Ethics of Revisionism in Applied Route Development

We have an ethical and moral responsibility in the naming of routes for future generations. There was a previous thread on inappropriate route names as it relates to modern socio-economical considerations and also issues relating to gender equality. It is shocking that people will chop bolts but not chop the guidebook for inappropriate names.

Seems like a troll but it ain't. Just seems like folks don't want to actually do anything about it for fear upsetting the first ascenionist. Times change. Change with the times.

Why chop when you can burn?

Yeah lets eliminate climbings colorful historic past of people who rebelled against social norms! Especially because they offend people!

Constantinople -> Istanbul (old song)

If you don't like the original name for some climb, just make up another one and start using it. Get your friends to start using it.

Lots of interesting things in the world have _multiple_ names.

The hard point is not arguing for the general principle. It's the (less fun?) work of selling the popular usage of a specific new name for a specific route or outdoor feature.

Ken

P.S. Anyway my feeling is that all the "rights" of the the route creator _expire_ after some number of years. Just like socially far more important things: patents. And my feeling is that the number of years for a fundamentally frivolous activity such as climbing is less than 10.

Why, Big Show Dean, you should give us some examples of these disgraceful route names. I myself have forgotten them.

Big Show Dean On! wrote: We have an ethical and moral responsibility in the naming of routes for future generations. There was a previous thread on inappropriate route names as it relates to modern socio-economical considerations and also issues relating to gender equality. It is shocking that people will chop bolts but not chop the guidebook for inappropriate names.

Seems like a troll but it ain't. Just seems like folks don't want to actually do anything about it for fear upsetting the first ascenionist. Times change. Change with the times.

Don't alter the past. Make a better future if it bothers you so much.

Marc801 C wrote:

Don't alter the past. Make a better future if it bothers you so much.

This.  I would only add that instead of destroying history based on whatever offense is currently in fashion, it would be preferable to contextualize the offensive material to reflect mores of the present.  It's the same idea as leaving confederate statues & monuments in place, but providing context by explaining how these monuments, which have undeniable historical importance, came from a bunch of racists assholes who wanted to make it clear that white men were running the show. The same thinking can be applied to offensive route names.  This would probably have a bigger impact on coaxing new first ascensionists toward making milder route names than stripping old names from guide books. 

When Dr. Samuel Johnson had finished his great lexicography,
the first real English dictionary, he was visited by various
delegations of people to congratulate him, including a delegation
of London’s respectable womanhood who came to his parlor in
Fleet Street and said Doctor, we congratulate you on your
decision to exclude all indecent words from your dictionary. He
said, “Ladies, I congratulate you on your persistence in looking
them up.” 
-Christopher Hitchens

A chosspile somewhere is begging to be named, "Big Show's Dean of Iniquity".  
Route names must be offensive to reflect the crag.

We have an ethical and moral responsibility in the naming of routes for future generations.

No. That is nonsense. 

ubu wrote:

This.  I would only add that instead of destroying history based on whatever offense is currently in fashion, it would be preferable to contextualize the offensive material to reflect mores of the present.  It's the same idea as leaving confederate statues & monuments in place, but providing context by explaining how these monuments, which have undeniable historical importance, came from a bunch of racists assholes who wanted to make it clear that white men were running the show. The same thinking can be applied to offensive route names.  This would probably have a bigger impact on coaxing new first ascensionists toward making milder route names than stripping old names from guide books. 

Love hearing Yankee opinions on my culture. Shows how damn ignorant and rude y'all really can be

This is the kind of Children of the Corn, George Orwell bullshit that encourages folks to stock up the bunker. 

So who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"?  What are you going to do with guide books that are already printed?  I guess we could always have a good ol' fashion book burning...

