different to being knocked down by a Ford Fiesta. If the pissed driver of the Fiesta was used as the name of a band, they probably rank equally and are totally irrelevfant to the point I'm making.

The Paedophile (or the drunk driver) is the perpetrator (analogous to the SS), not the instrument.

What I am saying (pay attention, its quite difficult) is that there is no difference between instruments specifically designed to kill or maim, or enable killing or maiming.

A gun was designed to kill, a Ford Fiesta wasn't

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Why do you mention specifically anti semetism ? the holocaust was about the Nazis removing anyone they didn't like, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals (groups who are just as marginalised, probably more so given the power of the Jewish Lobby in the US). Are you saying that ZB is used as a recognised 'badge' specifically aimed against Jews and means, unambiguously, in some language "Death to All Jews" ? If I thought this was remotely near the truth, I would agree with your original post, but I'm not convinced ZB has this conotation just as "Panzer 2" is not the same as "death to the allies".

In reply to L Applat:

I'm not the first to say that my grasp of history is anything but sparse.

However, in my defence, I may add that while ZB was used to murder millions of jews, I believe that the whole AO problem is widely overlooked.

And why?

Because America was the purpertrator of AO against 'the commie gooks', and so naturally it can't be the bad guy.

The difference between Zyklon 'B' and Agent Orange is that while ZB was used to murder people, it was the act of using it that people objected to, whereas with AO, the problems that it caused are still evident in Vietnamese socitey today, deformed newborns etc.

What the germans did was wipe out a vast amount of people, what america did was introduce something as bad as miximatosis to a race of people.

and let's face it, the Vietnamese don't have quite the clout that the Jewish do on the world stage do they?

In reply to Martin Brierley:

If the route was named as Zyklon B to initiate debate and discussion then leave it in, it has done just that.

In reply to GrahamD:

Just shorthand really: an awful lot more Jews died in the camps than people in the categories you mention.

In reply to all those who say we shouldn't forget the Holocaust: of course we shouldn't. Referring to it only with care is way of remembering it, not a way of forgetting it.

In reply to those who ask where do you draw the line once you start censoring: that's the question, not part of the answer. Everyone is agreed that there are SOME route names you're going to censor.

Some of the points made in favour of keeping it are to my mind part of the reason why it's so offensive: some people won't recognise the significance of it; true, part of the point of including a piece of trivia in a route name is the buzz trivia hounds get when they recognise it. I don't think that's appropriate: if you were running Mastermind would you think it appropriate to include a question 'what gas was used to kill the Jews (et al) in the gaschambers?' I know I wouldn't.

As far as I can see there's no attempt to connect this route name with the route: unlike say Khmer Rouge (on Red Wall) and Swastika (look at the route diagram). To me, that makes it worse.

It's not like a little boy saying fart, after all Pat Littlejohn, presumably in a rather little boy mood, did call a route exactly that and no-one suggests renaming that. It's more like a little boy saying for effect,'your relatives were gassed, tee hee.'

Wogs: I would support renaming this route if it wasn't named so long ago. Renaming now would cause confusion and would be imposing present day values on the past in a way I would think the wrong side of the line. But let's say someone named their new Gogarth E8 Wogs; you wouldn't find that in the next guidebook, and I imagine a majority would agree with that.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

John

Nicely put.

M.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As an editor this is clearly a difficult call.

Re-reading my own and other posts I strongly feel that should remain in the book, with a footnote to explain the issues and situation you faced before publication.

People can then inerprete it as they see fit, and hopefully pause to think about what Zyklon B represents.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>.. Everyone is agreed that there are SOME route names you're going to censor.

I disagree

Guide book authors/researchers/editors should record history not alter it to suit (their?) moral viewpoints.

In reply to Martin Brierley: Lets do the Jewish world wide conspiracy shall we? Jah?

There's only a holocaust day becuase of Jewish banking connections? And the trains east were a myth, anything else is a left over prop from A spielberg movie, oh and of course 'case he's a Jew he forged the rest.

What are you trying to say in the following?
'The difference between Zyklon 'B' and Agent Orange is that while ZB was used to murder people, it was the act of using it that people objected to, whereas with AO, the problems that it caused are still evident in Vietnamese socitey today, deformed newborns etc.'

No-ones saying that the aftereffects of AO, carpet bombing APM's etc are not obscence, what is being said is that the modification of a product to wipe out generations and cultures is on a different scale to tactical deforestation.

Oh and as for your comment that 'it was the act of using it [ZB] that people objected to'; is this modern art?

In reply to Kipper: I agree with you to the extent that history should be preserved, but like the art in the recently discovered berlin bunkers the context and presentation is all. Hence inclusion of the route name in the absence of this is [to me] morally debateable.

Why not ammend it to ZB and have reference to the issues raised in the historical section.

In reply to L Applat:

Oh grow up sloper!

in no way am I trying to belittle anything that happened in the holocaust.

What I am trying to point out is that there are other similar events in the worlds history that are somewhat conveniently overlooked.

perhaps you are too easily swayed by the American view of world history. It's not convenient that napalm be a subject to them, as is AO.

Now there's a lot of Jews in America, in powerful positions, which makes their case well known, and good for them.

Where's the voice of the Vietnamese?

You'll be believing films like U-571 next!

by the way the British invented the concentration camp - convenient that it still gets assigned to the germans in WWII isn't it?

In reply to Kipper: Sorry, I think that's naive. There will always be somebody who's just reached the developmental stage where they think it's funny to say rude words and who'll want to give their a route an offensive name (almost never actually funny).

