UKC

Following on from the Chudleigh post, what about a wider discussion of offensive names?

There are plenty, I'm sure, that only rank as tasteless. I suspect, though can't think of any offhand, that there is a number of misogynistic route names. No doubt in Scotland there are some anti-English ones and possibly the converse applies. 

OK,

Strapadictomy (E5 6b)

This is very rude and not something I'd enjoy explaining to my mother.

Spearing the Bearded Clam (E2 5c)

I imagine there are many women who would be uncomfortable with the aggressive metaphor. Is this where the proverbial line gets drawn? Personally, I can't make my mind up. There is undoubtedly much wit and beauty in route names and I think the case for any change has to be pressing and properly discussed. In my view the final arbiters should ideally be climbing clubs in liaison with the first ascensionists, providing they can be contacted without recourse to a medium. 

Hasn't this been done to death numerous times before? 

Wanker's Quarry,  Little Langdale. I think it may have been renamed with something a little more polite. To be fair it is probably better suited to spending an afternoon perusing "art pamphlets" than climbing. 

This has been done before, and I always quote this one:

One Less White Oliver (VS 4c)

I'm a fan of Elvis Costello and I know it's not racist in context, but at the crag is not in context. I've been there and heard people too young to know the song complaining about it.

And it should be one fewer.

John Redhead was notorious for using distasteful route names. Distasteful in my opinion at least.

Al

Look no further Rog. Enough on 'ere to last a lifetime! Creag Dubh (Newtonmore)

That bothers me far more, to be honest!

Route names are often puns, euphemisms or in jokes. You might be hard pushed to find a crag without a route name that someone finds offensive. 

Very worrying

youtube.com/watch?v=Ovi7uQbtKas&

Cenotaph Corner couldn't that be construed as trivialising the dead of two World Wars. Indian Face-is somebody saying that Indians have faces like a lump of rock-who named that how dare they!

I'm reminded of the lady who called the police because she had seen a naked man and that she was offended. When the policeman asked her where did she see him she said "If you lie on your back on top of the wardrobe and turn your head to the left you can just see him through that window 50 yards away".

The point being if you want to be offended if you look long and hard enough you wont be disappointed, especially if you want to be offended for someone else.

Wasn't it called Indian Face because Redhead had painted one on the rock thereabouts? Or have I made that up?

Yes, know.  I said it bothered me, not that I had complained about it.  'Fewer' wouldn't scan and I'm not going to argue with Elvis Costello about writing song lyrics!

Actually, I've just suffered from a bit of pedantic editing myself, for trying a bit of concise prose inspired by some bloke from Stratford, but I'm trying to be grown up about that too. 

I'd always thought Jonny Dawes said it was something to do with a face visible in the cliff with the outline being like a Native American headdress.

That's correct, from a certain angle and at a certain time of day. Part of the Great Wall face

That's definitely the reason Wimberry is called Indian's Head among locals, because it does.

One on the north face of Aonach Dubh in Glen Coe was just called Yak for many years, but has now got its full name, with Hunt being added to the end.

"Dougal Haston paid a visit in 1959 and climbed the sister corner of The Hood as F*ck Face (HVS), characteristically named to offend Scottish Mountaineering Club members." From https://www.smc.org.uk/downloads/publications/guidebook-extras/highland-out...

I was unaware.

It's not exactly offensive, but it is clever....

Shy Talk (6a+)

It will be sad if we completely sanitise a long, colourful and countercultural climbing history. Witty and occasionally distasteful route names are part of the sport, and I don't think we need to go and rename things en-masse. Indeed, I think it would be a great shame, and a great disservice to some of the colourful characters behind the first ascents.

There are some examples that I support or struggle to get worked up about, but it will be a sad day if we name everything that could conceivably offend someone, somewhere.

You must, surely, be joking?

My God, it would seem 9 others don't appear to have a sensa yuma either? My mother doesn't tend to riffle through my old Peak guidebooks. Sorry, don't use smiley faces.

I seem to recall FYB at Dancing Ledge stands for something very rude indeed, and the route was originally given the full and rather graphic name. If I'm right, it must have been sanitized very quickly becase it's in the guidebook from the year after the FA as "FYB"

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/dancing_ledge-256/fyb-14815

Can anyone confirm my recollection (I hope I haven't just conjured this out of my own filthy mind...)

Cheers 

I did read it as a serious suggestion, probably because there are some right grumpy people on here sometimes who may well take offence at the name!

Bastard (E2 5c)

If somebody could explain to me the context in which this route name is acceptable, I would be very grateful.

That one was mentioned on UKC recently by someone suggesting that the reference was something other than what it might appear. But I don't think they spelled out what it was actually referring to.

Edit: Found the post I was thinking of. My memory of it wasn't quite correct. https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/the_pub/which_route_would_you_pull_down-7...

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen that thread.

Just for context, i wasn't implying that the first ascensionists had named the route specifically to be racist. I was fairly sure there was going to be some random reason why this had been deemed acceptable at the time. 

On  a personal note, whatever the context i find the name offensive.

I remember Jim Perrin writing about some of Menlove Edwards' routes being renamed by an overzealous guidebook editor for being  obscene. Unfortunately, I've lent my copy of the book to a friend - but, I seem to remember one was called "Sodom". It's interesting to note the very different politics of that editorial decision.

I don't think there's a need focus our efforts on changing route names, especially as the politics are often so vague - e.g. how are we meant to interpret Homophobia (E6 6b) or Final Solution (E3 5c)? These names certainly makes me question the attitudes of the first ascensionists, but that doesn't mean changing them is really a priority. On the other hand, there's absolutely no reason to support a racist epithet like "Wogs". Just get rid of it.

There's certainly no need to continue creating routes with shitty names like these:

Fat Cow (V6)
Slap The Bitch Up (f6C)
Bitch (16)
Cheatin' Bitch (S 3c)
Raped by Affection (E7 6c)
Don't Be Homophobic (5.11b)
Pride (E2 6a)

More important than worrying about names, I think, is to learn something about what this means. Why have names like these been, not only accepted, but even celebrated? What does this tell us? How might this make climbing feel unwelcoming to some people? And then we can support some positive changes rather than trying to claim there are no barriers in the first place.

Using the Ireland clue, I found out what he was suggesting the name could refer to. Bizarrely, Urban Dictionary gave the clearest definition, though various more reputable sites gave indirect references that back up their version:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=black%20bastards

It seems like a plausible, though not really more pleasant, explanation for the route of that name in Northern Ireland. Not sure it connects very well with non-Irish routes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bastards 

Great album actually.  Wasn't released at the time, record label not best pleased with the title and cover art, then one of the group was killed in a car accident so the record label dropped them.

In any other context? Totally unacceptable...

So how many people need to object for a route name to be changed because it is deemed offensive? Does anyone who is offended count or must it be the direct target of the offense? Can someone be offended on someone else's behalf? Does the offendee have to be a climber?There are few routes around called "Honky".  Am I allowed to be offended by that? If I ask will it be renamed?  It's a slippery slope.

Al

An obvious thing to point out is that the adjacent Black Wall and Red Wall at Llanymynech  are named that because Black Wall looks black and Red Wall looks red.  And from there the route names on Black Wall have a "black" theme.

Why "Black Bastard" in particular, however, I don't know.

Your premise that a rock route name needs to conform to yours or anyone else's sensibilities is the issue. Are you going to write or petition your local MP to change the law to prevent names like this? What is your endgame?

What if there was a black sheep local to the area that was particularly aggressive to passers by? Acceptable then? 

If referring to a black person, are black people capable of occasionally being bastards? Either in the informal being unpleasant or born out of wedlock?

Is the Austin Powers character Fat Bastard no longer acceptable? That would be fat shaming + bastard which must be close to as bad as perceived racism + bastard. If not comparable, why not?

Does anyone want to live in a world where these questions are debated ad nauseam on ever more trivial and mind numbing matters? 

Dismissing a complex issue altogether just because there aren't easy, definitive answers can't be the way forward.

In any case, as several other people have pointed out, guidebook authors have been making decisions about what they're willing to publish for decades. It's neither accurate nor helpful to pretend that we currently have entirely unfettered free speech in route names and that what's now being suggested is a radical leap.

I don't accept that is what I did.  I simply questioned the wisdom of going down that tack.  You know unforeseen consequences and all that.

Al

Closer to home....

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/cathedral_quarryblack_hole-359/an_...

Earlier guidebook censorship, originally called Shit House Wall

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/craig_y_rhaeadr-697/touse_wall-152...

Sorry, I was definitely reading between the lines rather than taking what you said purely at face value. What's your actual opinion then? Do you think a route named after an ethnic slur should remain unaltered?

Not sure.  If enough people KNOW that was the intention and are offended there may be a case but like I said it could be a slippery slope and all my questions are still valid.  Deep down I'm thinking it's probably not worth the hassle. History is history. Perhaps we should ask some coloured climbers, I don't like it when people are offended on behalf of someone.

Al

I think you'll find most dictionaries describe this usage of "coloured" as dated and offensive, so you might well find they're offended on behalf of themselves before you even get to ask them about the route name!

I can't see anything wrong with either of those. I wouldn't even question the attitudes of the FAs. 'Homophobia' as a name is surely no more offensive than 'sexism' or 'xenophobia'. They're just descriptive words without any sort of comment, even inferred. If it had been called 'I hate gays' then that clearly is offensive.

I know you mean a different one, but The Final Solution to me is the best named route at Creag Dubh. It's right next to The Fuhrer, and was one of the last remaining gaps to be filled on Great Wall. It's also not jarringly explicit like much of the stuff there, but instead utterly horrific for such ordinary words. 

What's wrong with Raped by Affection? It's better than some of his other names...

It is, but my mother informs me that it was considered polite when she was young.  I'm sure Al didn't mean anything by it.

Also "The Unprintable".

And, in a similar vein, I presume the route names "Blasphemy Crack" and "Obscenity Crack" are euphemisms for what the leader actually said.

There was no offence intended. What would have been a better description to get the point across?  What's offensive, what's inoffensive?  Is it offensive to describe me as white then? Debate is going to become very difficult if we have to constantly tip toe around language. Realistically the offense is more to do with the intent than the actual words used.

Al

I think describing someone as coloured is certainly dated. It is still used by some people I know who feel - wrongly, I'm sure - that there is something wrong with black, and that coloured is rather more, I don't know, gentle maybe. Black may have been a derogatory term in itself at one time but has, it seems, been adopted with pride by many ethnic minority people. I think a lot of older people like myself sometimes find it a little trying that words they grew up using have become offensive and we sometimes use them without thinking. The key thing is not to get overtly angry about this and just to do your best to keep up. Offensive words or speech are deemed offensive because the offendee feels offended. The offender should have no say in this matter - just accept.

