UKC

I’m looking for around 10 ML’s on the 24th April (the anniversary of the Kinder Mass Trespass) for this event in the Peak District https://kinderincolour.land/

It is VOLUNTARY. 
I’m hoping that the professional outdoor community will show some solidarity for BPOC in the outdoors ✊🏽 
 

Link article talks of "disrupting" the traditional way of celebrating the anniversary of the Kinder trespass. Strange wording.

 I don't agree with some of the views on your website at all. That said, have a great day on the hills.

I just clicked on the 'Join us' link on your site: https://kinderincolour.land/join-us/ - isn't this segregation rather than integration? Surely it is integration you are striving for here.

"White allies are welcome too, but they will be joining in solidarity at the rear of the walk and not taking any leading roles."

Some of the MLs may be white.

Considering the demographics of those engaging in outdoor activities I imagine that a fair majority of MLs are white.

Whilst I agree that diversity is an issue, the language you use is concerning and gives the impression that the event will be unnecessarily confrontational.

I don't think anyone doubts that these issues are real.  Neither can we assume that the outdoor community does not include opinions held throughout wider society, including racism.  However I don't believe it is within the outdoor community that the biggest obstacles to participation and access by people of colour lie.

I suspect that many of those attending the anniversary of the Kinder Mass Trespass will probably be more likely than most to be broadly supportive of your aim to encourage more participation. By threatening "to disrupt the traditional way of celebrating this event" you risk alienating your natural supporters.

Can you highlight the actual hostility and barriers that you are trying to remove?

The trepass was all about equality, equal access, there was no segregation on the original walk, no need to sign up, just turn up and chat with whoever you walk next to. It wasn't religious, no thoughts prayers or healing. It was about access to the hills, which were effectively closed. Most uk hills aren't closed at all now, anyone is free to walk them day or night, 24/365. The anniversary is about celebrating what we now have. 

Might this be the definition of "disrupt":

"(of a company or technology) cause radical change in (an industry or market) by means of innovation."

Rather than:

"interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem."

In that context disruption can be a positive thing. 

Through no fault of the MLs in question, a disproportionately overwhelming majority really.  Which is rather the point.

I think that really should be pretty obvious.  Clearly they're not planning on disrupting someone else's celebration of the Kinder trespass, the accusation that this event is 'confrontational' is a bit odd.  It's confrontational like saying 'black lives matter' is confrontational to white people, ie: not at all!

That comment: "isn't this segregation rather than integration?" above is exactly analogous to the moaning we've seen on here about the Women's Climbing Symposium and the Women's Trad Festival in the past - people who say they're wholly supportive of the aims of the women's event, they just don't think it's reasonable for it not to be open to men as well.

To anyone feeling a bit hurt that there's a thing happening in the countryside that involves a bit (not even the whole event) where they wouldn't feel entirely welcome because of the colour of their skin - well, yes, it sucks.  But at least you don't have those feelings niggling away at the back of your mind every time you fancy going out for a walk in the hills eh?

An awful lot of our land (and much more of our water) still is closed though. 

And on the subject of celebrating what we already have, we can't afford to be complacent.  Just because we have access to a lot of it now doesn't mean we'll get to keep it otherwise, there is always pushback against the rights of us plebs.  (Particularly with the government we have in power just now, but perhaps it's better not to take the lid off that can for fear of getting the thread shunted into the 'politics' forum.)

No use being mealy mouthed about it and assigning whites to the peripherals. Just say at the outset that the event is not for them.

There's nothing remotely mealy mouthed about it, the event is "not for them".  It is however entirely open to them to come along and express a little solidarity with those that the event is for.  Those who have various barriers in the way that make it more difficult for them to enjoy the simple pleasures that many of us take entirely for granted.  Jeez, is that really so difficult to understand?

Why not say at the outset that the post ( actually, it's a request asking for help from UKC members) is not really aimed at non whites , in spite of the UKC demographic probably being substantially white.

it's quite common to narrow down your audience when posting and asking for help, I would have thought.

Eh?  We're completely at cross purposes here I think, not for the first time.  I see nothing to suggest that it is.  Perhaps the OP will clarify, but I think it's a request for help from anyone who is willing and able to help.

More confusion over the meaning of words perhaps.  I'm really not at all sure that what is meant by 'taking of leading roles' is an ML helping to facilitate the walk and keep everyone safe.

I can't understand why you think you need MLs on a trip up Kinder ? It's a walk, surely ?

here's my take on it all: white people are welcome to bulk up the numbers and give the event some newsworthiness but it would be appreciated if they'd  keep out of any photo shots.

That's possible, although I don't agree with deepsoup that it's obvious.  It does imply that they intend to engage with the organised anniversary in some way, but the website is remarkably vague about how they mean to go about it.  All the stuff about prayer, thanks and spirituality doesn't actually tell us much.  However "disrupt" does suggest some sort of challenge to the official event rather than joining in with it.  Even if it does have the meaning you suggest, that doesn't invalidate my argument that the Mass Trespass anniversary and the people who take part are not the main problem and are the wrong target.

I very much doubt they intend the event to be confrontational in any way, only that their language suggests that.  And to be clear I am entirely supportive of their aims, which is why it is important to use language carefully.