I'm not saying that anyone should name their FA "Fuck Nuts", or "Squirrel Jizz", or something like that, but they are free to do so if they want.  If you want to scrub the original names from history you are in favor of censorship.  If you want to be in favor of censorship, that's fine, but you should be aware of what you're supporting.  Basically, you are the climbing communities equivalent of the moral crusaders who tried to ban:  "To Kill a Mocking Bird", "The Great Gatsby", "The Call of the Wild", "Fahrenheit 451", "The Catcher in the Rye", "The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin", etc.

I agree with you that there are some pretty objectionable route names out there, but that route name often tells you a bit about the person that established the route, or about their struggle putting it up.  Let's be honest, it'd be pretty boring if everything were named "The East Ridge", "The West Face", "The Hand Crack", "The Overhanging Route", The Third Route From the Left Side of the Wall", or "Route #1".

Once you start scrubbing the old names, where do you stop?  At some point we're going to have to rename "The Web" because it's insensitive to those suffering from crippling arachnophobia, or "Snake Dike" because it offends lesbian serpents.  Maybe instead of trying to change history so we don't risk offending someone, we should learn from history, and be more mindful of route names moving forward. 

scott fuzz wrote: Why chop when you can burn?

Fahrenheit 451

Big Show Dean On! wrote: We have an ethical and moral responsibility in the naming of routes for future generations. There was a previous thread on inappropriate route names as it relates to modern socio-economical considerations and also issues relating to gender equality. It is shocking that people will chop bolts but not chop the guidebook for inappropriate names.

Seems like a troll but it ain't. Just seems like folks don't want to actually do anything about it for fear upsetting the first ascenionist. Times change. Change with the times.

I don't think revising route names retroactively is a good idea. Names identify routes, multiple route names already happen for various reasons, and we don't need even more confusion with multiple route names.

Times change, sure, but IMO that only means that going forward the more enlightened developers will refrain from using offensive names.

BigCountry wrote:

Love hearing Yankee opinions on my culture. Shows how damn ignorant and rude y'all really can be

Culture? History? BUWAHAHAHAHAA. Those statues were all put up in the Jim Crow era for the specific purpose of intimidation of your fellow Americans and a white washing of history.

More like Confederate Traitors aka Pigs in Shit  or Robert E. Lee should've been Hung.

There's some route names for ya'.

BigCountry wrote:

Love hearing Yankee opinions on my culture. Shows how damn ignorant and rude y'all really can be

Well, I think you may be reading my post the wrong way.  I have no problem with people celebrating their war heroes, confederate or otherwise, but are you sure you want to lay claim to a culture that slapped up a bunch of statues timed with the "separate but equal" fight at the turn of the century and the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s? 

ubu wrote:

Well, I think you may be reading my post the wrong way.  I have no problem with people celebrating their war heroes, confederate or otherwise, but are you sure you want to lay claim to a culture that slapped up a bunch of statues timed with the "separate but equal" fight at the turn of the century and the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s? 

Yeah i guess you'r not saying lets burn Monticello or anything. Yeah missread my bad.Robert E Lee should have been "hanged" maybe you mean? Jumping on banwagons there buddy? Maybe "Jefferson was a traitor" appeals to you I'm guessing

I'm offended by all all the phallic first
ascensionist-
PETER croft, warren HARDing, ron CAUK,
jim BIRDwell, John BACKHER and the mother of all appropriating...yvon chouinard who basically stole a women' first name-

Most GB authors, I have submitted names to, will reject “offensive names”.... sort of like a publisher.

So Big Dean what you’re advocating has already been going on for 40 years- at least.

Most guide book authors I know love and care for the places they catalog.

BigCountry wrote:

Yeah i guess you'r not saying lets burn Monticello or anything. Yeah missread my bad.Robert E Lee should have been "hanged" maybe you mean? Jumping on banwagons there buddy? Maybe "Jefferson was a traitor" appeals to you I'm guessing

Wut?

Ryan Swanson wrote: I'll have to set a timer to see how long before my comment is deleted, but like I've said before...

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will create emotional scars that will never heal.  

Seriously- if a route name is so upsetting to you that you have triggered micro ptsd aggressions, you should really evaluate your life's priorities.

Agree 100%