Tolerating racism "because tradition" is also problematic and can be seen as condoning that racism from some point on. It is indeed difficult. Should we similarly chop antisemitic sculptures from medieval cathedrals (e.g. Jews sucking from a pig's teats)? 

Shooting from the hip I would probably keep the less extreme examples of these sculptures and, where they are visible from ground level, add a memorial plaque, as a cathedral has value as an architecural ensemble.

A route name, much less so, change it to First Ascensionist's Route, add the year where necessary, and add a comment in the guidebook.

CB

That was my pathetic attempt at trying to avoid the word black but this is exactly the linguistic gymnastics that we will all end up playing.

What about bad language then?  Many people are offended by 4 letter words especially those with sexual connotations.  How does this fit in with your philosophy?

Al

You're probably right because many like your comment and of course they must be well informed to be on here in the first place. I must try to find out where I got my (seemingly misinformed) idea from. There's another incidence of a mountain feature forming such a profile - Warbonnet in the Wind Rivers Range, Wyoming.

Many years ago I picked up a hitchhiker near Deiniolen and gave him a lift to Bangor for a job interview. He was called Gabbut, he was the local drug dealer and friend of Johnny's. Anyway he told me and was very proud of the fact, that he was responsible for naming the route 'Indian Face'. Apparently he had seen the face in the rock when high on drugs and pointed it out to Johnny...

I rest my case, m'Lud.

Expletives, even some with a sexual connotations, have been known to pass my lips, but I don't want to offend so do my best not to do so by judging the response of my interlocutor.

Just to remark that on one occasion when I was driving back to Llanberis, with just the right dusting of snow on the crag and just the right angle of evening sunlight, the "Indian Face" was clear and obvious.   (Though I did know how to look for it, since I was aware of Johnny's explanation.) 

Why avoid the word black?  That is the right word.  Was that not considered polite in the past?  

Well I don't want to offend either but that is not what I am talking about.  I am questioning the wisdom of banning and censorship because once we start down that road we can't say where it will end. Do we really want that?  Hypothetically, you swear someone is offended, objects and you get banned. I don't want that and I'm sure you don't either but that is where we could end up.

Al

Funnily enough, I remember arriving home after doing that route. "What have you done on grit this weekend, son?" asked Mommy. "I did Strapadictomy solo, Mom."  No eyelids were batted.  Mom had no idea where I'd been.

There was a time when "black" was indeed considered offensive, and the preferred words were "Negro" (as used in MLK's "Dream" speech) or "coloured" (as in NAACP).

Of course. But the words we choose to use are one of the best ways to show our intent.

I can understand how people get frustrated when "acceptable" terminology shifts underneath them. But language shifts all the time anyway, that's not unique to issues of political correctness. Making a little effort to listen to what communities say they feel about the terms used to refer to them is a very small cost for a significant benefit. (Which isn't intended as a criticism of you for not knowing that "coloured" is generally frowned upon. You didn't know before, now you do.)

I still don't understand this assertion that this is a new road people are suggesting "starting down". Guidebooks have always been somewhat selective about the route names that they'll publish. Various examples have been given already, on this thread and related ones. What's so different about this occasion that makes you think it's dangerous?

Banned from what? UKC? That's not hypothetical or even new, it happens all the time and has done for as long as UKC has been around.

Well, you're the only one talking about banning and censorship. Seems a bit of a straw man to me.

I think the "euphemism treadmill" turns much quicker than most changes in language. The reason, of course, isn't that minorities - or "woke" - people are trying to catch white people out, as people who claim it's unreasonable to be asked to keep up might have us believe. It's that people keep being racist, so whatever term people use to describe themselves, after a while, it picks up negative connotations and people don't want it applied to them anymore. Hence "coloured people" ends up being dated and negative, whereas "people of colour" is current. Given the widespread backlash against political correctness (by people who think they're bravely challenging orthodoxy, by being arseholes en masse), it won't surprise me when that phrase goes out of favour too.

Many of the routes in the Black Hole in Little Langdale (not heard it called 'Wankers Hole' before) were done in the mid-80s, at the height of the AIDS crisis.  Hence quite a lot of names had 'bottom' connections of one kind or another.  They didn't fair too well with the Fell and Rock guide book committee (who subtlely renamed them) but they gave us a hell of a laugh in the pub when we were thinking what to call them.

One of our members  (oh er missus....)  was a biology teacher in Blackpool and had to teach the kids all about AIDS.  Apparently, they knew quite a bit more about the various 'habits' than he did.

I think the last route in this vein was Kevin's 'Orifice Fish' which, although an obvious candidate for the continuing line of smutty innuendo, had entirely different origins.  I almost got to second him on the first ascent but he couldn't find his way across the face and into the corner.  He went back next day and cracked it.

I'm doing that thing of explaining my 'dislike'.  I normally agree with pretty much all your posts, so this is a new territory for me.  Here's the thing - my daughter is half African, half British.  Her mum describes herself as black, my daughter describes herself as brown,  Definitely not black (or white!). Common parlance seems to dictate people of colour being 'black' - this is not so.  They are simply not white.  And maybe that's a challenging way to accept it for some.  White is the minority on the planet.  That does NOT mean that non-white equals black though.  And that's my dislike explained!

I agree in general terms.  Some of my family would describe themselves as brown.  However in this instance I was talking about specifically black people based on the previous discussion.  

explaining Strapadictomy to your mother. 

Why? try the Scottish one, it is less hard

Some of these route names are changing before our very eyes, eg Bastard (E2 5c) at Llanymynech. Do we assume Doug Kerr (FA) has agreed with this, or is it simply an executive UKC/Rockfax decision? 

It's only the right word because those who wish to apply it to themselves deem it to be so. And quite rightly white people should use the word preferred by black people. But since that word has changed over the years, it can sometimes take a while to catch up. 

Another UKC/Rockfax change is Wogs at Chudliegh. Now Jollies Route (HVD) in the UKC logbook.

An example where permission of the FA is not possible. 

We definitely don't assume. A much more sensible approach employed by most guidebook writers would be, as you say, to contact the FA and ask them for a name which would be considered less offensive in the modern world. Considering the nomenclature of that wall they might come up with something else in the 'black' theme. Unless of course they object to censorship, in which case they might deem the UKC-picked name appropriate as applying to the guidebook writer, probably with an exclamation mark afterwards!

How's that? Renaming something because it is offensive to some IS censorship i.e. that is precisely what your post is about. I'll give you banning. It would have been better to not mention that.

Al

... it could also have been done by the crag moderator.

Either way, it would be good if they could explain their decision. 

Does anyone know either way the intent of the name?

I agree: I do wonder why someone would call their route "Homophobia", but I don't know - it's certainly not explicitly homophobic.

With the Final Solution, I do find it distasteful that someone would compare the achievement of climbing such a hard line with the planned mass murder of the holocaust. I know it fits with the name next to it, but it is overly flippant at best.

This name is deliberately almost illegible, because of the grammar. If he had chosen a different preposition - "with" - it would suddenly become an obviously disgraceful name. He also commented: "An unstable relationship is helpful - but preferable to be just unstable." He's skirting around something, here - putting it out there in the public, only to deflect as though he imagines he is being cleverly ambiguous. But, it's not really ambiguous. "Raped by Affection" clearly suggests rape and affection are two things that can go together, and personally I find that to be deliberately deeply offensive and misogynistic.

I'm not proposing changing this name, by the way. I'm just proposing we don't celebrate Redhead's route names as though they are high art when in fact they're toiletwall scrawlings.

P.s. I notice that the route "Don't Be Gay" (mentioned in my original comment) has now been changed on the logbooks to "Don't Be Homophobic" and "Faggot" has been changed to "Pride", whilst "Black Bitch" has been changed to "Bitch".

Nice work!

Misogyny, on the other hand, seems to be too pervasive and deeply engrained to be challenged.

I think the deliberate choice of the preposition "by" does introduce an ambiguity - in that you could read the phrase as "so overpowered by feelings of affection that it's like being raped by those feelings" which is of course very different to "raped affectionately". No doubt most will think I'm stretching it, but such are the perils of an old-fashioned Eng Lit degree built around Prat Crit!

I know many find Redhead's work distasteful. In fact I'm currently reading David Craig's very fine Native Stones, a book about climbing, and he's on record as doing so. However, I do think he's a genuine artist, capable of subtlety as well as shock.

Edited to add: I'm not convinced that the widespread misogyny won't be challenged, over time.

Practical crit always was a way of letting anti-semites, fascists, champions of colonialism, etc., off the hook, though, wasn't it?

Native Stones is great, by the by! I had dinner with David Craig once, after a poetry reading to celebrate the 40-year anniversary of Creative Writing at Lancaster University. A really nice guy. His filing cabinet was once broken into by the Faculty who stole his marking in order to search his students' essays for evidence of him teaching with "Marxist bias"... The Dean had him down as a Soviet mole. Even worse, Craig went on record in a national newspaper as saying that men's and women's student dorms should be integrated...! They almost kicked him out for that scandalous suggestion!

Al, I have just read through everything I've written on this thread and cannot see anywhere where I have proposed anything which might be called censorship. Perhaps I've suggested indirectly that people might like to consider self-censorship but I wouldn't choose that word. Even if I had done so, I would argue that it's a very different thing to censorship. But at least you haven't accused me of being politically correct - yet. ).  Before you do I'd just get my retaliation in first by saying that political correctness is just what I call politeness.

It was a cornerstone of the pre-structuralist Cambridge Eng Lit course I did, back in the mists of time. I'm sure the guy who was my Director of Studies, the marvellous poet J H Prynne, would have contested your claim - but whatever, those prat crit unseens were a godsend to those with a taste for far-fetched smartarsery like me!

I expect you know that Ivor Richards, one of the originators of this approach, was also a keen climber and poet. He was among the first ascensionists for the famous trilogy of Faith, Hope and Charity on Idwal Slabs.

I really struggle to see the massive historical significance that gets attached to route names. With a few exceptions they're either incredibly prosaic or a hodgepodge of playground banter - pop culture references, vaguely amusing puns and controversialist silliness. The history will be preserved in the guides extant, even in the history notes of new guides, and the original job of signifying a line up a cliff will continue without attaching semantic baggage.

Without replying to anyone in particular, having read much of the thread and other threads on the subject, I am always curious about one claim that seems to emerge every time. I am talking about women allegedly finding sexual innuendo or sexual route names offensive. Now, I am not talking about sexist route names, that is a different story altogether, but surely the very idea that women would somehow be offended by juvenile humour more than men is sexist in itself? I'm just trying to open a discussion here, I would very much like to hear other people's perspectives on this, *especially* women's. I have had this discussion with female friends in my group but this is obviously not going to be representative, as we do tend to make friends with like minded people, it is probably a bit of an echo chamber. 