I greatly like what the Muslim Hikers group are doing, and support them, and am delighted to be associated with them. But I don't think I would support this. I'm very sorry to say that, as I'm sympathetic with its general aims.

It's a difficult call, but (much as when I'm asked to add my signature to public letters) scrutiny of the website makes me very uncomfortable with some of the claims made. The choice of Kinder Scout in particular seems provocative, and it's likely that this campaign would be seen as a rather unsensitive attempt to hijack one of the great British class struggles for other purposes. It would be better, and indeed more appropriate to contemporary British inequalities, if all parties would join in celebrating the Mass Trespass for what it achieved rather than for what it could never have achieved at the time.

There are some standard observations about the history of enclosure and the relation of colonialism to the British landscape, turned into inaccurate generalizations about all British land. This is partly down to a reliance on Corinne Fowler's sloppy phrasing - but there is both before and after Fowler a lifetime's reading of solid and rather more precise scholarship which might turn the decolonialist's eye elsewhere (and indeed it usually does - which makes me think that this campaign is not serious about decolonization, but is merely jumping on the academic bandwagon.)

Obviously I'm more concerned about a hijack of a class struggle than the reputation of the Duke of Devonshire, but it's worth pointing out that although he fought the factory workers of Manchester and Sheffield for rights of access and to all our benefit lost that fight, he and his forebears had a long history of opposing British colonialist interests particularly in Africa and, back in the early nineteenth century, campaigning for the abolition of slavery. It is only the Irish who have some considerable claim to offence at the Cavendish family's hand under colonial rule, which makes the choice of Kinder as the focus of the campaign perverse and potentially offensive to a number of communities who might otherwise be supportive.

I have looked at the website and I can't say I agree with the content. It's promoting segregation rather than inclusion.

White people aren't stopping BPOC enjoying the outdoors, it's a lack of opportunities from a young age to explore and create a culture of doing outdoor activities. In the same way that I have never been into football or rugby, not because I am held back in some way but because none of my close family were into football or rugby. I was however introduced to hill walking at an early age as that's what we did as a family - something I continue to do now.

FWIW I am a white man from a low income background who grew up in a very rural area and I can count the number of BPOC pupils I attended school with easily, it was zero. Not because BPOC pupils weren't allowed (that's obviously and rightly totally illegal) but because none lived in the very large school catchment area. 

You'll find a broad range of opinions on UKC but promotion of racism and discrimination is not one of them.

I think it's part of a bigger campaign by the bloke that wrote the The Book of Trespass. 

From the Right To Roam (https://www.righttoroam.org.uk/) email:

KINDER IN COLOUR

Hi everyone

We hope you are really well

apologies for not being in touch for so long, we've been really busy.
We have expanded our team and have been preparing for the 2022 Year of Trespass. The aim this year is to get people out there, over the fences, demonstrating that public access to nature is not only something we need for our health, but something that will improve the health of nature as well.

Much more to come on this, but first we must tell you of our initial action, to kick off the year of trespass.

KINDER IN COLOUR

Access to nature in England is not only paltry, it is unequal. Last year, Black and people of colour (BPOC) made up only 1% of visitors to national parks. Just 39% of “BAME” people lived within a five-minute walk to green spaces compared to 58% of white people (Thomas Reuters Foundation). Additionally more than two-fifths (42%) of people from ethnic minorities live in England’s most green space-deprived neighbourhoods, compared with just one in five white people (The Guardian).

But recently groups such as Muslim Hikers and Black Girls Hike have been creating safe spaces for people of colour to gather and walk. They show us that the right to roam in England is much more than recreation, it is in fact the Right to Belong.

For our first action, we will be gathering on Kinder Scout to commemorate the Kinder Trespass, but also to highlight how much more work needs to be done. Because of the work of Benny Rothman and the other 400 trespassers in 1932, we will not be trespassing any forbidden ground, but instead crossing the invisible barrier that blocks so many people of colour from the countryside - the atmosphere that BPOC are unwelcome in English nature.

So, on the 24th April hundreds of us will be meeting in Edale in the morning, and scaling Kinder Scout with song, ceremony and joy, to celebrate that England is in fact for all of us.

1) please share this tweet with your networks

https://twitter.com/nickhayesillus1/status/1509858286107086854

2) please come along - BPOC people will be hosting this walk, but white accomplices will be welcome to join and support. sign up here to get further details

https://kinderincolour.land/

This is just the start of a very busy year, but for it to work, we are really gunna need your help. Turning up, trespassing, and sharing our perspective on social media all really help to raise this urgent debate of communities and access to nature. We hope to see you out there on forbidden land...

Great! Absolutely no problem with that, if that is what it involves.  Neither do I have a problem with the idea of disrupting systems or attitudes to bring about change.  However the Kinder in Colour website says they "want to disrupt the traditional way of celebrating this event".  That changes it from the general to the specific, and suggests a deliberate targeting of an event which is already broadly aligned with their objectives. If that is actually what they intend, it seems misguided.  If it isn't, they should think more carefully about the language they use.