Guidebooks have a long shelf-life and deserve to be treated with more respect. The trick is to tone it down into something that's recognisable but less offensive.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: If you want my personal opinion, then my choice would be to leave it.

I'm not in favour of trying to re-write history no matter how well-mean't the thought might be.

Personally I don't see the difference between calling a route Zyklon B (which will offend some people) and calling a route something so associated with Germany as Swastika (I know my grandparents would find the latter offensive, probably more so than ZB because Swastika stands for so much that they hate due to loss of loved ones).

Mike

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think the core of the debate is in your reply. We agree that some names would be overtly offensive e.g "Death to the Blacks". Also, we agree that some names are silly and trivial and not really offensive, by today's standard e.g "Fart".

Where I disagree with you is the that a route named after a tool used for murder is the same as condoning the murder itself. Your analogy of whether it makes an appropriate question on Mastermind to ask what gas was used to kill Jews in the Holocaust is in good taste misses a point; the route was not called "what gas etc.". An appropriate question for Mastermind might be "what is the chemical CnChyXYZ better known as ?" and the answer might be ZB.

Put another way, "Describe how Edward II was murdered" might not be thought of as an appropriate question for tea time viewing. It still doesn't mean that "hot poker" is generally taken as offensive.

As I say, I think ZB is not neccessarily a good route name, but it is not overtly offensive.

"Wogs" wouldn't get in now. Doesn't the guidebook make a bit of a point about it not really being an acceptable name ? Or did I read it in an article ?

In reply to L Applat:

Now you mention it, I'm not sure there are too many more offensive concepts than 'tactical deforestation'.

There's a sad irony in ZB, in that it was developed by Fritz Haber, a brilliant Jewish German chemist, and then used against his own people. Dont know if that had any relevance to the naming of the route.

In reply to Andy D:

Is that as in Fritz Haber of the Born-Haber cycle?

In reply to Martin Brierley:

If thats the one where you make ammonia from nitrogen gas then yes.

In reply to GrahamD:

'Describe how Edward II was murdered" might not be thought of as an appropriate question for tea time viewing. It still doesn't mean that "hot poker" is generally taken as offensive.'

Well no. But hot pokers are not exclusively associated with that particular episode in the way that ZB is with the Holocaust.

My Mastermind analogy was going back to the point I made about trivia hounds: the route name only has any point at all if you make the link. I don't say it's condoning the murders. I say it makes a reference to them in a throwaway fashion for a cheap effect.

In reply to MJH: if the guidebook were to record the route description and add 'the first ascentionists gave this route a racially offensive name which we have chosen not to reproduce, preferring the name [whatever]', how exactly would that be 'rewriting history'?

In reply to Andy D:

Well, well.

they don't mention his other work in school now do they?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If that was the case, then they could simply reduce the name to ZB.

although as previously mentioned, I believe that there is no context associated with the name, and unless you are prepared to go through all the guidebooks and rename anything that might be considered to be offensive in any way to anybody, then it really shouldn't be changed.

In reply to Martin Brierley:

'and unless you are prepared to go through all the guidebooks and rename anything that might be considered to be offensive in any way to anybody, then it really shouldn't be changed.'

Oh come on, that's nonsense. It's obviously a question of degree.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

but whose degree?

are the families who's father has committed suicide any less pertinent that the grandchildren of those who were gassed?

so isn't suicide wall a bit extreme for them? it must hurt to have their sensibilities trampled on for the sake of a route name just as much.

In reply to Martin Brierley:
'are the families who's father has committed suicide any less pertinent that the grandchildren of those who were gassed?' - No, for the following reason -
Suicide - A voluntary act.
Gassed by Zyklon B - Genocide.
Sad but factual.

The discussion seems, to me, to be with regard to the single meaning of Zyklon B - the reason it was developed and the one purpose it was used to achieve (thankfully without success) and therefore how we are to remember it.
I feel JC is suggesting that as a route it is possibly not most appropriate.

Does the name Suicide Wall really have direct links with the act? Has anyone committed the act off Cratcliff, Bosigran or Ogwen? - I don't know but the name SW suggests another thing to me and when you consider the date of ascent of SW route 1 in Ogwen I think you understand the mind of the maker and his choice of route name.

Bob

In reply to bob smith: "Does the name Suicide Wall really have direct links with the act?"

does it really matter if it does? at the end of the day, it is, at most, a reference to the ending of life, which seems to be the main reason against it.

Meanwhile, this route has been named after a chemical which was used in the gas chambers of the germans over 50 years aog

In reply to bob smith:

Previous precedents for guide book Censorship
the Joe Brown Route Shit House Wall: 'Touse Wall.

Cathedral Quarry Lake District: Anal Abuse: An Alabuse

I support renaming, any suggestions?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: A little beside the point - but speaking of humour - a friend of mine was working in a kibutz in Israel and was fixing a leaking gas fitting on a kitchen stove. One of the local lads wandered in, took a deep audible sniff and sighed "Ahhhhhh... nostalgia". Cracked him up totally.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Do we stop listening to bands such as New Order, Joy Division, Marilyn Manson etc (and also stop using Uncle Ian and Auntie Myra's child minding service).

In reply to bob smith:


Suicide is not voluntary for those left behind. The dead themselves aren't offended by the route names.