On that point we will have to agree to disagree but other than academic debate and in the grand scheme of things it's trivial so I won't say anymore. I thought the context of the thread, not the OP, was trending towards censorship of offensive names.

Apologies I took your post out of context and expanded the scope into a whole new dimension.  You are in fact promoting free speech. I was defending that so really we are on the same side.  I sometimes get carried away and take UKC far too seriously

Al

I'd always assumed (and yes, I know, one shouldn't!) that Redhead was referring to feeling smothered and suffocated in a relationship, either by his parents (my guess - another assumption!) or a partner. As you note, it's 'by affection', not 'with affection' and I think he'll have chosen his words carefully.

Mick

I appreciate your latest post, Al. No offence taken. Most of us can at times get a bit too, you know........  I have certainly been prone to it too. 

It isn't really though, is it? It's part of an ongoing part of conservative culture where any attempt to change terms of reference is met by "you're censoring our history" when that's clearly, obviously nonsense. The history will be preserved and carefully curated - more carefully handled than history has been at any other point in the past - it's just that, we just choose to shape the present and the future in some very minor ways.

Seeing the word raped used in such a trivial way makes me feel quite creeped out. Not offended as such, more feeling that the person who named it that isn't someone I'd want to get stuck with in a corner.  

Sexual innuendo doesn't bother me other than that.  However if someone is taking other peoples kids climbing it's not particularly helpful, I want them to read guidebooks for themselves.  

To suggest anyone could be raped by feelings totally trivialises actual rape.  

Ok I'll jump back in, it's just started raining so that's put my planned mountain bike ride to rest.

So a group of people find the name of a climb offensive and campaign to have that name suppressed or even changed to something that is acceptable.  Acceptable to them that is to say. How is that NOT censorship?  I'm not discussing the rights and wrongs of it but surely it's almost the very definition of censorship?

Al

Because the name persists, it's a historical name, preserved in the historical record for as long as that record persists. It's less meaningful and less successful censorship than if I go out the back of my house and paint over the graffiti on the back wall because it's not to my taste.

Edit: and equally to the point, if the publisher disagrees with the people protesting then they can publish and be damned. There is no coercion, they may lose sales and face criticism but that's just a free market and free speech.

Al, you know that mountain bike ride that you’ve just cancelled?

Well, uncancel it.

As uncomfortable as being soaking wet will be it will be better for you than doing battle on UKC.
I’m speaking from experience and my unasked for advice is given in friendship and not in any other way.

I think I should take my own advice as well

In these troubled times of racial injustice and inequality I often contemplate the writings of Lennon and McCartney, possibly the greatest popular song-writing duo that ever lived. If only we could follow the example set in this particular masterwork by one half of that team:

youtube.com/watch?v=fXAlfh6QKQs&

Such profundity appears but rarely.

'Raped by Affection' isn't that bad. It's names like 'Menstrual Gossip' and 'Womb Bits' that are really misogynistic and fourth-formerish/giggling behind the bikesheds. Maybe John feels ashamed of them now, looking back?

Oxford Dictionary definition of Censorship.

"The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

That's what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with historical retention of information.

Al

It's not suppressed, it's not prohibited.

I never said it was.  I was debating the fact that some people thought it should be i.e proposing censorship.

Al

But they don't, they just suggest we call it something else in future.

Yes - Dorothy Pilley Richards was one of the founders of the Pinnacle Club!

Practical criticism, or close reading as it is now known, is certainly a crucial skill. But, I think its ascendency within the academy needs to be understood in relation to a cultured elite attempting to hold onto Culture as its own prize possession, keeping it beyond the working-class masses whilst longing for a return to some mythic Royalist pastoral England (cf. F. R. Leavis); and in relation to the anti-communism of the Cold War period, during which fascist-sympathisers and actual fascists (Eliot and Ezra Pound spring to mind) were rehabilitated whilst any whiff of materialism was decried as "totalitarianism", not least because the anti-fascist, communist-led Popular Front movement had done so much in the 1930s to advance working-class art, literature, film, etc. In the 1950s it was about erasing pre-war literary radicalisms; by the 1960s, it was a way of attempting to insulate a white supremacist, classist and male-dominated Culture from the social movements shaking universities; by the 1970s black liberation, feminism and a revived New Left were forging new directions for Lit Crit. Still, though, it lingers on, with structuralism/post-structuralism breathing new breath into its zombified corpse!

Yes, that's called censorship. It's minor and trivial but it's still censorship. If you don't see that there really is nowhere else to go with this conversation.

Al

It's not even censorship by the definition you gave...

Well I would call that suppressing the name, what would you call it?

Al

"Calling it something different in future because it has a stupid name"?

I'd go with something like:

Nothing is suppressed, nothing is hidden, it's just presented as history.

I very much doubt that Redhead intended that and I think one should accept it's being used metaphorically. It's a commonplace to talk about something being "ravishingly" beautiful, a similarly metaphorical use of a word with exactly the same root as rape. I accept you may well regard all this as distasteful hair-splitting but I think Mick Ward provides a good suggestion as to how Redhead could have meant it in a far from trivialising sense.

I don't really disagree with any of that account, but I would never give up on close reading as my personal primary means of engaging with the text. As a hobbyist poet myself I'm fascinated by how verbal meanings and music interact and I'm much less interested in interrogating the contexts. I guess it could have been different if I'd pursued a career in academia - but not doing so was definitely the best thing for both me and it!

You don't think then that at some point someone will not come along and object to ALL the offensive references? Don't get me wrong I'm in agreement with the first line, it's just that I'm admitting to being censorial in that regard.

Al

All this mealy mouthed  and patronising agony over how people want to be described. In the end why dont you just ask the people in question how they see themselves. I asked a West Indian friend and colleague whether he preferred Black,coloured,of colour, or Afro-Carribean. His answer was emphatically Black. There's also a clue in all those posters and slogans 'Black Lives Matter' You've not seen any of the mealy mouthed words used instead of Black have you.

My friend also asked me how I would describe myself of which i said White, perhaps insipid pink would have been nearer the mark.

Totally agree. And just distastefully graphic.

It's meant to be jarring, not trivial. I read it as an oxymoron, like, I don't know, 'Beautiful Runt' or 'Silent Scream' or 'Despairing of Happiness' (two of those I made up on the spot so don't look them up!)

Al, I agree; whether you're for or against it it's clearly censorship. It's the very definition of the thing! I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. 

But it's literally the final solution on the wall! It's the perfect pun.

It's baffling.  Is it generational, class, education, political correctness?  I just don't know. It's not worth falling out over though.

Al

J H Prynne on UKC; I've seen it all now!

I feel my life has come full circle.

What a guy. Tutorials with him were a lot more white knuckle than any of the grit headpoints I've done. When I was at Caius I was lucky enough to spend a year living in the attic of the house they converted for Stephen Hawking, and I got invited to his parties. I remember one where I was eavesdropping a  conversation with Hawking, Prynne and Ed Dorn. My head practically exploded. If you know Prynne's poetry, you might also know R F Langley's. He was my hugely influential English teacher at school.

an illegitimate secret ascent maybe?

The word ravishing doesn't have the same power as the word rape.  

I don't really care what he did or didn't mean.  Its unpleasant and it trivialises a serious and nasty crime.  

Normally I'd just ignore it and not comment but I did as a poster wanted female views.  

Now I remember why I don't generally bother.  

It is jarring that anyone would use it in that way.  

So rape isn't offensive but womens bodies are?  

One male voice in support. Using the word rape jokingly or playfully was not acceptable by general consensus already in the 1980s. That such a consensus exists is  essential for its use as a "provocative" route name, it would simply not work otherwise.

However, I find it rather sick rather than witty or challenging, similar to the other examples.

CB

Thanks.

The word is jarring in itself. I'm not sure there could be a context when it wasn't jarring. 

You do realise cb294 was making an argument in support of the name?

Is that a voice in support of those other names he mentioned? I'm surprised.

I tried not to!

CB

I don't find wombs or menstruation in the slightest bit offensive.  Peculiar to reference them but I'm neither in support or against any of the names.  

I don't like the rape one, I think it is beyond tasteless, but to be absolutely clear at no point have I said it should or must be changed.  

I'm not entirely sure he was?

I took the reference to 'rape' in 'Raped by Affection' to be metaphorical, not relating to actual physical rape. Still distasteful, but 'Menstrual Gossip' refers to menstruation and in a jeering manner ie his partner has female friends round and they swop menstruation stories. If you have daughters you realise how unpleasant and painful this condition can be and in poorer parts of the world menstruating women are discriminated against and are denied even the basic means of physically dealing with it. Also 'Womb Bits' surely refers to abortion and its aftermath. Not nice when you know someone who has been through this trauma. This really shouldn't need to be explained to adults.

It would be interesting to hear what JR's thinking was behind the various names he used which were undoubtedly meant to get a reaction, but he was/is (apparently) quite a deep (or should that be weird) thinker.

Having said that, I can fully see how the name of RbA would make you uncomfortable and that people would be offended by it (can't remember if you included yourself in that group).

But should route names be changed? It's to some extent re-writing history which is a bit 1984 ish. IMO history should only be re-written if you can show that a later "writing" is more complete and gives a better picture of what happened. Changing route names certainly doesn't fit into that category.

If however a route name is offensive, then I think the least that should be done is to ensure that there's some sort of acknowledgement that it is (now) offensive, and to explain the (historic) rationale behind the name. The problem is, where do you put/maintain that acknowledgement, and how do you ensure that it's always "seen" with the offensive name, and that people can't stumble across the offensive name without seeing the acknowledgement.

Tricky problem. The other issue is "thin end of the wedge", where do you stop?

fat slapperFat Slapper (f6B+)

I missed the abortion thing, fair enough.  It wouldn’t occur to me to call an aborted foetus “bits”.   I see nothing wrong with women discussing menstruation, there were a few threads on mooncups on here back in the days when we had more women posting.  I think it’s fair to say I wouldn’t have got on with him, but I don’t hold with the idea that everyone must, so that’s fine.  

It's not the women discussing menstruation that's wrong, it's the sneering, insensitive male attitude to it. And Cloggy is not the place for someone artistically ambitious but immature  - who probably thinks it's being dadaist or post-modern or something - to name a route after the results of an abortion. Don't get me wrong, many of JR's route names are great: The Bells the Bells, Manic Strain, Poetry Pink (I like that one, I've even done it), but occasionally he stepped over the line of decency. I wonder if a climber has ever gone back to a guidebook editor and said 'I'm sorry, I was wrong there. I'm ashamed - change the name'?

I've just noticed this has been renamed on here since I posted. Not sure about the new name, it sounds like it's about a biscuit. I would have thought "Oliver's​  Army" would have been a better choice?

