Mountain Project Logo

Route name: Negro Girls

Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,812
Randy wrote:Actually, I do. And it has already been changed back to originally designated name. "Colored Girls." Part of the Walk on the Wild Side theme.
Randy Vogel?
ScottJM · · Montana · Joined Dec 2015 · Points: 0

christopher adams wrote:
I love it when white men think they get to decide when something is offensive and when it's not.

owen david wrote: Exactly, EXACTLY.
If these two guys are white the irony is phenomenal.
christopher adams · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 0
ScottJM wrote:christopher adams wrote: I love it when white men think they get to decide when something is offensive and when it's not. If these two guys are white the irony is phenomenal.
Hi Scott.

Nowhere in this thread do i indicate whether or not I find this route personally offensive. I don't think it's my right to make that kind of statement in the same way that I don't feel it's my right to make a statement on abortion rights. It's not my situation so it's not my place to take a stance on it.

Here are the things that I have a problem with: ignorance, racism (thinly veiled or otherwise), and callousness to another human being's plight.

What I have tried to illustrate is that as the in power demographic, white men have no business attempting to classify what is OR is not offensive to OTHER groups (I should have added the word others to my original post). That would be left up to the offended (or un-offended) groups.

I think it's funny how people have gotten so riled up about "PC culture"- as if there was something dreadfully wrong with trying to be sensitive to someone else's situation.

Uneducated/low SES white men (the group most closely linked to racism in general) fear PC culture because it ostracizes them for doing the one thing that helps them sleep at night- elevating themselves by taking others down.
ubu · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 10
christopher adams wrote: What I have tried to illustrate is that as the in power demographic, white men have no business attempting to classify what is OR is not offensive to OTHER groups
Why is skin color the overriding characteristic by which we should decide which "group" gets to establish their bona fides as victims? Social class, wealth, and even religion...these are better axes to map to in the context of power (class and wealth for society at large, and religion for politicians...how many atheists are in congress again?). My point is: there are lots of groups, and lots of ways to define power, and once you start claiming that each group gets to not just define what is or is not offensive (something that I would say belongs to each individual, not a group), but to then force this perspective on everyone outside that group, you're left with an enormous mess.
christopher adams · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 0
ubu wrote: Why is skin color the overriding characteristic by which we should decide which "group" gets to establish their bona fides as victims? Social class, wealth, and even religion...these are better axes to map to in the context of power (class and wealth for society at large, and religion for politicians...how many atheists are in congress again?). My point is: there are lots of groups, and lots of ways to define power, and once you start claiming that each group gets to not just define what is or is not offensive (something that I would say belongs to each individual, not a group), but to then force this perspective on everyone outside that group, you're left with an enormous mess.
While I understand your concerns, if you look at the data ( wholeads.us/ has a good base) it really is white men in power after you control for things like SES (a combined measure of wealth and class).

Similarly, it really is uneducated/low SES white men that perpetuate and profit from racism (you can pretty much just take your pick of the pew research studies for evidence of that).

The data quite simply points to skin color as the single most important component when it comes to social justice, after controlling for common factors. That's why it's the "overriding characteristic by which we should decide which group gets to establish their bona fides as victims. "
Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,812

I do get it that one individual does not get to decide what is offensive to another. It is a personal judgment.

Deciding whether the route name condones / promotes bigotry in others - influences others towards bigotry or ignorant views and harmful acts - is also a judgment. And that judgment is not just about how one individual might respond to the name but more so a judgment about a population. In using the word "population", I mean a body of people made up of the 'groups' (that are being discussed above).

It is the FA'ist's right to get to name the route - time honored. While I may not appreciate what offends someone, I do understand about rights.

Asking the FA'ist to change it is one thing - no problem. Taking away that 'right' is something altogether different and warrants at least a couple things in my thinking:

a) evidence that the influence on the population is significantly negative (not just that it is offensive);
b) an assertion by the population (not groups) that it is the right thing to do and here I'm thinking of a democracy; no doubt this is where the discussion about power comes in;
c) others?

Am I missing something? This is not an area that I claim great expertise.