In reply to the last poster whose name I'm afraid I have forgotten:

This Suicide Wall analogy strikes me as fatuous. Relatives of suicide victims are not part of an identifiable racial group which an entire nation (more or less) once tried to eliminate and which is still the target of various race hate groups. It's not a question of whether a route name might stir unhappy memories in some individuals. You wouldn't ban a route name Kill All Niggers because it offends black people: it offends all of us.

In reply to the very funny post about memories above: racial jokes are a different kettle of fish, especially when told by members of the race in question. Racial jokes at least have a point. It's the sheer gratuitousness of this name that I dislike so much.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: "It's not like a little boy saying fart, after all Pat Littlejohn, presumably in a rather little boy mood, did call a route exactly that and no-one suggests renaming that. It's more like a little boy saying for effect,'your relatives were gassed, tee hee.'"

You are so wrong, John. Assuming that Moran's pupose in naming the route was to shock, which I don't accept, then the mechanism which he was using in order to do so would be exactly that of the little boy saying 'Fart' - using a word which referred to the most shocking thing he could think of. Of course, when people do attempt to shock by such means all they are really achieving is to display the poverty of their imaginations.

To change the subject slightly, it is generally accepted that Stalinism was responsible for at least as many deaths as the Holocaust but I don't hear you advocating the renaming of Lubyanka on Cyrn Las.

An interesting example of the use of phrases connected with genocide to shock is that of the Dead Kennedies' song Holiday in Cambodia (since adopted as a route name in Lundy). This was presumably the most shocking concept that their stunted punk musicians' brains could come up with. But in the ensuing 25 years the world has changed so greatly that now computer recruitment agents (a form of life only marginally more worthwhile than the perpetrators of the Holocaust) actually do take package holidays in Cambodia.

In reply to John2: "An interesting example ....Dead Kennedies' song Holiday in Cambodia (since adopted as a route name in Lundy). This was presumably the most shocking concept that their stunted punk musicians' brains could come up with."

John,have you even heard the song? do you have any clue what it is about? by the sounds of things, No.

In reply to Anonymous: (DG)

>..Does this extend to scatological route names too? There are plenty of those around. I find them offensive

That's Brown Crack done for then.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

One of the reasons I believe the name should remain is that it is not gratuitous. O.K, in the guidebook it is cited and used without context, but this provokes debate and remembrance. I have never studied the holocaust, and did not know of the history of ZB. Thanks to this route name, I now do, and consider this a good thing. I suspect I'm not alone in this.

Hence the route name is rather useful.

Another reason is more practical - I find the arguments you use as to why "Wogs" should remain and Zb be removed rather weak, at best. I suspect that the real rationale behind your stance is simply that ZB offends you, whereas Wogs des not especially. For me it is the other way around...who decides?

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

I agree.

If the title of the route was something similar to "I like the effect ZB has on people" then yes, rename it.

it isn't though.

As I have previously stated, none of us knows the reason behind the naming of the route. It could be there as an offence, as a mark of respect, or to shock people into conversation (which it has).

If by it's existance it reminds a small group of people about the horrors that occurred, lest they never forget, it can't be a bad thing.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
": racial jokes are a different kettle of fish, especially when told by members of the race in question"

I have to say that one of the things that pisses me off is people who think it is ok and 'right on' for one section of the community to make racial jokes and not another. That in itself is racial discrimination.


"if the guidebook were to record the route description and add 'the first ascentionists gave this route a racially offensive name which we have chosen not to reproduce, preferring the name [whatever]', how exactly would that be 'rewriting history'?"

What gives the guidebook writer the right to 'prefer' a different name. They are there to write a guidebook not to pass sanctimonious judgement on other people.

I must admit that I have never heard of ZyklonB until this point and in a strange way this route name has educated me to something of which I was previously unaware. That is a good thing.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I find C****tmas Crack at Stanage Offensive. On purely religious feelings. However and number of people seem to feel the need to climb it on Dec 25th. These people are all offensive to me to.

The sun Offends me too It is discriminating against 50% of the worlds population.

Thank Fu ck I'm not a liberal pansy

In reply to John2:

The difference I perceive is not one of motive but effect: small boys saying 'fart' don't succeed in shocking us: we just close our eyes and reflect that presumably they'll grow up in the end. Small boys who make offensive remarks about the Holocaust WOULD succeed in shocking me at any rate: I could actually be bothered to try and explain to them why decent people don't do that.

Stalinism didn't have a racial element and isn't part of an ongoing problem which all decent people are agreed is an evil.

I didn't actually say the FA's purpose was to shock but to offend, which isn't quite the same thing. Not that I care much about the intention. Anyone who can't see that this is going to offend some people is a total idiot (assuming he knew the significance at all, of course).

In reply to midgets: Come on Stu, that's bizarre. Whatever Moran's purpose was, it wasn't to educate you. And anyway, what have you learned? You know what the Holocaust gas was called. Great.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Cant we just forget about it? sureley one hiccup or two in history arent worth battering yourself over 50 years after they finished! i'm sure there are worse things going on in the world right now to worry about. like the price of smoked haddock in sainsbury's

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I noticed a glaring mistake higher up on the thread regarding a Redhead route, it was quoted as Menstrual Discharge, this is actualy a mix of two of his names, which are: Menstrual Gossip and Menopausal discharge.

God I am sad.

I personally do not see that a name of a gas is a bad name. I see how people may not agree when you consider the holocaust, but I think it is an ok name and there are many others that should be censured before ZB.

In reply to Nj:

Let's get pedantic...are you sure about that?

I thought that JR wanted to call one of his routes "Menstrual Discharge" but popular (?) opinion at the time forced him to change it to "Menopausal Discharge".