And it still says less instead of fewer, but now it's not even excusable as a quote from a song!

Edit: Thinking about it, "One more widow" would be a much better route name. I put off climbing this route because I thought the name alluded to this line and it was dangerous.

There’s an interview, of sorts, with John Redhead where he gives some explanation as to his route naming.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/john_redhead_-_live_here_and...

I share your uneasiness about the name Raped By Affection, though perhaps you don't share my concomitant feeling that the uneasiness is all the more reason why it shouldn't be censored. In any case I guess neither of us would feel so uneasy if it had been called Murdered By Affection. Why is that?

Raped has become a more jarring word than murdered IMO. It's no worse, but explicitly represents a violation. 

It's because rape is trivialised by some people, while murder isn't. Using the word raped out of context can be seen as part of this.

I have come across loads of people who  find just actual climbing offensive!   I can't think of any REAL reason why but that's the funny thing with getting offended

This just seems like pointless nitpicking to me , at best its giving unnecessary bad press towards climbing and climbers in General! 

Yes , a few rebels named a few routes with some rude words! Do we really need to shout about it . 

No, but we also don't need to use a stupid name for an arbitrary line up a bit of rock for the rest of time if we don't want to.

For the record, both of my meagre two FAs are in the guidebooks under the wrong name but I give not even a single shit because route names are almost entirely valueless labels we use to make it easier to talk about routes. If a route is named in a way that makes it harder for a significant number of people talk about a given route then change it.

You can't think of any off hand !!! ??? 😂

What about the people who get offended , 

By people being offended ???

Yes.  Exactly this.

I may be doing JR a disservice but his route naming  always seemed like a schoool kid writing obscenities on the toilet wall which may indeed have been his intention rather than profound observations of the human condition. 

Crikey this thread has gotten rather confusing with all the database name changes - with many of the linked routes now changed it does make it hard to see why previous posters are getting so offended by some of these names! 

You won't be changing any of my route names thats for sure 

If you somehow did , I would be forced to devote my life to publishing my own guide books were climbers can call their routes whatever THEY like and not what you say is acceptable !   

If you can't handle a few bad words maybe you should take up tiddly winks 

( while wearing safety goggles obviously)

Changing route names is the most pathetic thing I've heard this year ! 

And there's been some seriously pathetic events so far 😂

No FA then?

Really?  I took it to be a (typically unpleasant) pun on the route Woubits, also at Cloggy.  I wonder how many people would have interpreted it the way you do (which is not to say you're wrong, who knows what was in his mind when he named it?)

Is there a sudden spate of changing the names of routes in the UKC database which might be offensive? If so, is this UKC policy, unilateral action by some crag mods, or the result of local consultations and decisions at BMC area meetings?  I think we should be told.  Apart from anything else, unless these name changes are "official" the UKC database will soon become out of step with the definitive guidebooks.

I presume the routes with the 'R' symbol to show that they're in Rockfax guides were changed by UKC/Rockfax, or with their permission. Because as a crag moderator, I can't edit grades on those routes and I'd be surprised if that protection didn't extend to the names as well. If that's the case, it does seem like they might as well say so.

Not sure quite what the definition of "official" would be. But in any case, it's not all that unusual for the logbooks to be out of step with guidebooks, or even for two different guidebooks to call routes by different names. Either because one source or the other is outdated, or just that the 'correct' names were hard to ascertain and different people made different decisions. It would certainly be better to see a consensus form around any changes, and I suspect that will happen over time.

Hmm...I was aware that it was a pun on Woubits but I can't think of any interpretation other than that it refers to abortion. If so, and I stand to be corrected, then it's inappropriate for a classic arena like Cloggy. Just because someone claims to be an artist, it doesn't give them 'benefit of clergy' in matters of common decency - as Orwell might have put it.

Can the relevant crag moderators rename these:-

Bunny (MVS 4b)

Bunny (HVS 5b)

Bastard (VS 4c)

Re Llanymynech; for clarification I didn’t change the route name.

UKC censored it themselves.

Neither am I! However I'm pretty sure that it isn't UKC/Rockfax.

If historic route names are to be changed then I suggest it should be following proper consultation, with the BMC area meetings being the obvious channel for this.  Alternatively I suppose it could be done by the author of the next definitive guide, but this too would probably be a result of some local consultation, or at least discussion with the guidebook committee.  The justification for the change and the reason behind the alternative name would probably be published.

Rockfax/UKC are an independent publisher with no obvious authority to decide what climbs should be called, and if these changes are being made by The Management then that would appear to be unilateral action carried out without any consultation.  I feel they should explain what they are doing and what their criteria are for deciding what names should be changed.  If it's being done by crag moderators on their own initiative then the changes should be reversed until there has been proper consultation and hopefully some kind of consensus.

True, but there is a difference between errors and a deliberate renaming.

Ultimately there is of course no higher authority to dictate what routes must be called and I suspect climbers will make up their own minds, whatever the BMC or guidebook writers do.

Pretty much confirmed by the "interview" thread linked to above.

CB

I wouldn't be opposed to consultation but at the end of the day, this is their website. If they decide they'd rather change some route names, they're entitled to do that. Other guidebooks, and climbers more generally, may or may not to choose to go along with the changes.

I'm offended by Two Ewoks and a Wookie Up a Scout Walker's Trouser Leg (E3 6a).

Not because of the bizarre hint of sexuality, it's just an indescribably shit name.

In the context of recent events, we decided to take swift action and rename routes with racist words or overtly racist meanings. We have had many emails in recent weeks, both directly to us and crag moderators asking for certain route names to be changed. BAME people have the right to look through our database, or guidebooks and not feel offended or ostracised by the climbing community due to some of the language used.

We felt that quick changes were needed, and we have renamed the obvious routes in our database, however, there will be some less obvious ones that we have missed. We will note in future publications that the name has been changed and the reason, but we will not be referencing any of the language.

We do not feel that dragging this issue through a committee, or having votes is worthwhile and would simply confuse and prolong the situation. Some of the language and terminology used was obscene and the climbing community will be better once it has gone. We encourage other guidebook writers to follow suit.

Come on, that is absolute nonsense. There are countless examples of murder being trivialised where you just wouldn't get away with using the word 'rape' instead. "I could murder a pint". "Murder on the Dancefloor" - think how well that song would have gone down with a change in name! As I say, 'rape' is just one of those words we don't like to use very often and when we do it stands out a mile because of the violation it represents.

Although the offensiveness of some route names will be obvious, others will be less so; a rather grey area. Have you some sort of criteria that will ensure consistency in renaming decisions and so that we can see where you have drawn the line?

Or does it just need someone to say "I'm offended by that name because..." which would potentially open the floodgates to the ridiculous.

Also, do you have criteria/method about how you will rename a route name if it is deemed offensive?

The changes made so far have been straightforward. All have been to route names which had a racist word or meaning. There have also been a couple of changes to route names with homophobic words or meanings.

The method of renaming the routes is to try and keep things in line with the theme at the crag, or to choose a descriptive name, but this is more on a case by case basis.

Wokes at Chudleigh is neither thematic nor descriptive. I am not advocating retaining the original name at all. This is a significant, if glassily polished route: It pre-dates all other climbing on Devon Limestone by 35 years. Perhaps ‘1923  Route’ might be more reflective of the historical significance of the climb. 

James Mann

But hopefully they will contact the FA (where possible) first to give them a chance to come up with another name.

Of course they have the right to do what they like with their own database.  But the data in it is public domain, Rockfax didn't create or name the routes in it (with a few exceptions where the FA was by someone on the team).  It's like Spotify or iTunes renaming the tracks on your favourite albums.   So while they are able to do it, it isn't helpful for their user base to do it without notice or consultation (even if those users agree with the outcome).

If someone wants put Wogs in their logbook, it no longer exists so far as UKC is concerned.  With a bit of detective work they might discover it's been renamed Wokes, but there's no clue to that in the database apart from a feedback note which can be seen only once you've opened the route description.  Who decided on this name, and what do the local climbers feel about it?

If UKC/Rockfax were to announce they were doing it, to start a discussion which could perhaps lead to change by consensus, that would show leadership on an important issue.  However these changes are under the radar and probably wouldn't have been noticed if this thread hadn't drawn attention to it. I haven't noticed any announcement that this their policy.  

BTW I notice that Tar Baby has become Tor Baby.  Where will it end?

There are a number of routes called "Honky".  This could be considered a racist term against whites.  If I said that I was offended by this would you be willing to rename? If not why not?

Al

Some route names really were indefensible, Wogs being a good example.

Tar baby is a little less clear cut as is more likely to do with the literary connections with Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox, which are the names of nearby routes, than a racist slur.

What about Penny Lane and Penny Lane direct also at Chudleigh?

This is just at one crag.

Action needs to be taken about clearly offensive route names, Wogs has been so called since the 1920's, it was a racist slur at the time and the two previous guidebooks have seen fit to apologise for the name. There is no question that it is time things change, the real question is why it took so long.

However some names are a little bit more nuanced and an open conversation about why and if they should be changed can only be a good thing.

Either way, if route names are changed then those previous names should be referenced in write-ups and descriptions. The education as to why things are unacceptable are as important as making the changes.

What is the significance of Penny Lane? I thought it was a Beatles song about a street or a woman.

I am not defending the name Wogs, although I am mystified why it was ever given that name in the first place.  A little-known secondary meaning is schoolboy slang for  "cheat" (Dictionary of Catch Phrases by Eric Partridge), and if that use had been current in the 1920s it might have made sense, if there had been some ethical infringements during the first ascent.  However that hardly matters, it is the current meaning which is important now.  But Wokes can hardly be considered a satisfactory alternative, it is often used mockingly, and there are objections that it is 'cultural appropriation' of African-American vernacular.  Very thin ice there. 

Tar Baby is only a racist slur in the minds of those who see racism in any reference to the word or the colour black, and who have subverted its meaning.

I don't object in principle to revisiting offensive names, although deciding what is offensive is a minefield. Undoubtedly Wogs is indefensible today, regardless of what the first ascensionist had in mind.  It is this unilateral action by UKC, completely unannounced and without any consultation, which bothers me.  Whilst this database is an important resource, it is not the definitive repository of route names, and I don't think it is UKC's place to dictate what they should be called.  I don't doubt it is well-intentioned, and if it generates a proper discussion in places where it matters (ie outside this forum) which leads to a consensus on change then so much the better.  However, climbing being a sport with no governing authority, it has developed ways of reaching agreement over ethical issues, which UKC's actions have completely overridden.  

These routes have not simply been renamed.  So far as UKC is concerned they have been erased from history.  That is simply wrong.