Adam Stackhouse · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 13,970

Sounds like a Negro Vortex.

christopher adams · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 0
Bill Lawry wrote:I do get it that one individual does not get to decide what is offensive to another. It is a personal judgment. Deciding whether the route name condones / promotes bigotry in others - influences others towards bigotry or ignorant views and harmful acts - is also a judgment. And that judgment is not just about how one individual might respond to the name but more so a judgment about a population. In using the word "population", I mean a body of people made up of the 'groups' (that are being discussed above). It is the FA'ist's right to get to name the route - time honored. While I may not appreciate what offends someone, I do understand about rights. Asking the FA'ist to change it is one thing - no problem. Taking away that 'right' is something altogether different and warrants at least a couple things in my thinking: a) evidence that the influence on the population is significantly negative (not just that it is offensive); b) an assertion by the population (not groups) that it is the right thing to do and here I'm thinking of a democracy; no doubt this is where the discussion about power comes in; c) others? Am I missing something? This is not an area that I claim great expertise.
Hey Bill-

This is exactly the kind of thing that i'm trying to get at. The name route itself isn't the issue so much as the vitriol and zealotry in the comments in defense of it, or more accurately, the attack on those who might be offended.
K Swisher · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2013 · Points: 0
Tim Lutz wrote: This post violated Rule #1. It has been removed by Mountain Project.
Is it any better for me to say it? It's just a tasteless route name, so what? If I'm really skeeved out by it, I won't climb it. Same for my daughter.
Randy · · Lassitude 33 · Joined Jan 2002 · Points: 1,279

Sorry Russ, no voting in this dictatorship. But, financial incentives are always welcome. Contact my Super Pac: Make Joshua Tree Great Again.

Will S · · Joshua Tree · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 1,061
christopher adams wrote: I think it's funny how people have gotten so riled up about "PC culture"- as if there was something dreadfully wrong with trying to be sensitive to someone else's situation.
I grew up exposed to probably more legitimate racism than most people. Rural Georgia can be that way. Not directed at me (I'm a white dude after all), but at anyone not white. Grandpa proudly displayed his KKK belt buckle and Lester Maddox mini-axe handle "nig knocker" as he called it.

There is a long section in the 1990 or 1991 SPLC annual writeup on racist events that covers the crazy shit happening at my high school. Race brawls, KKK marching on the school, then KKK rallying on the town square later that week. I am estranged from large portions of my family, and left the area for good because of the rampant racism and general idiocy. Luckily my mom's side of the family were normal people, and raised me to view people as people and judge them on their character, not on race, religion, sexual orientation or other. I've both employed people and dated women across the spectrum, have LGB friends and climbing partners, and so on.

But I'm in the fed up with PC culture camp. Because the goalposts are consistently moved. Many are just looking for something to find offensive, to feed their victim mentality. Terms that the groups themselves decided were their preferred "label", twenty years later are suddenly offensive. Because some new batch of coddled young college kids want to feel like they are standing against something. Whether gender labels, race labels, or sexual orientation labels, what is or is not PC changes and changes again.

There is a professional victim culture among hard-liners that gets tiresome and ridiculous. Bringing up route names from decades ago, with no context or admission that route are OFTEN named offensively on purpose...surely you have more important matters to occupy your time. If not, try getting a fukin job.
Trad Princess · · Not That Into Climbing · Joined Jan 2012 · Points: 1,175
Will S wrote: I grew up exposed to probably more legitimate racism than most people. Rural Georgia can be that way. Not directed at me (I'm a white dude after all), but at anyone not white. Grandpa proudly displayed his KKK belt buckle and Lester Maddox mini-axe handle "nig knocker" as he called it. There is a long section in the 1990 or 1991 SPLC annual writeup on racist events that covers the crazy shit happening at my high school. Race brawls, KKK marching on the school, then KKK rallying on the town square later that week. I am estranged from large portions of my family, and left the area for good because of the rampant racism and general idiocy. Luckily my mom's side of the family were normal people, and raised me to view people as people and judge them on their character, not on race, religion, sexual orientation or other. I've both employed people and dated women across the spectrum, have LGB friends and climbing partners, and so on. But I'm in the fed up with PC culture camp. Because the goalposts are consistently moved. Many are just looking for something to find offensive, to feed their victim mentality. Terms that the groups themselves decided were their preferred "label", twenty years later are suddenly offensive. Because some new batch of coddled young college kids want to feel like they are standing against something. Whether gender labels, race labels, or sexual orientation labels, what is or is not PC changes and changes again. There is a professional victim culture among hard-liners that gets tiresome and ridiculous. Bringing up route names from decades ago, with no context or admission that route are OFTEN named offensively on purpose...surely you have more important matters to occupy your time. If not, try getting a fukin job.
9/10
Eric Engberg · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 0
Will S wrote: I grew up exposed to probably more legitimate racism than most people. Rural Georgia can be that way. Not directed at me (I'm a white dude after all), but at anyone not white. Grandpa proudly displayed his KKK belt buckle and Lester Maddox mini-axe handle "nig knocker" as he called it. There is a long section in the 1990 or 1991 SPLC annual writeup on racist events that covers the crazy shit happening at my high school. Race brawls, KKK marching on the school, then KKK rallying on the town square later that week. I am estranged from large portions of my family, and left the area for good because of the rampant racism and general idiocy. Luckily my mom's side of the family were normal people, and raised me to view people as people and judge them on their character, not on race, religion, sexual orientation or other. I've both employed people and dated women across the spectrum, have LGB friends and climbing partners, and so on. But I'm in the fed up with PC culture camp. Because the goalposts are consistently moved. Many are just looking for something to find offensive, to feed their victim mentality. Terms that the groups themselves decided were their preferred "label", twenty years later are suddenly offensive. Because some new batch of coddled young college kids want to feel like they are standing against something. Whether gender labels, race labels, or sexual orientation labels, what is or is not PC changes and changes again. There is a professional victim culture among hard-liners that gets tiresome and ridiculous. Bringing up route names from decades ago, with no context or admission that route are OFTEN named offensively on purpose...surely you have more important matters to occupy your time. If not, try getting a fukin job.
+1
Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60