Well, at least that's what I remember him telling me. Twas a long time ago though.

Certainly there was some issue about one of the names being changed from what he intended, even though I didn't think it was that offensive. Not as bad as "Womb bits" anyway - you should hear his little story about that one!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I rather assumed that the route name was intended as some sort of memorial - a 'lest we forget' type of thing. Maybe I was being naive.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

That's what i'd like to think too but as mentioned dozens of times in this thread, the only person that really knows is the route namer.

In reply to Matt Wilson:

So why don't we ask him ?

In reply to Bobb:

'What gives the guidebook writer the right to 'prefer' a different name.'

Strange thing to say. People have a right to call their routes anything they like. Guidebook writers equally have a right to choose whether to reproduce that name or not.

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone chose to call a route, let us say, "What's All This Fuss About [insert name of recently deceased climber here], He Was A C**t Anyway?", and you were the guidebook writer, you would feel you had no 'right' to choose not to describe it?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

ZB aside, one of the main points raised here is that some names will always offend some people. You can't please everyone all of the time. In my mind that's even more of a reason not to censor.

Censorship is in general undesirable, since it relies far to heavily on the personal preferences and sensibilies of the censor, which can never be completely unbiased. I find the whole issue of censoring route names repugnant.

In reply to 666DENVER666: You, are either

a. a scientific marvel, in that without a grain of inteeligence you have the digital dexterity to type [perhaps when trained you might type Hamlet,
b. making a pathetic attempt at a wind up,
c. looking for a fight.

Please confirm, if option c, happy to oblidge.

In reply to 666DENVER666:

"Cant we just forget about it? .....i'm sure there are worse things going on in the world right now to worry about."

Well yes, quite. You ever read Bulldog?

In reply to L Applat:

All of the above,

Preferably C, however they are no fun without face to face contact.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It most certainly did, exactly the same one that applied to the Nazi Holocaust.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I can only read comics.

In reply to John Rushby:

Sounds like a plan to me. I for one would be very interested to find out.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So this is some comfort to the relatives, is it ? It hurts less because we can't put a badge on them ? I think Suicide Wall is an extreme example, but not fatuous.

I would suggest that anti Semetism, at least in this country, is way down the list of problems (I mean by prevalence, not by seriousness to individuals) behind, amongst others, Anti Eastern European Immigrants and Anti Pakistanis. I would have thought that most anti jewish feeling nowadays is fuelled by the current position of Isreal in the middle east and has very little to do with events outside probably the majority of the population's living memory.

If anything, ZB stands a reminder to the reasonable people of the world of what can happen if these feelings are allowed to get out of hand which can only be good. Racist thugs are racist thugs. They will not change their view by whether you do or don't stick ZB in a guidebook. It might, however, act as a reminder to right minded people (many of whom have posted on this thread) of where complacency can lead..

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Guidebook writers equally have a right to choose whether to reproduce that name or not.
Precisely - and from what you said at the start of the thread this one has decided to ignore you and retain the name (rightly so in my view, its not really that offensive is it and before anyone pounces on the horrors it caused i've done the Auschwietz (sp) thing so know all about those)

Once a routes been named its named for good as far as i'm, and a good few others from what i've read, are concerened

In reply to L Applat:

can't you have a reasoned discussion without resorting to insults?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Just come accross this thread and must admit that I'm amazed by the sheer volume of pretentious bullshit that is being spewed.

No the name is not racist as it is not put in any context. This really does smack of the nanny state, PC etc. People have a right to air their views I have seen no reasonbale grounds to change the name at all.

Indeed (like most people I would think)I did not even realise what the name meant. Its petty and small minded and the thin end to a sharp wedge. I only hope the guidebook editor holds his ground.

In reply to our rich:

Another voice of reason descends from the ether of the inty-web. 'Politcaly correct' what does the name imply? to say the peak district should be 'whites only' area IS politialy correct IF you are say a right wing nazi scum,(i am not nazi scum btw).

People will always be offended by something or other no matter what. so just say what you want and deal with the backlash later.

In reply to 666DENVER666: If you're seriously suggesting that the price of smoked fist is an issue of greater import than the holocaust then face to face 'discussion' can be arranged.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Sure, I also doubt that was Moran's purpose, but as you yourself said - "Anyway, even if there was no intent to offend, does that matter? We wouldn't let a route called Niggers Go Home stand with that name, whatever the intent of the FA." I agree, it's the name that is offensive, or otherwise, not the intent behind it. And whilst I might not have learned any really useful facts today, this thread reminded me that the Holocaust occured, and that there are people still around today who still want something similar. Remembrance is the most important thing....

After re-reading a lot of the arguments on this thread, it just strikes me as irrelevant waffle. Isn't the key to the deal here that we should censor names that offend the majority of climbers. The debate here has been caused (in my view) by the fact that although this route name doesn't really offend many climbers, it REALLY offends the ones it does....

In reply to L applat:

I'll put a tenner on you, Sloper.



G

In reply to midgets of the world unite: "Isn't the key to the deal here that we should censor names that offend the majority of climbers"

so in effect, it is more a case of drawing a line somwhere. but where? does a routes name become offensive? or is route naming going to end up all clean and clinical? pretty well any comment will be offensive to someone.

how about we just number routes from now on? no more names, just numbers...

In reply to ruairi:

It been done before.

Route 1, Route 2 etc.

trouble is, how would we know which crag? It's bad enough with some names already!