Yes lots , and I shall name them what ever I choose

You've misunderstood what I meant by trivialising rape. There are some people who say that rape is no big deal and victims should just get over it. Some even say that rape is acceptable in some circumstances, such as within marriage. No one says this about murder.

Wogs is a really strange name, in an era where most climbs were named simple descriptive things like Howard's Chimney or Green Slab. 

Even if you were a person who called brown skinned people Wogs, why would you choose to name a climb that? Being a weirdly obsessive racist is about the only explanation I can think of that makes any sense.

An explanation was given in one of the threads on this topic: the FAs had to do so much gardening that their hands and faces were black with dirt, ie they looked like... 

Up until the recent activity in the UK I had no idea that that Penny Lane had any potential to offend at all. I knew it was a road in Liverpool, which the Beatles song was named after.

The road sign was vandalised as part of BLM protests in Liverpool and the subsequent news coverage outlined that is was likely that the road was named after James Penny, a Liverpool based slave trader who spoke in Parliament in support of the slave trade.

To be clear I am not saying that a route called Penny Lane is overtly racist and should be changed, but clearly it does have negative connotations and is a legacy of our historical despicable treatment of people and therefore has the power to offend.

This links to the action that Rockfax are taking renaming routes. Some routes are obviously offensive, some are edge cases.

Through this whole conversation about offensive route names, particularly those where attitudes have changed (such as racism, homophobia and sexism) we can't ignore this past, education about this past is so important. Due to gaps in our countries approach to it's more shameful parts of it's history you and I had no idea about Penny Lane and it's wider meanings, I doubt the Beatles did, and I doubt the first ascensionist did either.

Whilst there is a conversation to be had about the rights and wrongs of renaming routes, which routes and how it should be done. There should also be a conversation about not loosing this less desirable part of climbing history or we run the risk of repeating the same problems again. Route descriptions and writes ups should make reference to previous names and why they are no longer acceptable.

OK, thanks for that. I would guess that any route name 'Penny Lane' is most likely to be named after the song which has taken on its own meaning as a great piece of music. So to infer that Penny Lane as a route has a reference to slavery would be marginal at best. Even calling a route James Penny would surely be totally fine. History should be remembered, not written out.

There was a thread a while ago about the route 'Myra Hindley' at Kilnsey, a name which surely had a lot more potential to cause upset at the time it was put up than an obscure reference to a slave trader from a previous century. https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/that_route_at_kilnsey-664115?v=...

The clear verdict on that thread seemed to be that the name did not offer any comment on her or support for her actions. In a way it can be seen as recording history in climbing names, such as you no doubt got with routes put up during the Brexit process or any other bit of current news. 

Curious to hear some of your route names now.

OK fair enough. If the route name had said anything like this I'd be dead against it. I'm not sure it really is saying that rape is no big deal. It could just as easily be putting down affection. 

That was one suggested explanation. Another suggested explanation is that it was an acronym for "Wall, Overhang, Groove, Slab".    I don't know whether either of these is true. 

I think we might be talking at cross purposes. I am not saying any route names should be written out completely, even those that are clearly racist. If names are changed this history should not be lost.

The fact that there was a slave trader based in Liverpool called James Penny led to a road called Penny Lane, which led to a Beatles song called Penny Lane, which (likely) led to a route called Penny Lane. It does not make the route racist, it does not make first ascensionist racist and it does not make the Beatles racist. It does however highlight that a lack of education about less desirable aspects of our past has led to that link being lost. It is precisely history not being remembered that has led to a slave traders name being used on a pop song and climbing route.

UKC/Rockfax have said higher in the thread that they have been renaming routes in the database that they have been receiving emails about that have been deemed offensive. Without a doubt the normalisation of a slave trader in a route name has the potential to offend.

There is clearly a scale, to continue with the Chudleigh example; Wogs > Tar Baby > Penny Lane.

Wogs and Tar Baby have been renamed in the UKC logbooks, using UKCs criteria if Penny Lane is deemed to offend it could be renamed. Those renamed routes should have notes about their previous names and why they were renamed to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

When it comes to edge cases I am not in position to say what is offensive and what isn't, I doubt many on UKC are. I do not want to risk excluding people from climbing due to offensive names, however I do not want the learning from this, and the history of this to be lost, therefore it is important to record this history.

I know you aren't arguing for it's exclusion, but I hope UKC and others are sensible enough not to go to those lengths to censor names! Meanings change and 'Penny Lane' now evokes a song and a place rather than a slave trader. Anyway, I don't see how anyone could be so deeply offended by a route name called James Penny that it would spoil their day. In any case, it could refer to someone entirely different.

I do wonder how much research into slavery was needed in advance for folk to decide what they should object to in the modern world. Ironically it seems the first time many of us had heard of some of these people was when others suggested they should be written out of history.  

I went and looked at the route Jollies Route (HVD) but rather surprisingly for a low grade 3 star classic route, there were no photos.

Funnily enough, with a quick search I found that there were however, several rather offensive photos from the same part of the same crag.

Incidentally, has anyone been to Arapiles and done Golly's Cakewalk (17), or Golly (VS 4c) in N Wales, or Fat W (21) or Skinny W (19) or I Feel Like Pinfold (7b) or Golly Grades (23), etc.

Some of these are in Australia which makes me think of other questions:

• Does UKC have the "right" to rename routes that aren't in the UK?
• The term "wog" has different meanings in Australia and whilst at least one of those is hardly a term of endearment, it's not offensive in the way that it is here - ironically, isn't this an example of cultural imperialism if we impose our sense of being offended on other places?

I also think there is a big clear difference in acceptability between racist/homophobic names and references to dictators/slavers/mass murderers etc. The former are derogatory by their very nature while the latter are at worst tasteless and at best informative and factual if they don't say anything positive about the figure in question.

I am not sure what is wrong with Pride as a name , in the context of offensiveness , 

I ask as in the mid 80s I used that as a route name , the reason being that 2 days later I fell a considerable distance from a ledge and banged myself up , hence pride , ( comes before fall .

Of course not. They have neither the right nor the power to do so. What they do have is complete freedom to call them whatever they want on their own website. Just as they do for routes within the UK.

And yes, that has to be balanced with some regard for consensus, because they're also a business that relies on people being keen to visit and contribute to the website. But I think UKC have generally been pretty cognisant of that and I think some of the talk here about rights, cultural imperialism and erasing routes from history is getting a bit hysterical.

UKC have simply chosen to go their own way on a relatively tiny number of particularly outdated route names. I think it's likely that over time they'll probably carry some other guidebook authors with them.

I'm the only person on UKC to log this, and it was thinking about the name that led me to start the Which Route Would You Pull Down thread, so we've come full circle! As someone else pointed out, it could well be named after the Debussy piece. I have to confess, when I climbed it I was more outraged about the undergrading than the name. Shallow, I know. 

this is what got me in a muddle too. when the original post from Cwitter was made, it was down as faggot in the database.

It was originally called "Faggot" - which is what I was complaining about. It was then changed to the much better "Pride".

Why is it assumed that Faggot isn't a offal based meatball or a bundle of sticks?

I understand why UKC have done this, but I'm puzzled that there has been no announcement from them.  All we have had is a post which appeared a long way down this thread, which comes across more as an admission than a proud announcement of a new policy.  If they expect these changes to be effective they have to engage with the real world, not slip this in under the radar.

The reality is that a route isn't renamed simply because UKC have altered their database. This can only happen when climbers begin using a new name. If an established name is no longer acceptable then a replacement name will only stick if the climbing community agrees and accepts it.  Possibly UKC is sufficiently influential to achieve this by itself, although since they haven't told anybody about the changes I'm not sure how they expect to achieve this.

Over some years,a process has evolved in the climbing community for issues to be discussed and a consensus reached.  Whilst not perfect, it has been fairly successful in establishing policies on bolting and a wide range of other matters.  If name changes are to be successful, I suggest they need to go through these channels and involve whoever is responsible for the relevant definitive guidebooks.

In the meantime,  a search for the affected routes in the UKC database brings up nothing.  They have simply disappeared from the record.  This includes a 3 star classic which is one of the best-known routes in the South-West.  Surely it should be possible to retain the old names in the index so that someone searching for them is directed to the route under its new name?  If complaining about this is "hysterical", so be it.  My reference to "cultural appropriation" was slightly tongue-in-cheek but was intended to point out that the replacement name is itself not uncontroversial.

It doesn't really matter, does it? The sense of the word has changed to the point where I'd wager the vast majority of readers would go first to the homophobic slur and maybe then backtrack to other meanings if there were context. Unfortunately the author's intention doesn't actually change the sense of what they write and over time they will diverge.

Or perhaps 'Original Route' James? But not very original I grant you. But Wokes is too close to the offensive name we want to be rid of.

There is no such thing as racism against whites. You've never suffered abuse, violence, discrimination, or oppression because you are a white male. As white men, we don't even have a handle on the concept of racism. 

There is no origin, meaning or connotation with the term honky, and all the similar terms like 'Cracker' have their origins in the white's oppression of other races. 

"Well if we're changing the ones that are racist against black people then why aren't we changing these!?" is parallel with the term "All lives matter!". 

Strikes me that Golliwoke is, if anything, even more offensive that the word it's replacing.  Does it mean someone who is overly sensitive to the issue of black rights, or a black person who is recently, and perhaps overly, politically correct?

It's fair enough to change names, but can you please at least leave some reference in the small print as to what the original name was? It's going to get confusing otherwise! Put a star or two in the original words if you're worried about it.

Here's a fun idea for a competition - who can get the least-offensive route name changed? I'll start off with Fat Man's Misery at Almscliff, because it discriminates against the rotund Is "Rectum Rift" offensive to anyone? Someone must find that offensive.  Anyone? Show of hands? Actually, "The Gypsy" is probably quite offensive to those of a caravan-dwelling persuasion, no? Maybe it should be called "The Gypsum" instead. And what about China Syndrome, just next to the well-known Yellow Wall? Seems more than a bit racist! Now we just need to reprint all those racist guidebooks....

Congratulations on your efforts to trivialise racism. 

I disagree and yes I have. We wandered into run down area in San Francisco to fill up with fuel after visiting Yosemite some years ago.  We were surrounded by a group of about 6 black men waving knives and guns and threatening us with violence.  Not sure what would have happened if a patrol car had not turned up.  It was the first time I heard the term "honky".  The policemen, both black, said it was a no go area for whites and we should leave ASAP. All of that seems a bit racist to me.

And what about all the white farmers who were kicked off their farms in Zambia.  I'm not going to debate the rights and wrongs but to say that it was not racist is naive.

Al

I am simply pointing out that it would be more useful to the human race as a whole if we had some reference to the old names - learning from history's mistakes etc. Put a "click to reveal" box over it or something like that. Also, where will the line be drawn?