I am all for removing barriers to participation and that aspect I can support, but some of the trespass movement's aims bother me, in particular the assumption that the countryside exists as a recreational resource for urban dwellers, rather than a place where people live and work. Obviously as someone who uses it for recreation myself I want to see better access to it, but I am also conscious that a balance needs to be struck.

I hope they have a really great day, and I hope they can do it in a way which is respectful to the anniversary celebrations. 

I note the OP has not returned. So I may not get an answer, though I'm sure others have a view.

It's true that ethnic minorities, in general, are not proportionately represented amongst hill-goers and climbers.  But I'm never sure what factors actually prevent their participation, other than disinclination. Yes, to climb, you may need to join a club, where you may not feel welcome in a largely white environment (though I think you will be). But to go on a low-level hill-walk in the Peak District, and then work up over time to more adventurous walks, it seems to me you just need to do it. There are no "whites only" signs barring access to UK footpaths.  

Yes, it's easier to participate if you have spare money, and yes, many people from ethnic minorities have less than average disposable income, but that's a question for wider society to solve (ie all of us - I'm not passing the buck) not a problem specifically for those of us who enjoy hill-walking and climbing.

Martin

Have a look back through Edale and Glossop MRTs' incident logs and you'll see they've often been called out to people just having 'a walk' up Kinder. Somebody organising a walk clearly has a duty of care to keep the walkers safe, especially if a large part of the point of their event is to get people out for a walk in the countryside who don't usually have the opportunity.

It may be trivial for you or me, but our experience and easy familiarity with the environment (and its hazards) is a privilege that we enjoy. 

Well apparently so.  But the assumption that you still seem to be clinging to, that they intend to attack others who are celebrating the trespass in some way (you literally accuse this event of making them a "target") strikes me as just a bit bonkers.  I don't think it's particularly fair to blame the person who wrote that blurb for apparently failing to anticipate that*.

For what it's worth there are no official organised events on the 24th for this one to 'disrupt' - the 'mainstream' celebration of the trespass is taking place the day before, on the 23rd.

"ON SUNDAY 24th, there will be no organised walks but it is anticipated that many groups and individuals will be visiting Hayfield and walking onto Kinder to mark the 90th Anniversary. The stalls and exhibitions will still be open throughout Sunday."
https://kindertrespass.org.uk/

It doesn’t sound like you are that supportive of removing barriers for other people. It comes across that you think using green spaces for recreation is only a right for people who can afford to live in these areas, and anyone living in deprived inner city areas should stay well away. Given that most people living in the countryside are white, guess who most obviously stands out as “not from round ‘ere” and feels the brunt of a “locals only” attitude to outdoor spaces? 

Attitudes like that, or the perception that people hold these attitudes, seem to be exactly the sort of barrier that this event wants to change.

The UK is overcrowded, there is no doubt about that. But why should nice white, middle class families living in a National park be insulated from that overcrowding by telling the 4 generation family sharing 2 rooms of a crime ridden, inner city high rise that they aren’t welcome to visit anywhere nicer? 

Of the coarsest and most overt kind, nope.  Denial that the problem exists, 'whataboutery' and such however are pretty rife, and there are examples in this very thread.  If you need more obvious examples you only have to skim through a few of the BLM threads still in the archive from the last couple of years to find plenty.

A first step in keeping the walkers safe should be some advice about suitable clothing and equipment. I can't see that in the 3 page invitation so I hope it comes in some form if you fill in the application to join.

Do you typically spend much of your free time intentionally going places that you think you are unwanted and unwelcome? I suspect you are in the minority if so. An implicit understanding that you don’t belong somewhere is a barrier in itself. And it isn’t baseless; even in well meaning, “supportive” comments on this thread we have the implied message that the countryside really only belongs to the locals. And the more different you look to the average local, the more attitudes like that are likely to impact you.

The point of organised events like this, to my mind, is precisely to challenge the perception that certain people aren’t welcome or that certain spaces don’t belong to them. 

The whole point of the event is to break down barriers to participation.  "You need this kit or you can't do it" is precisely such a barrier, so the reason for choosing not to put that front and centre of the invitation for people to join really should be obvious.

You're just looking for an excuse to have a dig at the organisers now.  I'm going to do them the courtesy of assuming they know what they're doing.  There's time enough to deal with that after potential participants have engaged with the idea that they can go if they want to.

Pure speculation on your part and completely unfounded.

A  bit of advice about sturdy footwear and a simple waterproof outer layer isn't all that off putting is it? As you say, it will have to be addressed at some point.

Dunno.  But I have absolutely no difficulty at all in seeing how it might be.  The organisers of this event are specifically trying to reach out to people who are put off by the idea that they're not welcome on account of not looking the part. 

If you genuinely can't think of a good reason why they might choose not to lead with a comment about how it's important to turn up with the right kind of shoes on, that just shows a staggering lack of imagination I'm afraid.

Usually these advisory notes take the form of a footnote rather than a leader.

Leaving aside all ensuing ethical discussion, the person with long hair in the picture on the OP's website is likely to walk into a gatepost or something as they're looking at their phone rather than where they're putting their feet.

Hi all, sorry for the late reply and thanks for the interest. 