In reply to StuartM:

"Once a routes been named its named for good as far as i'm, and a good few others from what i've read, are concerened"

Come on Stuart. This kind of absolutist position is just silly. There has to be a line beyond which guidebooks will not go: the laws of libel if nothing else compel it. The only question is where it should be.

In reply to Graham: Woo Hoo! Miles better than any poncy picnic - Rocktalk's first pre-arranged, face to face punch up.

Excellent - can we bring cake...oh...hang on - then it's just a picnic with fighting.

Anyway - I'll hold yer coat, Slopes.

In reply to Martin Brierley: just number all the crags as well then - so you have route 3 on crag 596, for example.... there cant be anything controversial in that can there?

In reply to Martin Brierley:

Exactly, although it's like that with route names too - Valkerie's popping up everywhere and i've lost count of the routes called things like Corner Crack, this that or the other Chimney etc etc.

Maybe that's as good a reason as any not to censor - if we do, there will be a finite list of "acceptable" route names to use.

If anyone wants to abuse me for "not taking this seriously", please read back and check my other posts in this thread before jumping up and down.

In reply to ruairi: I think we should let all historical names stand. They've not caused a stir until now. Consider the BNP, they incite hatred and say a lot of pretty nasty stuff but to censor them restricts their right to freedom of speech.

Which is more important, freedom or a stupid name that offends oversensitive, sanctomonious arses.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Isn't a guidebook just reportage?

if so then it can't be held responsible for other's views.

especially if it puts in a note saying "The name of this route is not condoned by the editor etc. but is left in for completness sake"

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

with this I agree, wholeheartedly.

Given that there are very few route names out there which ARE truly offensive, I suggest the status quo (route names at the editors discretion) works fairly well. Arguably, even in this case.

Previously, I'd say that editors have taken their jobs responsibly, and even erred on the side of conservatism. I mean, Short Fat Bar Star!!!???

In reply to ruairi:

"so in effect, it is more a case of drawing a line somwhere. but where?"

Good question, which is I believe exactly why John posted this thread. Perhaps there should be a rockfax style vote ("stays unchanged", "unchanged with footnote in FA list", "censored", etc.) to clear the air of all this to-ing and fro-ing?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It could be the guy that named it didn’t set out to cause offence so much as to shock those who knew what the stuff was. And that’s what’s going on here, people aren’t so much offended but more shocked into a knee jerk reaction.

It's not just the editor’s choice, there must be a team of people working on the guide, and I would say it’s their choice as a collective.

The one good reason to leave it could be to embarrass the guy that named it.

Other than that it's probably best removed and the route renamed, how about a thread to suggest suitable names that might reflect the spirit of this thread?

In reply to ruairi:

It'd certainly be easier for producing a database for.

Then you have the trouble about who gets crag number 1.

The Sheffielder's would want it on the grounds that they think that grit is the best.

The Scots would want it because they're most Northern
(Cornish as they're most southern etc.)

Southern Sandstone is nearest the Capital

The Welsh would want it on account that they'd not have it if it were English.

What can you do?

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

"After re-reading a lot of the arguments on this thread, it just strikes me as irrelevant waffle."

I agree.

"Isn't the key to the deal here that we should censor names that offend the majority of climbers."

Not quite - the degree of offence caused is also relevant IMHO. I wouldn't see it as a straight vote.

"The debate here has been caused (in my view) by the fact that although this route name doesn't really offend many climbers, it REALLY offends the ones it does"

Just so.

(With regard to purpose, btw, I was picking up your objection to my term 'gratuitous', which I was taking, perhaps wrongly I agree, to refer to purpose)

In reply to Martin Brierley: as it would be a purley clinical system, with no space for sentimentality, history of personal preference, i would have thought that it should work in the same wasy as a road atlas - from the tip of cornwall and work its way across and up.

if people want to say "number 1 should be this one because of blah blah blah", then it is already creating conflict, and offending people...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm reading all this with interest, and am as yet undecided what I think the answer to your original question should be.

It does however remind me of the argument John Redhead used when accused of giving his routes misogynist names. He said the misogyny was in the minds of those who found the routes names misogynist. FWIW I didn't actually know the name of the gas used in the chambers, and if climbing is art as Redhead would maintain, this particular piece has had quite some effect.

G

In reply to 666DENVER666: I see you deleted the post.

Well so you're on probation for GBH, s. 20 I presume? What's this supposed to infer?

I note what you say about your views, however the addendum that 'though they got the numbers wrong' merely paints you as an ignorant anti-semite.

Such views are nothing but cowardice and you will find that I, and others, do not lack the moral fibre necessary to deal with cowards with promote such views.

In reply to FH:

"Other than that it's probably best removed and the route renamed, how about a thread to suggest suitable names that might reflect the spirit of this thread?"

If I was being totally objective (alright, I'm probably not, but...) I would say that the "spirit of this thread" is to keep the name Zyklon B.

In reply to ruairi:

Numberings a bad idea - wheres the creativity in that?

I can vividly remember some of my favourite routes. All of them have interesting names that stand out for some reason or other. Numbering stinks of communism or the borg - let people be individuals!

In reply to L Applat:

I think he thinks it impresses people.

G

In reply to our rich:

let the name stay, to paraphrase Primo Levi - the wound should never be allowed to close.

I feel that changing this name would be like sweeping it under the carpet - "...we must change this name because it's offensive..."

It is offensive but who does it offend?

(hope that all makes sense, it sounded better in my head)

In reply to Graham:

I think we have no become guilty of being middle class liberal ( i exclude Sloper and anyway he is angry) navel gazers.