Where the line is drawn is not decided by you or I. A lot of people seem to struggle with this idea. YOU don't decide what is offensive to other races. 

No, I don't decide. Neither do you. Somebody at UKC towers does though, apparently. Or anybody that is offended by a name for whatever reason draws the line, sends an email and UKC will toe that line. In many cases it is obviously a valid reason for offence and is completely agreeable to censor the name, indeed it is a travesty that the climbing community has allowed such names to exist up until recently, I for one am ashamed of other climbers for allowing outdated attitudes to continue. I certainly am not trivialising racism in my posts, and I ironically actually take great offence that you would say such a thing. I think you missed the point of some of my postings. We're probably actually even in agreement you know!

Both of the examples you give of "racism" are a direct result of the racism against black people by white people. 

Why did white people "own" those farms?  

Why do black people in a run down area of San Francisco feel the need to defend themselves? Is it because the police won't?

Have a think about the history and stop whining.  

UKC make a decision.  They choose to do so.  Its really quite patronising of you to suggest that they don't know their own minds and make their own decisions.  

Whining? There is no need to be confrontational. I agree with you but that's not the point. I was just countering a statement that I thought was wrong and providing evidence to support my position. I see that as healthy debate neither whining nor confrontational. 

What you seem to be saying is racism is OK as long as..........

Al

I agree: keeping the Golli- doesn't strike me as much of a solution at all. While I accept that UKC can call routes what they want in their own database, I still think it indicates that these changes might have been better made via some discussion with FAs/ local activists/ regional bodies/climbing clubs.

Agreed. Ideally giving the FA (or a family member if they are no longer with us) an opportunity to choose an alternative name would be a nice compromise. 

Yeah, I don't think the use of the word 'woke' comes off well here at all. I do support and applaud UKC's efforts to remove racist terms from route names, as that is long overdue, but I feel like using 'woke' in this way comes across as very insincere/like you're taking the piss out of anti-racism, which is not a good look. Perhaps this renaming process requires a bit more thinking through.

I would suggest that you are venturing onto thin ice if you are defending the murder, intimidation and expropriation from second, third or fourth generation farmers, so that their property could be used to reward corrupt cronies of the likes of Mugabe in Zimbabwe.  Certainly the people who worked on such farms and relied on them for their income, homes, education and healthcare didn't benefit.     

When I respond "what a knob!" why isn't it assumed that I'm merely comparing you to a door handle?

I kind of like the idea of poking fun at anti-racism to a degree. I mean just because you state that you're doing something with anti-racist intent, doesn't mean that it's going to be an intelligent or effective way of achieving it. I feel many people get away with very weak ideas that don't really change things for the better but can hide behind a wall of well meaning. Often you can increase tensions between peoples if you aren't careful and achieve the exact opposite! Just because you have good intentions doesn't make you immune to criticism.

It's also all fine and dandy changing Golliwog to Golliwoke and while we remember this great debate thread with all it's nuance, 10 years from now people will just look back and say "Golliwoke? Is that a racist reference to Golliwog? The world of climbing was horribly racist back in 2020 we must change that name". 

So do we keep going until all names are changed to things like Marshmellow Hugs Eternal and Chamomile Direct or can we hold off and just see the past for the past and not take it so personally?

Climbing is rammed full of white men. Are we going to change that for the better by leaving racist route names? I don't think we are meant to take it personally, since it's not grossly offensive to white people. 

Would you feel comfortable taking a black friend who was brand new to climbing to Chudleigh and taking him up 'Wogs' or 'Golliwokes'? I don't think I would, and that's a problem. If I'm not comfortable with it as a white person then there is a good chance that it could be offensive to a black person.  

Ok , thanks for clearing that up , I cannot find a first ascent date for the route and it does not seem to be related to anything around it so do not know the original thought behind the name. 

 Savory Duck , which is what a Faggot ( meat based , food ) is called where I come from .

If the UKC want to rename something , why not change send to climbed , I find it annoying that they have adopted this term . 

i

Who says I'm white? Who gave you the right to speak for all black people? You're unwittingly perpetuating a form a racism when you claim to speak for all black people as if there is no difference between individuals and their point of view can be taken for granted based on their race.

I don't think saying "there is a good chance it could be offensive to a black person" is 'speaking for all black people'?

so you reply to another user in a thread on offensiveness by being offensive to them , not very polite 

I suspect that over time, the meaning of Woke will change and it will eventually become some kind of divisive, offensive insult (maybe it's got there already). Will it then need to be changed wherever it has popped up?

I'm not saying that renaming shouldn't happen, it just seems to me that UKC have run before they've learnt how to walk.

I wouldn't presume to know what anyone else would or wouldn't find offensive without getting to know them first. Either side can't be argued further without use of anecdote, unless there's good data on the subject.

I'm not sure your "If I'm not comfortable with it as a white person then there is a good chance that it could be offensive to a black person" is as reasonable as you may think it is. I have plenty of personal hangups but don't assume others have the same problems until I've gotten know them a bit. Can't elaborate further as it drifts into anecdote.

Golliwoke specifically is amusing to me because it could be racist or it could be there to prevent offense and really it's down to the reader to decide how they wish to interpret it, which ultimately acts as a critique of this whole discussion.

Given that we know these are offensive terms and that lots of people are offended by them, I really don't see what your point is. 

Are you saying I need to seek the opinion of every black person in the world before I can determine that 'wogs' is an unacceptable name for a route?

And if you're referring to my post about feeling uncomfortable taking a black friend to climb a route with a racist name, then surely I would know them first? And regardless of whether I knew whether they found it offensive or not, I still wouldn't feel comfortable with it. Frankly I find it offensive full stop. I was simply trying to reason with you by giving you a hypothetical situation, since you seem to be in favour of keeping racially-charged route names. 

Good point about good intentions and criticism, I think that's fair enough.

However, I'm not at all happy with the idea of poking fun at anti-racism as I think that would put one thoroughly on the wrong side of history, or at least I hope so, as racism being completely dismantled is something I want us to achieve. The problem I think with the "past being the past" is that our society is still systemically racist, and I think it's difficult to achieve a future where that is not the case if we still have these names/statues/other dodgy things from the past being legitimised.

I can't answer the point about not taking things personally as I am white and therefore not "personally" insulted by the hideous racial slurs in those route names, but I would say that anyone who does take it personally definitely has a right to.

Yep I think unfortunately, despite its origins, the word already has been appropriated and used as way to mock the perceived "hypersensitivity" of left-wing people, in the same way that "snowflake" is used. 

To be honest, being polite or avoiding being offensive is not really very high up my priority list. I see that as entirely separate from the more pressing issues of tackling racism, sexism and LGBTQ discrimination. But, according to FactorXXX I wasn't being offensive anyway - as apparently everything is relative and entirely up to interpretation... Apparently.

I'd always thought it was a pun and a reference to menstrual discharge. I never thought it refered to abortion so that's a new perspective for me. When I read about some of the clever word play involved in French route names I feel our climbing culture is perhaps less glittering than we might imagine.

Having read some of Redhead's work, he seems to be a brilliant climber but a mediocre thinker. If he wasn't very good at hanging onto bits of rock in positions of great danger no one would read a word he wrote.

Perhaps people would take you more seriously if it were.  Just a thought.

Al

I'd suggest you rethink that position, for the purely pragmatic purpose of persuading people who don't already agree with you.

This statement is insane, and utterly counterproductive.

Typically, it's true, the kind of racism that worries us is directed against a marginalized group, so in majority white parts of the world, white people rarely suffer as a result of it. I don't even need to make reference to other parts of the world though, to argue that insisting on a power differential in the definition of racism is a problem - once you do that, you're basically saying that the colour of your skin matters more than your ideas. It's getting the emphasis all wrong. It actually reinforces the primacy of skin colour, which is surely the last thing we need.

I think what you mean is "there is basically no meaningful discrimination against whites in a white-majority society". 

It's really counter-productive to claim that there is no such thing as racism against whites, because it's plainly false. There are lot of people on here who genuinely can't see the difference between the racism suffered by minorities in the UK and US and some trivial nonsense they cite as racism against whites. This nonsense needs to be countered by good arguments that explain the difference, not statements which are plainly false and thus discredit the case they're making.

I’m not defending it.  I just think it’s important to acknowledge that without Rhodes and the white supremacists there never would have been the situation where 5% of the people owned 75% of the farm land.  Historical context is important.  So many of today’s problems are rooted in empire building and “the white man’s burden”.  It seems a bit much to me to call it racism against the white peoples without context.  Obviously it would have been much better if Mugabe hadn’t been in power and if the peaceful attempts to pay white farmers for their lands had been successful.  

Maybe I could have worded that better, what I should say is poke fun at bad or less than optimal methods of reducing or ending racism. I share your desire for racism to disappear but maybe disagree on how that's realistically achieved. I don't share this vision of a future where all memory of all the nasty words and events have been erased and the problems disappear as a result. I also believe there's historical precedent for societies going badly awry when they lie, censor and sanitise their past.

This is why initially Golliwoke as a renaming sounded ridiculous but the more I consider it you've got reference to the historical name, which is removed so mission accomplished, plus a laugh at the woke censorship types.

Unless of course you feel attacked as a 'woke' person, then the name will need changing again and the cycle repeats.

I don't believe that systemic racism will somehow magically disappear as a result of removing "bad words" but that the process of reckoning with and understanding our past does involve removing public usage of racist terms. Their existence in the public sphere lends support and legitimacy to the structures of racism that exist, so I don't view removing them as "censorship," but as anti-racist work that needs to be done. The route names/statues/other symbols of racism are a part of history but I think their removal will also be viewed as an important stage in history by future humans. This 'woke' thing really feels like UKC hedging their bets and seems ill-conceived.

I suppose there must be a fundamental difference of view between us, because I think if we leave the racist names as they are, we are effectively saying that the climbing community condones racism. To me, that makes me feel ashamed.

There is no lying involved as UKC have wisely put captions explaining why the routes have been renamed. 

It's definitely nicer and more effective to be polite, you're right, but also, the existence of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia can be a matter of life or death for some people, so I don't think anybody is necessarily owed politeness in discussions about these things. Sometimes I feel that people think discussions on these topics fall under the category of politics or a trivial matter of "differing views" when it is actually about fundamental human rights for the people affected.

I expect he could live with that provided people looked at his paintings!

I don't think we disagree at all - as you say, no one is 'owed' politeness, but it is more effective to be polite. 

Particularly in the context of an internet forum, where you have the opportunity to review what you've written and consider its impact. Anger is great if it's channelled effectively.

Partly this is true, I don't imagine he gets loads of attention outside the climbing world.