I am NOT an organiser of the event, I am an outdoor professional who is helping to coordinate a group of ML’s, BPOC & other to assist (not lead) on the day to show solidarity.

P.S For all of the “supportive” comments I still have few volunteers. 

 

Obviously I don't spend time intentionally going places I feel unwelcome. But I've regularly sought out places where I look very different to the locals - in many different countries. I'm not sure why this "implicit understanding you don't belong" applies particularly to ethnic minorities in the UK countryside. I would have thought you're far more likely to encounter racist attitudes on a crowded city street than a deserted hillside. 

I'm happy for someone to explain why I've got it wrong though. I can't just un-live my 70 years experience of being white and relatively privileged, but I'd like to better understand others' points of view. And I've absolutely no problem with encouraging people from any background getting involved in hill-walking and climbing. But, like any of us, they need to want to do it. It's not a self-evidently attractive thing to do. All of us have friends who think we're pretty daft.

Martin

Allthough you cant unlive your 70 odd years of being white, and no one is asking you to, you could spend a few seconds thinking what it is like for other people who arnt, what they may experience on a day to day basis, and how this might make them feel unwelcome in places that feel very natural to you.

It's not exactly a skin-colour centred barrier though is it? Maybe an economic one (with all the wider societal links that entails). FWIW I'd always have a minimum kit requirement from group members when doing ML work. It wasn't high, but was necessary to ensure the safety of the group (i.e. your job as a group leader). Asking people to bring a waterproof, suitable footwear and some warm clothes for their own safety is hardly an unreasonable request. Nobody is asking anyone to turn up head-to-toe in Patagucci, just something you can walk in and will be dry/warm enough in for the day.

No-one is asking you to unlive your experience. I don't think 70 years experience of being white is the best source of information about the experience of ethnic minorities in the British countryside though.

People who actually have relevant lived experience say that they don't feel welcome in the spaces being discussed. You agree that you wouldn't go to spaces where you feel unwelcome. And yet based on your experience of not having the characteristics in question and not experiencing the same situations, you conclude... what? That the people saying they feel unwelcome are lying?

Edit to reply to your edit: Obviously people also need to want to be involved. No-one is dragging people out against their will. This event, along with groups like Black Girls Hike and Muslim Hikers are voluntary. No-one is forced to join them. But we can probably assume from the existence of these groups and events that the people who join them do in fact want to walk in the countryside.

I certainly don't think they're lying. But I'd like to know why they feel unwelcome? Is it that people they meet in the outdoors actually make them feel unwelcome. Or is it that they intrinsically feel unwelcome when they don't meet others like them in these places. If the former, and it's fellow hill-walkers or climbers making them feel unwelcome, then we clearly need to address that. I hope I've never done so. I may possibly have done so inadvertently, but I've also had several climbing friends from ethnic minority groups over the years. If it's the latter, then it's surely rather "chicken and egg".

Martin

I'd also suggest that the claim that spending time in the countryside isn't "self-evidently attractive" is utter rubbish. 

Why else are there such parking problems in National Parks? Why do houses with more access to outdoor space typically cost more? Why are "soothing sleep sounds" playlists filled with nature sounds? Why are houseplants and landscape pictures that bring aspects of the outdoors into our homes so popular, rather than photos and models of high-rise tenement blocks?

We aren't talking about Scottish winter climbing in a whiteout here. We are talking about walking in open green spaces. I think it is nonsense to say that most people think that is a daft idea.

Curiously timed, but I think there was piece on Jeremy Vine in the last week or two. A guy from Muslim hikers said a large proportion of participation barriers are cultural. Their parents or elders just don't use the outdoors the same, there are family pressures towards other things during free time, location where they reside, educational and employment expectations etc... 

He also said anyone was welcome, with no reference towards walking at the back! 

HMLs would be qualified to work the event too. More of them, I’d imagine.

I'm the wrong person to ask really given that it isn't my experience either, but my impression is that it is certainly less overt than the former.

However, there are wider societal attitudes to consider like 'people of colour just don't like the outdoors' and 'I'm concerned about the countryside being a resource for city folk'. We also have things like the grumbling on here that there is no problem, which comes up every time someone suggests having a different experience. All of these do subtly reinforce a sense that some people aren't really welcome, or that their experiences aren't important, even though it isn't overt rejection to someone's face.

But even if we assume that it is the simplest possible version of the latter; as you say that leaves us with a chicken and egg situation whereby the problem becomes less as more people from a particular group are seen to get involved. Getting more people from particular groups visibly involved is exactly what these sort of events aim to achieve.  You seem to be implying that the latter situation isn't worthy of addressing and we should just resign ourselves to some people never feeling welcome.

Of course I don't think they're going to physically attack anyone.  Maybe it's a generational thing, but to me the primary meaning of "disrupt" is "to interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem." 

So what do they mean by it?  What sort of disruption do they think their attendance at the anniversary will achieve?  If they think the mere presence of a crowd of people of colour is going to cause fits of the vapours amongst the cagoule-wearers on Kinder I think they'll be disappointed.