Leave it in and let the debate rumble on in pubs and campsites

In reply to our rich:

'No the name is not racist as it is not put in any context. ......... People have a right to air their views '

Well, make up your mind. Which is it? Is Mr Moran airing his views, or is there no context?

In reply to L Applat:



That the homey limp bizket stereotype dude could kick your head in with his Doc mart high tops.

Careful sloper, I think he won’t fight using Queensbury rules.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The name of the route stands on its own. What you make of it or into what context you put it your own view, in short the name is not racist but your or other peoples views might make it as such.

and yes people do have a right to air their views, just because you do not agree with them does not give you the right to censor them. If you don't like this then emigrate to Zimbabwe.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

John,

You are into difficult territory when you try to draw conclusions from the fact that the name offends some people a great deal. What is the conclusion you draw from this, that these people should have a decisive say? Chris Norris' recent work really has offended some people a great deal. Should Channel 4 and The Observer have bowed to the minority that were disgusted by what they saw and read?

I would agree with you that as a name for a climb ZB pretty much has to be in bad taste. But I would also suggest that the intentions of Moran do matter, to the extent that if I knew he meant to say 'exterminate all Jews' I would take a different attitude that if (as seems more likely) he wanted to indicate that the route was a killer or something similar. If the latter was the case, I would say that he was guilty of poor taste, but I wouldn't want to give him a good kicking and rename his route.

Does anyone know Moran? It'd be nice to know what he thought / intended.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Although this seems eminently reasonable, the problem is that there will always be someone who claims to feel really strongly about almost anything. This then gives them a disproportionate influence. Whilst I feel uncomfortable saying it, this seems particularly relevant here.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well, that's true. I don't say that the extent to which people are offended is a decisive factor: JohnG's example is an excellent illustration (although a bit different inasmuch as it relates to something which can also be defended as having a positive purpose). But it's a factor.

Given that the route is graded E4 6a (from memory) I doubt that Moran intended to indicate that it was particularly deadly.

In reply to our rich: "Numbering stinks of communism or the borg - let people be individuals!"

so we have come back to the main point in effect!

Yes - numbering stinks, but it reduces the chances of someone coming up with a route name that could be offensive.

how many cracking route names would be lost if we started of down the road of numbering?

btw - put in numbering as an orwellian 1984 example....

so we have the odd name that is offensive to some people, the world isnt all shiny and happy.

In reply to John Cox:

John Gilliot posted the following

>if I knew he meant to say 'exterminate all Jews' I would take a different attitude that if (as seems more likely) he wanted to indicate that the route was a killer or something similar. If the latter was the case, I would say that he was guilty of poor taste, but I wouldn't want to give him a good kicking and rename his route.

On reading your original posting, I thought exactly this.

However, in retrospect, I'm not sure it is even in bad taste (assuming that the name was simply to imply the route was lethal). Is it not permissible to remember such things from human history and to make reference to them. Humour is often considered to be a way of dealing with such matters. Are you sure you're not being too PC?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Besides, any form of revisionism is the start of a dangerous slope.

In reply to L Applat:
Anti semite...hardly,

Section 20...mail me i'll tell you all about it, this place isnt the place for it, hence deletion,

Cowardice...I beg to differ, but it's easy to sound accusations over a computer isnt it.

Previous posts...I'm only here to inflame discussions, Get a passing scrap, Get a rise out of people, call me a devils advocate if you like...it seems to work at least. Job well done etc. In real life you might even like me, however on here i play the part as an enfant terrible -enfant most likely being highly appropriate-.

Any offence caused, i apologise. However, my original claim i still hold true, what the hell has naming a climb after some gas got to do with anything, PC gone mad.

In reply to 666DENVER666: ok, fair play, apology accepted, lets face it i've been guilty of stirring things up from time to time.

and as another Pex devotee perhaps there should be a modicum of civility.

But your posts did come across as rather anti-semitic, even though I accept this was not your intent.

In reply to l Applat:


sloper, you are a bit of a dickhead sonny, let's face it
changing your name from sloper to apple-hat doesn't let you off the hook

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: censorship is bad, revisionism is very bad

"I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Keep the name

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
decent people don't do that.

Don't be ridiculous John. Ask the Chechens, Estonians, Ingrians, Lats, Baltic Germans, Jews, Karelian Finns and numerous other racial groups that Stalin systematically purged whether they felt Stalinism had a racial element. Just because he was willing to kill Russians as well doesn't make him equal ops.

BTW, here an Estonian joke:

Q)What's the tallest building in Tallin?
A) The KGB gaol. Because from there you can see all the way to Siberia.

In reply to TobyA: P.S.

Sorry - I forgot to say I agree completely with Midgets that saying Wogs should stay in the guide because it is old, but ZB shouldn't seems very very weak. Thats like saying its OK for my Gran to be racist, but not for my little sister.

In reply to Martin Brierley:

Well said that man.

In reply to TobyA:

No it isn't, Toby, don't be so bloody silly. It's like saying that a word that had one set of connotations in 1923 has another set now. Not exactly uncommon.

Censorship is also a silly word (mine, I know). Censorship means some body preventing something being said at all. Simply choosing not to repeat something is different.

You're right about Stalin, of course. I knew someone would say that the moment I'd typed it.