On the other hand I think his extremely bold approach to climbing is what makes his thoughts interesting - he put his money where his mouth was, so to speak. You can't totally separate the climber from the thinker. What he says does often seem to be inconsistent and cluttered by ego, but he clearly gets kicks out of playing the provocateur/iconoclast, and does it pretty well really or he wouldn't wind people up so much. I'm not sure what I think of JR but I do find him interesting.

Absolutely right, they're all offensive to someone somewhere. For convenience they should be numbered though, e.g. Cromlech 1, 2, 3.... Grochan 1, 2 and so on

Grades and guidebooks should stay though

They tried that for Ben Nevis gullies.  Then some bright spark did a new route in between 0 and 1, and they had to call it 0.5. 

The names are being censored, you can't really get around that. An argument can be made that it's justified but it is censorship. Logically then you must ask what else could be deemed offensive outside race and wonder why that isn't censored also. I would be interested on your opinion on this point specifically, to what extent do you feel comfortable taking measures to prevent offense?

Captions mean not completely erasing the history so can be on board with that to a greater extent than if they weren't included.

I think we both know woke types exist and can over-reach and be overly sensitive so being a little self aware/self deprecating in the renaming shouldn't sting too much if ultimately the objective your after is achieved. The ability to offended, mock, criticize etc plays an important role in society and we have to tread very carefully when encroaching on that, even when attempting to curb racism. 

It's deeply ironic that you've spent the whole thread arguing against changing racist names because it's "censorship", "a slippery slope", one person's "offensive" isn't another's, etc., only to get on your high horse about me using a joke to illustrate how hermeneutics are not a way of dodging the issue when it comes to denigratory homophobic and racist terms.

Sure, it's not great to go around spewing abuse, but personally, I hope we can be robust enough to put up with the occasional "you're a knob"; and, aware enough to see how this is an entirely different category of insult from the homophobic "you're a f**got". Which was the point I was making. Similarly with route names: a "rude" route name is fine; a name that is obviously linked to oppression and discrimination isn't.

But - route names are probably not the priority anyway; just as statues are not really the priority for the BLM movement, despite the media spectacle.

Which high horse is that? I own several.  Was it this exchange you are referring to:

Perhaps people would take you more seriously if it were.  Just a thought.

That's just my polite way of saying you'r a kn*b, I left the horse out of it. Just kidding

Al

Personally I'd rather keep all those things. If you'd sooner not there's a simple answer which is throw away your guidebooks and never buy any more.

I think I've already been quite clear about the extent I feel happy with "censorship" - anything that publicly insults and therefore legitimises oppression of a historically oppressed group is not acceptable to me. I prefer mockery and criticism of the ruling classes myself.

Perhaps your fear of creeping censorship stems from the fact that you do have a core awareness of the deep structures of unfairness built into our society, but rather than facing and tackling them, to you it is more important to utilise our power to offend, mock and criticise. If you think having the power to offend people is more important than removing racial slurs from the public sphere then I suppose we will not be able to convince each other to change our minds.

It's interesting to me because while their removal can hardly be considered the end goal for ending racism in society, these symbols (names, statues) seem to represent a very clear juncture and point where opposing groups (BLM campaigners and the very-likely to be racist "all lives matter" people, for example) are clashing in a very public way, which seems to imbue these symbols with importance for both sides. 

As a sidenote, what are your thoughts on people in former Soviet states removing statues of Stalin, Lenin and crew when Soviet rule ended?

Where to draw the line? A thought experiment -  imagine I’ve done some new routes and decide to name them:

Fingering Lolita

Delighted by Auschwitz 

The Peter Sutcliffe Experience 

Should they go into guidebooks as is?

Personally I do not have a problem with new route names not being published if they are deemed to be offensive.  It's still censorship but I would find that acceptable censorship. My issue is with historical names/statues being altered or destroyed.  Much better to keep the names/statues but add context and criticism.

Take the route name "Wogs" as an example. I seem to recall that in the original form it was called "WOGS".  A subtle difference but this adds weight to the impression I had that it stood for Wall-Overhang-Groove and Slab. Unfortunate in the modern climate but is it offensive?  It could be renamed "W.O.G.S." Is that offensive especially if this explanation is added? Again it's still censorship but not at the expense of history.

Al

I can easily imagine coming across such phrases in the poetry I read - and I can imagine myself writing such phrases in a poem. So I certainly would not censor them. I wish I hadn't started the thread on Which Route Would You Pull Down as I think the re-naming has been precipitate and would have achieved far more in terms of awareness-raising if it had involved discussion with FAs/representative groups. 

I’m still not sure I understand... why is Fingering Lolita offensive but Wogs isn’t? 

Yes, I could imagine those phrases in poetry too. Similarly I could imagine reading a poem called “Adolf Hitler Boulevard” but I wouldn’t want a street named that. 
 

A route name has elements of both poem and street name, which is what makes it tricky. 

We would like to clarify and reinforce our position based on some of the points raised above. From a technical perspective, when searching on google, we want to be welcoming to the BAME community and not have our site associated with racist terms and we have the ability to sort this issue very quickly. In our opinion, there was no reason why these names had to remain and no excuse for not renaming them immediately.

The renaming process is fluid and we are open to reviewing these based on feedback. For instance, we have gone back over some of the names based on feedback from this thread and modified them.

In order to have these names accepted by the wider climbing community, we will be putting together a document that will be sent out to the relevant guidebook publishers. They are welcome to follow suit, or even change the names we have decided upon. We can of course reflect any changes agreed upon very quickly in our database. We believe that changing these names in the UK's biggest database is a good start. This is UKC’s stance and other publishers can discuss this with us if they want.

Where a route name has been changed, we will provide a footnote in any database or guidebook reference next to the first ascent information. For example: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/llanymynech_quarry-1070/bastard-25...

Yes, I guess it partly depends on how far one sees the use of a word/phrase in a route name as conferring some sort of tacit/vague approval. And context is everything when it comes to offence, as we see when ethnic minority groups re-appropriate racist slurs. As a further thought experiment, could  a black first ascensionist create route names that a white FA couldn't? 

On this one it says "name changed (Racist reference)".  Is that intended to mean that the original name actually was a racist reference, or simply that it could be taken as being that?

Does the intent of the first ascentionist and of the name matter?  Presumably Doug Kerr could be asked about why he chose the name?  Is that relevant, or do you just go by the impression someone could get while browsing the logbooks?

If Doug Kerr had some other intent (I don't know whether he did), then is it fair to document the climb as: "FA. Doug Kerr, P.Stacey 1.6.87 01/Jun/1987. Route name changed (Racist Reference)", thereby effectively accusing those two of racism?

I don't think that is what I said. I haven't said anything about Fingering Lolita at all so I'm not sure why you are making that comparison. In any case degrees of offence taken is in the hands of the offendee.  I may be offended by one thing, you may be offended by something else. I most certainly did NOT say Wogs isn't offensive.  I did suggest that W.O.G.S was possibly less offensive than Wogs especially if accompanied by an explanation i.e. Wall. Overhang, Groove, Slab, if indeed that was the first ascensionist's intention.

Al

That would seem a sensible option to me, unless the FA's intent really was derogatory, in which case, yes, change it.

So it’s okay to have a climb named after a racial slur if we can find a smartarse way to wriggle out of it? Isn’t this along the lines of “oh it was only a joke, lighten up” which is a typical deflection after making a sexist or racist remark...

I mean if you rocked up at Chudleigh with a black friend and suggested doing the route, and they were upset by it, would the explanation “wall, overhang, groove, slab - oh it’s not really a racist term at all!” be the excuse you’d want to come out with? 

Firstly, thanks for responding.  I think your reasons for doing this are well understood, and I'd be surprised if anyone were to strongly oppose altering the most objectionable names. However these are touchy times when people seem ready to take offence at anything, and there are a lot of names which are not overtly racist or homophobic which someone could probably object to.  A few examples have come up in this discussion.  Can you give any assurances that this will be confined to the most egregious cases?  I for one would not like to see names removed simply because they are unpleasant or in bad taste, and that includes names I personally find distasteful - it would be never-ending.

Will you be publishing a list of the altered routes?  How can we give feedback when we don't know what has changed?  I doubt most UKC members, apart from the few engaged with this thread, are even aware this is happening, let alone the wider climbing community.

This isn't just a matter for guidebook publishers though.  How are you going to engage with the wider climbing community? They are the ones who will ultimately decide whether or not replacement names are accepted.

Can you please keep a link to the old names in the search function, so that people looking for routes under their historic names can find them?  As it is they are now erased from the record.  I don't think this should deter BAME users, if anything a search result which said "Wogs -  now Wokes" coupled with an explanation on the route page for the change would demonstrate that the climbing community, and UKC in particular, have recognised the issue and done something about it.  

Let me be clear, I agree with what you are doing.  However changing an entry in your database is not the same as renaming a route, although it is a start.  It needs to start a debate in the wider world outside this forum.  I suggest the BMC area meetings are the established channels for trying to reach consensus.

Appreciate the efforts on renaming and the modifications, thank you!

I take it then that you do not make a distinction between Wogs and W.O.G.S.  That's OK, I can acknowledge that, you might well be right and I could be wrong but is it really a racist slur if the intention was just shorthand for Wall, Overhang, Groove and Slab? That is to say ignorance and not malicious intent. And I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything.

With regard to a black friend being offended, I don't know. I've got a couple who don't climb but I'll ask them and get back to you.

Al

I wouldn't censor comedy, music or films with similar dark subject matter and I wouldn't censor those. Go to the other end of the spectrum:

Up Fatty Up

Saggy jugs

Turbo-homo

Admittedly silly and childish names, but would these get censored? Do any real life people need to get offended before action is taken or is perception of possible offense enough to do it?

Ultimately I'd hope for interesting, witty, clever and inspiring names across the board but having the odd cheeky, silly or controversial name adds flavour. 

What about these actual names:

Sexy Jesus

Hammered with Mohammed

Can these be considered blasphemous and grossly offensive? That's 1.9 billion Muslims and 2.3 billion Christians that COULD find these offensive. If you aren't considering these people, why not?

We save 2 fields in the database for the climb name. 1 is the actual name and 1 is a simplified version that's used for searches eg. Okilélé and okilele. We will be including the old name in the simplified field so it matches against searches. I'm not 100% sure how the search results will be formatted yet tho to represent the change.

.....

Sometime ago I visited Budapest. On the outskirts was a large open air museum of 'historical' staues and monuments, which had been moved there. Some were considerable structures. Some had artistic merit and some 'interesting' imagery / history.

Seemed a pretty good solution.

Is anyone going to say "Double U, Oh, Gee, Ess" when talking about it? Probably not, and even if they did it would just sound like an adult spelling out swear words so the kids didn't hear them. 