Good move on Randy's part. His decision reflects a thought I had earlier. Back in the late 70s,early 80s, when many of these routes were put up (though I don't know for certain when this was), it was a pretty small group of people, and some of the route names were something of an inside joke for a small group of people in the know. Now, however, you have not only guidebooks and the internet, you have a far more diverse group of people entering the sport, some of who are going to look at these names without any context. Why wouldn't some of these folks have the right to believe that some of these routes names were intended to be anything but insulting.

On the other hand, I do agree with Will S's observation:

Will S wrote: But I'm in the fed up with PC culture camp. Because the goalposts are consistently moved. Many are just looking for something to find offensive, to feed their victim mentality.
I agree that there are definitely people who move through life looking for conflict. On the other hand, there are probably who are not in this camp who might nevertheless be offended by the name. Why is it a bad thing to try to make those people feel like a welcome addition to the tribe?
K Swisher · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2013 · Points: 0

Didn't Randy say he was changing it back to the original name?

frank minunni · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined May 2011 · Points: 95

I'm not a fan of changing names of routes at all. Original names that contain outdated terms that are now considered racist should certainly be kept so that we can look back on history without trying to rewrite it.

And some good points by Will S

Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,812
K Swisher wrote:Didn't Randy say he was changing it back to the original name?
That was my understanding. His comment left me wondering if the original name was changed to the one of this thread as an accommodation to be a little less offensive; and then with the move back being an "I give up."
ScottJM · · Montana · Joined Dec 2015 · Points: 0
christopher adams wrote:I love it when white men think they get to decide when something is offensive and when it's not.
Hey Christopher.

I interpreted your post as one that was supportive of Owen David's position. After posting my comment, I considered that I was possibly making an incorrect assumption. I thought about rewording my observation to reflect the possibility of your statement being made from a neutral stance but ultimately left it as it is. I apologize if I misinterpreted your intentions but am not convinced that I did.
ScottJM · · Montana · Joined Dec 2015 · Points: 0
christopher adams wrote: While I understand your concerns, if you look at the data ( wholeads.us/ has a good base) it really is white men in power after you control for things like SES (a combined measure of wealth and class). Similarly, it really is uneducated/low SES white men that perpetuate and profit from racism (you can pretty much just take your pick of the pew research studies for evidence of that). The data quite simply points to skin color as the single most important component when it comes to social justice, after controlling for common factors. That's why it's the "overriding characteristic by which we should decide which group gets to establish their bona fides as victims. "
Hey Christopher.

Out of curiosity I checked out your link. Trying to present information from a group/groups with such obvious social and political agendas as somehow being scientific is ridiculous.

From the contact info at the bottom of the linked page - prandcompanydotcom and womendonorsdotorg

They seem like real unbiased scientific institutions.
ubu · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 10
christopher adams wrote: While I understand your concerns, if you look at the data ( wholeads.us/ has a good base) it really is white men in power after you control for things like SES (a combined measure of wealth and class).
I don't see how this database supports your argument. The link doesn't provide any evidence that skin color is more important than class, wealth, or religion for getting elected (which is what the wholeads.us site is all about).
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Southern California
Post a Reply to "Route name: Negro Girls"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.