I can't help wondering whether all you halfwits talking about slippery slopes realise that guidebook editors have renamed offensive route names for years. For example, someone chose to call one of their routes at Swanage (or possibly Portland) 'Three Jews knocking on the roof of the gaschamber' (may not be exact but pretty close). By the same token as some of the arguments above you could say that's not offensive - it happened, there's no context, could be a memorial, doesn't say the author approves of it, reminds us all of the Holocaust, can't be a bad thing, etc,etc. The guidebook editor renamed that and when the gentleman in question subsequently wrote his own guide I note even he had thought better of it.

I'm truly surprised at you all. I've asked a few non-climbers this question and I've yet to meet one who thinks that such a route name ought to go in a guide or isn't offensive.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

John, just catching up on this one so sorry if some of it has already been said.

I have always found this route name something that jumped out of the page at me. I don't find it particularly offensive, certainly strange and in my view somewhat in bad taste; although I can clearlt see why I might be seen as offensive by some. But hey ho, one mans poor taste is anothers offence.

As to censorship, well you did raise that one yourself but I wouldn't be that bothered in this case and lets be honest it wouldn't be the first time the GB writers have seen fit to change things perhaps with less justification. The slippery slope thing is on a par with the "rights" and "fun" nonsense so I'm not that concerned on that front.

The route in question is not of that old a vintage so isn't a possible solution to discuss it with those who made the first ascent?

It is possible that there is some innocent explanation that has not stood the test of time; the name starts Zy which makes me think (giving them the benefit of the doubt) they wanted it to be last in the book for all time. Lets face it something starting Zyk is going to be hard to beat in that particular competition! If so then simply change it to Zyk and note in the historical record the original name. Of course for all I know they might have had other less acceptable motives in which case I can't see the problem with expunging the name from the record.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: For what it's worth, having read 1 post out of 162, I vote to keep the name, for reasons that have no doubt already been mentioned.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm truly surprised at you all. I've asked a few non-climbers this question and I've yet to meet one who thinks that such a route name ought to go in a guide or isn't offensive

So why start this thread then? You've already made your own mind up haven't you? Did you expect everyone just to agree with you? There's been some pretty good arguments on this thread imho.

Halfwits? No, I pointed the fact that routes have often been censored before out pretty near the start of the thread (see "peaky" posts) - that doesn't change anything for me - censorship, or whatever you want to call it, is undesirable.

It's up to the first ascentionist what he wants to call a route. If that's offensive to others, so what? Deal with it.

I don't need my hand held and my sensibilities protected by someone who can't handle the fact that somebody may have dared to call a route by a name that offends them. If somebody wants to call a route "three jews in a gas chamber" then fine - it's not nice, but the fact is it's their route - they named it, and that's history. It's done, you can't change it, so let them take the flak for it, and don't just brush it under the carpet because you think it's not fit for general consumption.

In reply to brendonTendon: i think the main concern was that of political correctness. i agree with your comments completely - i dont think anybody wants the bmc (for example) wasting their time and your money checking route names are "ok".

however, supposing someone discovered a new crag, put up a load of routes, and intentionally gave them all blatently offensive names. would that still be ok? i guess it would - just the dude puttin up the routes would come across as a bit of a wanker

i guess all it means is that if you are putting up a new route, then make sure that the name u give it is "reasonable"....

but then what is reasonable? ask a cross section of the uk population, and you would get conflicting answers

In reply to TobyA: Sorry, I'm feeling stupid, explain the Estonian joke? Please!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I'm with yer on this one. Personally, I find it an offensive route name. Whatever the arguments against changing it, for some, like me, it will always be associated with one thing. And I'm sure after 150 posts, which I haven't read, it's all been said, so that'll do.

In reply to North East Nick:The joke is that you go to the KGB jail/goal,before being sent to siberia,where people were sent to work.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to ruairi:
- i dont think anybody wants the bmc (for example) wasting their time and your money checking route names are "ok".

Of course, if you put up a new route, you can refer to it however you like. However, if I'm editing the guidebook (whether for the BMC or anyone else) and I consider that the name you chose is offensive, I can choose to call it what ever I like. In practice, I'd ask around (perhaps here) just to check I wasn't being puritanical, and I'd try to find a bowderised version or at least a name in the same style.

Of course, different editors will draw the line in different places. As it happens I don't find the name is question as offensive as John clearly does, but I defend completely his right to change it if he wants to (assuming he's the editor, I thought you were doing Gogarth, John. Isn't this Nick's call?).

I think we need to think carefully about the "rights" putting up a route gives us (none, obviously). Amongst the privileges traditionally accorded to first ascentionists is the choice of name. However if this privilege is abused, the rest of us aren't obliged to respect it. I guess the only inalienable right is that of being identified as the first ascentionist.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Now that, In my book is a bit beyond the pail.

I would have difficulty in arguing for this name to be kept in it's unabridged version.

The difference as I see it is that this name certainly has a context which is undoubtedly designed to be offensive.

the name Zyklon 'B' however lacks this

In reply to Timmd:

Exactly. We should add "...and die in large numbers" to the "sent to work bit". Estonia (like Latvia and Lithuania) was forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union during the Second World War - ie. invaded. Stalin wasn't particularly convinced of the loyalty of his new subjects so executed large numbers of them, and sent many more of to the Gulags of Siberia to learn to love the motherland. The Museum of Occupation in Riga is frighteningly educational on what this meant. Stalin also forcibly settled large numbers of Russians in Estonia and Latvia, who have become perhaps the biggest political issue facing the countries since their independence in 1991.

Just out of interests, the Chechens weren't sent to Siberia but rather to the steppes of Kazakhstan. This wasn't just the ones Stalin didn't like, but rather the whole nation, man woman and child. This is one of the reason behind the ongoing Chechen war.