It has the benefit of making people think that it may stand for something rather than being an outright racist name when seeing it written down, but for me calling it W.O.G.S instead of Wogs solves nothing. 

Even if it was 'meant' to stand for 'Wall, Overhang, Groove, Slab' then it's very unlikely just a coincidence that it spells 'Wogs'. 

Thank you for what I would consider to be a non confrontational, civilised and sensible answer to which I have to say, I think you are right. I am still a little uneasy about this type of censorship but this could be a generational issue. 

Al

Whilst your flexibility is heartening, I do struggle with this generational issue business. This kind of language has been offensive and derogatory for as long as I can remember, so I guess we’re talking 35 years maybe. Are you saying that in three or four decades you’ve not noticed what a racist slur is? I find that quite remarkable. Even more so that given this, erm, blind spot, you feel confident in discussing issues around race rather than just listening to others. 

I'm not confident at all.  You come across as the confident one.  Most of my comments are in the form of questions not unassailable statements. And how dare you be so arrogant as to suggest that I cannot express an opinion.

For as long as I can remember I have found terms like the ones we have been discussing to be extremely offensive. My comments are questioning the wisdom of going down the route of censorship.  I abhor racism, why do you insist in trying to frame the conversation in that context? I'm questioning censorship and mob rule, I'm not denying the words could be racist. Is that clear enough for you or are you going to keep implying I'm an ignorant racist? 

Al

I think that kind of thing is the way to go. If people really do find a statue offensive because of prior wrongs, then move it from a position of veneration to a place of learning (like a museum) where the history, how and why that history is now recognised as "bad", and hence why the statue's been moved can all be seen.

'Flowers for Hitler'.  Leonard Cohen.

Mick

Just to be a little clearer about the generational thing.

"I am still a little uneasy about this type of censorship but this could be a generational issue."

This is what I said.  The generational comment was clearly about the censorship NOT the words.  Did you really fail to understand that? Did you twist the context because of ignorance or malicious intent?

Al

I thought I'd respond this time, as it's good to cast another UKC viewpoint into the mix.

So far we have focussed our efforts on the most overt. These are undoubtedly the easiest and most clear cut to change, insofar as they are so blatant and wrong that there is little or no argument - it's just obvious they need to go. When it comes to more subtle names things get massively more complex, blurry and confusing. As a result, it is hard to provide a set of distinct and clear cut criteria, because quite frankly - they don't exist. One thing I can assure you of is that it isn't our intention to strip character from each and every route's name.

When it comes to publishing a list of routes, we are putting together a pdf which we will be sending on to other guidebook publishers, as that way each can decide to do with the routes within their own area. If they choose to go with the same names as us, great; if not, we can easily change ours so that they all align. 

The issue that other publishers face vs. ourselves is that guidebooks aren't published overnight - hence there'll be a number of routes that change online, but remain in their original form in print for quite some time. This does highlights one of the issue's which we're facing, which is that it will take some time for the new names to filter through, but let's face it - this was never going to happen overnight.  When it comes to consensus, only time will tell as to what each route settles as - this is just the beginning.

I think Paul has answered this already.

When it comes to the BMC, I've just got off the phone with James McHaffie, who sits on the Equity Steering Group. They have a meeting next week where this will be raised and discussed then.

Whether or not it ends up on the agenda at the next round of area meetings is another matter altogether, but let's wait and see. 

Thanks for further putting UKC's rationale etc out there. Two thoughts...

1. On changed routes you've put "Route name changed (Racist Reference)" when there may have been no racist intent/reference in the naming, just that the current surface reading of the name immediately (and understandably) sees the racist reference. Black Bastard at Llanymynech is I think the obvious example; Black Wall, bastard of a route might have been the thinking, without asking the FA who knows? I think that this has already been pointed out, that you are thereby, regardless of your intent, effectively calling the first ascensionists racists. One possible consequence of this is that UKC could be sued for libel by those people (assuming still living).

Would it not be better to put "Route name changed (offensive name)" which would pretty much avoid this (sub-)issue.

2. The other thing is that there's no mention of what the old offensive route name was. I understand you want to keep those pages "clean" so the "offense" isn't automatically seen, but could you not maintain a list of any route name changes, and have a hyperlink to this list from any changed name routes, so that a) those who couldn't find a route that had been renamed could go to that list to get to it via its old name, and b) those who really felt a need to know the old offensive name could also see it (they would at least have had to explicitly go to look by following the hyperlink).

The first one seems OK if rather explicit. The middle one is the worst - just appalling. The last one to me is just the wrong side of the line, but others may disagree.

Not to whether something is now deemed to have racist connotations. I hope most FAs will accept nowadays that the original thought behind the name either isn't obvious now or that the meaning they had in mind was in essence just a way to get away with using a racist term.

However, it would also be nice if they had the opportunity to defend the name and explain the meaning behind it, which could easily be a literary or musical reference which UKC or a guidebook team were unaware of. 

I wrote them with the idea they are all supposed to be appalling! I thought the first was a very lightly coded reference to paedaphilia and hence a no-no, but perhaps that's just me. I wanted to remove any obvious calls to violence but have a very strong element of de-humanisation or abuse in them. Does Wogs dehumanise people in a similar way and if not, why not? (Broader question than just a reply to you MIchael, obviously, but thanks for replying.) I mean, I think it does, but if you'd be comfortable keeping Wogs as a route name but removing Delighted..., then what's the thinking behind that?

Lolita references to me are OK since it's a fictional rather than real person. I'm definitely not about to defend Wogs! It's a racist reference. It's unfortunate that the route "I feel like a wog" is obviously a reference to the Stranglers song, but you can't expect everyone to know that.

Trouble is, Mick, many people don't get irony. How about this?

https://www.tekstowo.pl/piosenka,leonard_cohen,hitler.html

When I was a Headteacher my school was well known for the work it did over a number of years with the Aegis Trust, the organisation dedicated to preventing genocide and mass atrocities, based at Nottingham. I met and hosted a number of hugely impressive survivors both of the Nazi holocaust and of more recent genocides. It is a tragic fact of human history that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity were in fact "delighted" by what they achieved. Of course it should be shocking to be reminded of this dreadful reality - but my god we humans manage to forget it with alarming regularity!

In reply to Michael Hood:

Doug is no longer on UKC and is therefore unable to respond directly on this forum.

FWIW, Black Bastard was so named, as Michael has correctly presumed, because it was a bastard of a route on a wall which happened to black in colour. There was No racist intent and very little thought was given to the name at the time. 

I totally agree that, as has already been pointed out, that, regardless of intent, UKC is effectively calling the first ascensionists racists on a public forum. If it was me who had been labelled as such, I think I'd be taking further legal advice regarding possible slander. 

I agree with Michael that "Route name changed (offensive name)" would avoid this issue and I too urge UKC to reconsider its use of "racist reference" in this and all other such cases.

On a related note, I trust UKC is also going to censor all the offensive/racist French, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish etc etc route names currently on the database, as well those written in Welsh and Gaelic. 

Once you start...... 

Hi Michael,

Good points all-round.

'Racist reference' was in no way implying racism, but I'm aware that the difference is quite subtle and could see how it could be taken the wrong way (which was certainly never our intention).

As such, the name of clarity - and to avoid any absence of doubt - we have updated the database so that it no longer says "Route name changed (Racist reference)", instead - as per your suggestion - it says "Route name changed (offensive name)". 

I'll get back to your second point on Monday as/when we're all back in the office.

Have a good weekend (and thanks once-again for the feedback).

Missing out on the Webb Sisters. Embracing the dialectic... Where did it all go wrong?

Mick

Has anyone created a ticklist yet? 

Asking for a friend. 

Have to say I loved the double-edged irony of Wokes, but being able to log a solo ascent of the Original 1923 Route sounds epic!

Come on! That's about as credible as Cummings taking a drive to test his eyesight. They must have been fully aware of the glaringly derogatory meaning, and went ahead and used the name anyway. Not funny, not clever ... and I for one have no sympathy at all. You could justify any name at all, however offensive, by saying "oh, I didn't mean it that way".

I sometimes wonder if the “twat in a cliff top cottage” still lives there. 

Obviously not going to read the 250+ messages in this thread but having gone to Shorn cliff today and the first route I chose had the N word in it (now changed on UKC) and frankly I’m appalled it’s 2020 and it’s only now it’s been changed. Mentioned it to some normo’s and they were also shocked. 
 

If anyone from ukc is reading this; 

It still comes up with the N word on google 

There’s comments with the song lyric And n word in the ticklist comments 

There’s a thread from 2017 that pops up where people are discussing how funny it is with glee. 
 

thanks.

wtf is a normo?

Might be a word to refer to non climbers? Apparently people in the parkour community call people who don't practice parkour "muggles".

I'm not sure why that's the only part of the message you thought was worth responding to though? It is really shocking that we've had racist route names up until this point and that it took a global anti-racism movement becoming very widespread for us to do anything about it (I'm including myself in the blame here because it's not like I did anything concrete about it either).

Despite all of the comments in this thread, I  reckon a lot of people (thankfully) feel the same way as me and Donotello, they just aren't posting on UKC. Plenty of people I know felt unhappy  about that route name at Shorncliff (with knowledge of the origin of the song lyrics, but out of context at the crag it is so unacceptable), but the overwhelming tone on UKC to me is not really reflective of that. People who, from what they choose to comment on, seem more concerned about the feelings of the person who put up a route and thought it was okay to use a racist name than facing our past and trying to make the future climbing community a better place.

I've waded into this maelstrom because reading the comments was just too infuriating to not respond, but I've personally never really wanted to to take part in the forums here as the atmosphere is not very welcoming (notoriously unwelcoming, I'd say).

You mean it’s almost like spelling a racist name in capitals - like T.H.I.S. - does not render it any less awful... and that arguing this and saying “but what about the history?!” makes climbing look bigoted?

Perish the thought.

I agree with you on that point but I don't think we need to go to the 1984 Orwellian extreme of replacing every occurrence of every potentially offensive word.

For example, IMO it's not necessary to always type "the n word". If you're (for example) discussing a word's history, then it's ok to actually type the word "nigger". There you go, I've used it without being racist because we're discussing how we should adjust our use of language in our attempts to eradicate racism and make the world a better place.

Would think he still does. I remember someone assuring me he was the person who excised the route if not from history then at least from guidebooks. Irritatingly I can't remember who it was. He said he was a mate of said occupant and felt a bit embarrassed about it.

Given the pleasure that said occupant has afforded so many people, in this case, one feels tempted to let it go.

Mick

It really was not necessary to type it out, it is already offensive enough in the form of "the n word". The link below is a good point made on the subject - it might be a portal into another universe for you perhaps, but worth a try.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CBGvJO3jh0I/?igshid=1xs7rvwvyl9d6