That still leaves us in the same position whereby the barrier is a belief that "this is/isn't where you belong", which doesn't sit well with me. Personally, I don't think that the explicit source of these beliefs has much bearing on the goal of increasing opportunities for people to find out for themselves what they enjoy doing with their time.

At a guess, they might be hoping to disrupt some of the ideas that come up every time topics like this come up on UKC, such as the old classic that only white people enjoy being in the countryside. That doesn't mean they are setting out to upset people. 

You have a strange view of the countryside if you think it's only populated by white middle-class people.  What about the working-class hill farmer trying to make a living although it can cost more to rear a sheep than it's worth, whose walls are knocked over, gates blocked, livestock savaged by dogs, hay crop spoiled by dog-shit (or human shit) and who is roundly abused when he tries to complain?  Many parts of the countryside are just as deprived as some urban areas (although it is true that urban areas are most deprived overall)

I want to see better access to the countryside for everyone. What I object to is the attitude shown by parts of the trespass movement that the countryside exists only as a resource for town-dwellers.  It is that, but it is also a place where people live and work, and that needs to be respected.  That is what I mean by balance.

I didn't get the sense that this event was focused on the countryside being solely a resource for town-dwellers. I only skimmed their website though; where did you get that idea from?

As for your first paragraph, talking in general trends is often useful. You acknowledge that the trend I was talking about is real, so it's hardly constructive to dismiss it with patently absurd exaggerations. Those in a position to move house for ease of access to outdoor recreation are more likely to be middle-class. One implication of your post, to me, was that they therefore have more right to spend their leisure time in places like national parks than someone who is not in a position to make that move. I don't think that would be a good way to achieve "balance".

Not having suitable kit (or thinking that you don't have suitable kit) is not, no.  But the fear (whether it's justified or not) that you'll be 'out of place' and made to feel unwelcome is.  At least in part.

Nor is it a barrier that's at all difficult to overcome, it is just a walk up a hill after all, but people who aren't sure whether or not they're 'allowed' to participate don't know that.  And for all I know, maybe some have had uncomfortable experiences of being judged on the basis of what they're wearing before that might make the merest suggestion that they'll be unwelcome if they don't have the right kind of shoes likely to put them off.

So why even mention it on the front page?  Plenty of time to deal with that while sorting out the logistics, after getting them engaged with the idea that this is something they can do.

I can't possibly know if barriers exist, hence quoting someone I heard on the radio. I'm a British born white guy in his 50s, my grand parents ticked munros which arguably wasn't so common in the 1950s and 60s, an uncle climbed a lot to a pretty high standard with many people, some went on to become guides, so he was mixing regular in mountaineering circles. I went to the alps first aged 13 in early 80s and I was climbing a very undeveloped Penon de Ifach in 86. My intro wasn't exactly normal, so I can't personally make a precise judgement on access for minorities issues, but still feel forced segregation to allegedly improve hill use isn't the way, it's a step back. 

We're going round in circles now, you had an answer to that question yesterday afternoon.

As far as this particular group is concerned it was more an underlying impression based on the tone rather than any explicit statements. A lot of stuff about ritual and healing,  the countryside becoming "a place of healing and communing for all" but no acknowledgement that it is a place where people live and work.  Some groups in the trespass movement are more explicit in their views that "the countryside belongs to everyone", although in fairness the leading organisation Right to Roam is very clear that with rights come responsibilities.

I'm sorry that's how you interpreted it, those people were literally not in my mind.  I would really like to see something along the lines the Scottish right to roam here in England.  However there is a real problem in that all too often access to land is not exercised responsibly. Perhaps this is lack of education, perhaps it is because England has larger urban centres which are closer to smaller patches of countryside than Scotland, so the pressures are greater.  The examples I gave, which you dismissed as absurd exaggerations, have all affected my farming neighbours, and this is an area which is not particularly overrun with visitors.  So while I would like to see wider access, for myself and for everyone, I am conscious that it cannot be unrestricted.

"Forced segregation" was laws prohibiting people from using public facilities, signs saying "no blacks, no Irish, no women", rules on who could own property. No one is calling for forced segregation. Events focused on the interests of a particular group are commonplace and widely accepted, and don't constitute "forced segregation". 

I'll be honest, I'm not totally sure what you are trying to get at (I know that phrase always sounds a bit confrontational, but I don't mean it to be!). You quoted someone from Muslim Hikers saying that there are barriers, and I assumed you did so because you accepted this as evidence that socio-cultural barriers can/do exist in this context. You seem to be denying that now, or at least actively distancing yourself from the suggestion. What were you trying to get across by sharing what you had heard?

I strongly believe that integration is incredibly important and that segregation leads to predudice from both sides. 

That's not too say that we don't need to do more to actively encourage/welcome minority groups, but I am uncomfortable with an organisation that appears to be actively avoiding integration of new participants with the existing outdoor community.

I am not saying that your description of a struggling farmer is an absurd exaggeration. I am saying that it was an absurd exaggeration to dismiss socio-economic trends, which you agree exist, by claiming that I said the countryside is "only populated by white middle-class people".

That's a bit "straw-man" I feel.