In reply to John Cox:

taste is taste. You find ZB distasteful whilst I don't, but I would be totally with you on the "Three Jews..." route name, it seems directly offensive even if it wasn't meant to be.

Isn't their a route in the Lakes called "Nagasaki Grooves"? I've recently been reading a lot about nuclear war so have read first terrible hand accounts of what happened in Nagasaki, but this name doesn't offend me for some reason, probably in the same way that ZB doesn't.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I notice in this month's (Sept 2002) Climber that someone (Nick Dixon, apparently) has named a route at World's End, Clwyd 'The Final Solution'. What about that for a route name? Could be an innocent name, i.e. 'finally found a way up it', but since it's a direct finish to 'Rudolph Hess', I suspect the significance was known. Note that I'm not accusing Nick of anything - maybe he'd like to comment on his choice of name.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well put. I am reminded that this slippery slope was of course begun (unless anyone can think of an earlier example) with the renaming of Vagina Crack at Curbar.

I am doing Gogarth: I said I wasn't the editor in question at post one. Who's Nick? It's Bob Moulton's call in the end, although these things are usually dealt with by committee.

In reply to brendontendon: Of course I've made up my mind. The point of posting this thread is that my mind isn't the only one that matters. You got a problem with that?

In reply to all: A regular Rocktalker who knows Jim Moran well has asked me to point out that Jim M was very interested in the history of 20th century war and named a number of his routes of this period after landmarks in that history - Khmer Rouge and Barbarossa for example - and that he is sure there was no intention to offend. I am happy to accept this is true: I don't know Jim M but he doesn't strike me as the type to choose offensive route names to attract attention. I still think this particular one is thoughtless and inappropriate and could do with renaming, but that's what we're trying to discuss.

In reply to captain paranoia: I don't think that particular name is original, actually. To me the fact that it is descriptive of the evolution of the route makes all the difference.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I meant Nick Dixon, but now I remember that he's doing Cloggy, not the Pass. Whatever. If the committee decides that it's offensive, they call it something else (with a note in the First Ascent list).

How's the foot, BTW?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Hmm, a matter of taste?
So who wrote the following?

"On the stupid or 'clever' theme, I've always wanted to do a new route at Bumhole Buttress and call it Oedipus Rim Your Mother"

http://www.ukclimbing.com/caff/forums/t.php?t=2497&v=1#32795

In reply to Doug Kerr:

Touche! Having said that, once a crag's called Bumhole Buttress and there are routes on it called Rimsky-Korsakov and Fear of Infection, I'm not sure there's too much lower you can sink. And I still think it would be pretty funny, personally, and rather less offensive than ZB.

On that theme, anyone know what No Rimming, No Fisting at Burbage became? This used to be spoken of as a famously offensive name (to some), but doesn't seem to have made it to the guidebook.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

i thought No F No R was on limestone?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I am sorry John But I don't follow your argument, you just given us a context for the route name which clearly suggests that his purpose if any was to keep us aware of this part of history, I don't see that as a problem rather, I think it is a good thing that we do not allow this period in history to be forgotton lest we also forget the lessons learned. You don't seem to find any of his other war references offensive, why not?

What I find offensive is that if you went into the history class at my local school and asked if any of the children knew what zyklon b was you would get a classroom full of blank faces looking back at you!

I really don't understand why you find this name so offensive do you find all references to warfare and weaponery so reppelant that you would want to rewrite history?

The route name should be allowed to stand, "Zyklon B" has no implication that would suggest offence to me and if it reminds people of the holocaust that is not a bad or offensive thing, by pretending it didn't happen (which is what you are trying to do by removing this route name) you make it possible for history to repeat itself.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You got a problem with that?

Not at all, but if you've already made up your mind, why do you care what anyone else thinks?

I got the impression from past posts on here that you were a bit of a stickler for accurate climbing history. It surprises me that your so keen to change it now just because it might cause offence to somebody.

I think the route names on Bumhole Buttress are hilarious. Prude? You said it!

In reply to brendonTendon:

You're really not being very bright here, are you?

I care what other people think because rather than impose my own views - not that I am in fact the editor in question anyway - I would prefer, and so I am sure would the editor, to hear a wide cross-section of views first.

I too find the names on Bumhole Buttress amusing, which is no doubt why I suggested an additional one, as Doug Kerr pointed out.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

1. You're really not being very bright here, are you?

Fu ck off.

2. I care what other people think because rather than impose my own views...

Looks to me like you came on here to gather support for your own cause, as you were having (not surprisingly) "difficulty persuading the editor...".

3. is no doubt why I suggested an additional one, as Doug Kerr pointed out.

Fair dos - I should have read that other thread first.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think I probably represent an extreme view on censorship but I think there should be none at all. Let the names be given and, as long as the publishers will not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act, included in the guide.

I have my own sense of decency and morality and don't want anyone to dictate what I should read. Yes, some will find some route names offensive for political/religious/historical/etc reasons but then it's easy to look in the back of the guide, see the first ascensionists name and draw conclusions about that person.

I find some of the contribution to this website if not offensive, certainly puerial and banal but I would not censor these. Neither would I invite the contributor around for a meal.

So what if some new hot-shot E11 climber comes along with a desire to shock and the mind of a sewer-rat (apologies to all offended sewer-rats). Then hopefully the influence of their peers explaining that they are being a tw*t or preferable ceasing to climb with them (after all judge a wo(man) by the company they keep) would change their ways.