I say "I've absolutely no problem with encouraging people from any background getting involved in hill-walking and climbing. But ......... it's not a self-evidently attractive thing to do". To which you reply: "the claim that spending time in the countryside isn't "self-evidently attractive" is utter rubbish" and refer to parking problems in National Parks. There's a world of difference between how most people who take parking spaces in our National Parks spend time in the countryside, and "hill-walking and climbing". The only overlap is probably the small number of honey-pot walks like Snowdon, which accounts for a good proportion of the parking issues in Snowdonia.

But I don't think we're really on different sides here. I'll reply to your later response in a minute.

Martin

Not at all. If someone wants to get involved, but doesn't do so because they're not made to feel welcome when they try, then we need to address that. Particularly, we should call out any of our fellow climbers whose lack of welcome is specifically towards people from certain ethnic minorities.

But I'm not sure we should overly lament the fact that some people don't want to get involved. Wearing my pre-retirement professional hat,  I do believe that children, at school or through youth groups, should be exposed to the widest variety of experiences, including activities like climbing, in part so that they can then decide what they would like to get further involved in as adult leisure pursuits. But if climbing turns out not to be one of those things, even if it's because it's "not something people from my background do" then I'm not sure we should feel we need to address that. Unlike the approach of many sports I don't think we somehow miss out by not having more people participating in climbing. 

Martin

Edit. I meant that last sentence in the numerical sense of course. I think we probably do miss out if we don't encounter a wider cross-section of people in the clubs and social circles we choose to belong to, but it's a fairly normal tendency to find ourselves at home with like-minded people. I certainly wouldn't want to criticise people for belonging to the Gay Outdoor Group, Red Rope, The PInnacle Club or the Muslim Walkers Group.

It’s the massive group thing I don’t get. The Outdoors is a far better experience in smaller numbers.

Just had another look on that website and I'm not sure if I'm right but a good portion of the wording on there has been changed. I wonder if the backlash has caused a rethink. If most members here like myself who are happy to see people of colour on the hills felt a degree of concern about the sentiments published, then I guess something might have filtered back.

No-one is talking about people who don't want to be involved. People who don't want to be involved simply aren't going to go hill walking, attend or organise events like this or join groups like Black Girls Hike. So that 'problem' solves itself.

My issue would be with people not being exposed to or trying things in the first place, not ever finding out if they want to pursue something because of stereotypes and assumptions about what are acceptable activities for them. Or people who would like to pursue something not doing so because they believe that they are the wrong class, colour or gender.

I've no idea if you have children, but I wonder how you would feel if you had a daughter who told you "I'd like to try football or go climbing or be an engineer but I can't/shouldn't because I'm a girl". Would you just unquestioningly accept that at face value? If not, how is that so different from someone thinking the same things based on their skin colour or class?

I suspect there might be an amount of self censorship in some racial/ religious groups and an intervention by outsiders, especially white people , could be problematic and a bit divisive. 

In some non white families the role of parents as  and grandparents as " law givers" is totally different from what we experience as white Britons. For instance, the notion of formally  arranged marriages would create an outcry if it was exposed as happening in modern day English families. yet it goes on practically unchallenged in some communities within the UK.

I say this because there might be pressures at play in some communities for young people not to play the white man's game , not to indulge in activities which have predominantly been white ( whether middle or working class) because it is not the done thing and family elders don't approve of pastimes which are culturally foreign to them. It's easy for white people to be dismissive of the authority of grandad and grandma but I suspect it might be a totally different kettle of fish in some other cultures.

Neither of the organisers of this event appear to be white. Same goes for the founders of the groups I mentioned. So it seems dismissive, insulting and factually incorrect of you to frame these as problematic and ignorant interventions by white outsiders.

We are talking about people trying to support their own communities. I'm going to do them the decency of assuming that they have some understanding of their own cultural influences, norms and issues.

I was making a general comment about the differences between cultures and not specifically targeting this event. Nevertheless, when the discussion comes round to barriers then all such hindrances should be taken into account and family/ peer pressure is one of them.  

If you find this  insulting and factually incorrect I can't do much about that.

Call me crazy, but as a middle-aged white guy, I don't feel I'm in a position to tell any minority groups whether their experiences around the countryside and access are valid, or tell them that the way they choose to go about organising an event such as this is the right or wrong way to go about things. They probably know best.

Best of luck OP and I hope the event is a success.

Yes, family and peer influences are obviously relevant. So what? Why does that have any bearing on whether or not you would believe or support people of colour who say that they want to go hill walking but don’t feel they can because of their skin colour? Do you not think they can decide for themselves how strictly they want to abide by their own cultural norms? 

I mention it because people seem very concerned about the barriers, one example being cited that if we mention equipment at too early a stage it could well put them off showing interest. 

On the whole I think it's possible that having a dominant family elder could constitute much more of a barrier than suggesting  bringing a waterproof 

When what you might describe as a lapsed muslin friend got married several of us from our club were invited to the evening event, during the procession in meeting the family one by one, the women from club had to pretend they were married to various male club members, otherwise his and the bride's parents would have had a coronary at the thought of him spending nights in a club hut or bothy with unmarried unescorted women! 

Actually you introduced that into the discussion when you snarkily pointed out that equipment had not been mentioned at an early stage.  I was speculating that perhaps there was a good reason for that, but it's entirely possible that the reason for it not being mentioned so early was simply that there's no need.  And there is no need.  The organisers can just as easily mention shoes and a waterproof whilst sorting out the logistics with people after they've decided that they'd like to go.

Jesus Christ how many posts about this now?  It's hardly rocket surgery is it?

i don't find anything snarky about bringing up the subject of equipment in a discussion about a hill walking event which might involve hundreds of people.  I don't think I'm alone in this, looking at the responses given to relevant comments. 

And the subject had more or less been put to bed by 20.40 so it seems a bit odd to open it up again a few minutes shy of midnight to express your frustration about how long it's been going on.

The views expressed on the website have now been dramatically changed... 

It would be odd, had you not brought it back up to belittle the event and the issues it is concerned with. 

The organisers say they are concerned about people not feeling safe and welcome in green spaces. They are concerned by police data (albeit due for a more recent analysis) that says race related crimes are almost 20x more likely in rural Northumberland than urban Midlands. They are concerned about their community’s children not playing outside, with the health and well-being benefits we know that brings. They are concerned about inequalities in financial resources that limit things like transport to outdoor spaces.

On what grounds are you telling us that you know better and that they are concerned about the wrong things? On what grounds are you worried that they haven’t properly considered their own experiences and cultural influences (which you are making fairly sweeping generalisations about)?

I’m out. You seem set on undermining the event, its organisers, and their concerns. I suspect I’m inadvertently making that worse by engaging with you.

I hope the event goes well and I lament that this simple request turned into a trial by forum. Even if the original wording of the website was on the polemical side, the number of downvotes on your post speaks volumes. I hope that some can muster enough self awareness to feel shameful for their hostility.

Thank you 🙏 

I wouldn’t regard this event as segregation as the purpose of the event is provide representation of bpoc in the countryside and white people are welcome to support the groups aims to encourage participation in outdoor activities. If it was segregation, which it isn’t, then they would be promoting separate footpaths or mountains for different races on the premise that one race is superior to another. This is clearly not the case, the problem is that bpoc don’t see themselves as welcome in the outdoors, and seeing their peers participating in a outdoor event like this will help encourage them that the countryside is for them too. If the goals of this event are achieved then there won’t be a need to have a bpoc outdoor event, everyone no matter race or creed will feel welcome in the outdoors and racism, will be a thing of the past. I hope this event goes well and gets a good turnout and positive reception from the outdoor community.

I'm afraid you are reading far too much into my comments and for some reason putting a very negative spin on them.

My initial concern was and still is that all the participants are equipped to at least a bare minimum.  Simply suggesting that it might have been wise to  mention this in the literature is absolutely not an attempt to undermine the event, any more than a poster quite rightly  quoting MR statistics about Kinder  in response to someone who was playing down the need for ML assistance in the first place.

I wish everyone concerned an enjoyable and safe outing.

In reply to TILLY:

Speaking from a purely personal perspective and not as an organiser of the event or RTR I find some of the assumption, hostility and white male fragility on this subject quite astounding and shameful.

I was simply asking for some support from the outdoor community. The direction and content of some of the discussion has in my mind highlighted the issue and need for the event.

I simply can’t understand why individuals find it so difficult to put a group that feels othered at the front of a walk and to show solidarity by walking behind and why instead of listening and learning from experiences that they have no lived experience of they prefer to tell BPOC people how to feel, behave and what language is and isn’t acceptable. 

CHANGE is coming folks and let’s just all be a little KINDER(in colour) ✊🏽

I hope you all have a good day on the hills.

But you are contacting yourself here...

Either I walk at the the back with the other 'white privileged', or I walk in the midst of the group where I can engage with other walkers in order to listen and learn from their experiences.

I think the idea of trying to promote the outdoors to minority groups is to be commended, but please show the same equal welcome to everyone that wants to join your walk - both parties have a lot to gain from positive integration, from understanding the barriers to participation, to sharing a passion for the outdoors. 

It doesn't take a huge amount of humility or empathy to understand why a group of minorities might wish to stand together at the symbolic front of the group, and maybe consider they may know better what it is they and their group want to do and how they wish to go about it. 

From discussions I've had with friends and colleagues of colour, it's not usually outright racist hostility that makes them feel unwelcome, but exactly this kind of well-meant but ultimately patronising implication that they need to be told how to behave. The kind of people that try to make someone feel welcome by starting with "Ooh you're not from round here are you?".

Well said, and best wishes for a successful event. You’re keeping the spirit of the 1932 trespass alive!

Thanks for softening the wording on the web pages.  Have a great day

I’m confused here??

Firstly I have to admit that living in the North of Scotland, I’m lucky enough not to have experienced first hand racism nor am I a racist. Obviously I know it’s out there and happening all to frequently and there’s never been or will be any kind of justification for it.

The original request was for qualified ML’s to help manage this event, and it was subsequently pointed out that the vast majority of ML’s are more than likely to be White(I think we all agree on that). However the linked website then goes on to say that those other than BPOC must walk at the rear of the gathering, which in my view then renders the ML’s position and responsibilities useless, especially as it’s also been pointed out the the majority of people on this event will be inexperienced in the hills. It’s comes over to me very much that the organisers realise they need proper leadership probably down to insurance purposes but then have the cheek to say to those willing to help, stay out of the way(thanks, but you’re not really welcome).

Surely the best way to address the issues is to show an united approach, let everyone mingle, then hopefully everyone leaves the event with a bit more understanding of the reasons why the event was being held for in the first instance.

Just the opinion of a normal guy🤷‍♂️

Maybe try reading the whole thread instead of just reacting to the OP?  There are a fair few replies to posts exactly the same as yours up ^there already if you're genuinely interested in reading them, and if ever there was a thread on here that doesn't need resetting to square 1 and running all over again this is it.

Without any info to the contrary I'm going to do the organisers the credit of assuming that they're responsible people who know what they're doing. 

In which case as important as the ethos of the event is to them, keeping people safe will be more important and I assume that MLs and HMLs helping out on the day will be deployed pragmatically with that in mind. 

Those who have kindly volunteered to help out will obviously be supportive of the organisers' intentions or they wouldn't be there, but of course they'll also be taking their responsibilities seriously.  FWIW it's a pretty straightforward walk with nothing much in the way of navigational challenges and the weather forecast is currently looking pretty benign - it isn't always necessary to lead a walk from the front*.

*(Here's a bit of UKC context on that: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/hill_talk/experienced_walk_leadersgroup_l... )

Up there^ somewhere I drew an analogy to the Women's Climbing Symposium. 
I'm going out on a limb here a bit, but presumably you don't feel that that event should 'show the same equal welcome' to men who want to attend?

At some other event perhaps, but this is not that event - this event is not for "both parties". 
This particular event is about reaching out to and empowering people of colour who do not currently feel welcome in the countryside, not educating white people who do.

I'd be interested to know the route, if you'd like to share?

I don't know it in any more detail than you.  I mean they're celebrating/re-enacting the Kinder Tresspass, so it isn't difficult to guess where they're going.

If you're interested in dissecting it and getting into a protracted discussion of where specifically you think an ML or HML should position themselves within a hypothetical group of relatively inexperienced walkers at every step along the way though, nah.

I almost replied to Stuart Williams's 08:29 post upthread to remark that he was setting me an example I should really try to follow more often.  This time I will:

"I’m out. You seem set on undermining the event, its organisers, and their concerns. I suspect I’m inadvertently making that worse by engaging with you."

TBH I see zero appeal to attending an all female event as I genuinely find the group dynamics in mixed groups to be more supportive and less judgemental. I don't need women's only events to empower me to participate, empowerment is joining gender neutral groups as an equal.

No, but allowing people to mix would lead to conversations (general chatting as we all as do when walking), which would form friendships and hopefully ease the fear/distrust of being made to feel unwelcome by people who look different to you.

Edit - clearly this event is not about white participation, so choosing (rather than formaly being told in advance that we must) stand at the back for official photos promoting/commemorating the event is fine.

I wasn't really asking if the WCS appealed to you personally, nor whether you needed it, more a question of whether you feel it should exist at all but never mind that's by the by.

"Allowing people to mix"?  Good lord, I'm not sure what kind of event you're imagining if you don't think people will be 'allowed to mix' or to chat with one another, but I'm confident this ain't it.

That reads almost as if it's an irrational fear, like a phobia.  If they could only set their troubled minds at ease they'd realise that actually there is no racism in the countryside, not really, it was all just in their imagination all along.

In his post above, scotthldr writes:
"..living in the North of Scotland, I’m lucky enough not to have experienced first hand racism.."

I'm glad we got there in the end.

There seems to be a lot to unpack there..
It's unacceptably authoritarian for the organisers to have formed an idea already of how they'd like a group photo to look, so they should just hope for it to arise spontaneously rather than actually try to plan it.  And you'd be perfectly happy to stand at the back of the group for that photo as long as nobody actually asks you to, in which case you'd be offended.  Okedoke.

I'd suggest perhaps thinking about it like this.  You're not "formally being told" to do anything by the website, it's simply laying out the ethos of the event and what the organisers are trying to achieve. (And yes, giving us a heads up that we'll be standing at the back of the group for the big 'team photo' if we do decide to go along.)

This event is not about white participation, but nevertheless you (and I) are cordially invited to attend in solidarity if we want to.  If you're not supportive of their aims I can't imagine why you would even want to be there.

In all honesty no I don't support WCS or other female exclusive events as be have actively avoided getting personally involved when by employer has sponsored WTF.

The website says supporters will be expected to walk at the back - thats not how I understand mixing to work

Joining a gym, climbing wall, cycling club or even walking into a pub. Knowing someone who is already a member/regular makes the whole experience much less daunting and intimidating when you are in a new and alien environment.

I'd take it for granted that I wouldn't be centre stage for promotional/commemorative photos, that's just good manners when you go along in a supportive roll. Telling me that this is the way it must be on the initial info page is unwelcoming, of nothing else it could (like details on clothing requirements) be raised at a later point in time.

I am getting mixed messages as to what their actual aims are. But if it's to increase participation and accessibility then yes I fully support them.