Renaming Negress Wall ORG

Remember the Supreme Court decision for The Slants. 

Reappropriation of racist terms.

"Trademark law expert, Elizabeth Squires, writes:
"Simon Tam’s successful attempt to infuse meaning into a term by trademarking it was brilliant. He and other newly minted trademark holders have been unleashed to kick-start a new era of free speech and cultural reclamation, where we as market participants have a voice. Now, more than ever, what we have to say and what the market thinks matters. Society should take note from The Slants® and we should be sure to speak loud enough and proud enough for the lexicographers to hear."[45]
Studies conducted after the court case have also affirmed that The Slants' efforts in reappropriation was helpful in neutralizing disparaging words.[46] Researchers have noted:
“When a group is seen as taking control of a historically disparaging term, it can indeed neutralize the insulting content of the term...and it does so among the group that is the target of the insult, as well as among members of the majority group. Reappropriation does seem to work in the sense of defusing insults, rendering them less disparaging and harmful.”[47]"

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

Josh Gibbelwrote:

I think the grey area is larger than you may think. I know many Christians who would be offended by the idea of the use of Jesus in the name of a route. Same with Buddha.  Many people have lost loved ones and struggle with addiction. I know a lot of people who would not want their children to know the names of a lot of the more vulgar route names. If inclusiveness is the goal how much do we change things. Obviously racist names should be changed but what if Christian climbing groups start petitioning for all routes that have Jesus in the name changed. What if an AA climbing group wants routes referencing alcohol changed? I’m just curious as climbing becomes more popular how much it will have to change to be inclusive.

Speaking for the Christians, we don’t care. Racism should not be compared to these other things

This one actually makes sense. I'm on board to change it. The individual route names don't seem too offensive though. 

Dave Olsenwrote: Remember the Supreme Court decision for The Slants. 

Reappropriation of racist terms.

"Trademark law expert, Elizabeth Squires, writes:
"Simon Tam’s successful attempt to infuse meaning into a term by trademarking it was brilliant. He and other newly minted trademark holders have been unleashed to kick-start a new era of free speech and cultural reclamation, where we as market participants have a voice. Now, more than ever, what we have to say and what the market thinks matters. Society should take note from The Slants® and we should be sure to speak loud enough and proud enough for the lexicographers to hear."[45]
Studies conducted after the court case have also affirmed that The Slants' efforts in reappropriation was helpful in neutralizing disparaging words.[46] Researchers have noted:
“When a group is seen as taking control of a historically disparaging term, it can indeed neutralize the insulting content of the term...and it does so among the group that is the target of the insult, as well as among members of the majority group. Reappropriation does seem to work in the sense of defusing insults, rendering them less disparaging and harmful.”[47]"

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

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but Squires's commentary does not apply to a bunch of white climbers saying that racist route names are fine by them. 

Jon Frisbywrote:

Speaking for the Christians, we don’t care. Racism should not be compared to these other things

Thanks for speaking for 2.3 billion people. I guarantee some Christians would probably not like routes with names “Jesus on a stick” or “Jesus had it coming.” I agree the issues are different but for me the bigger issue is the issue of precedent. Again the example I like is how the government wanted apple to give them access to those terrorists cell phones. Apple refused because they knew if they did the government would use that power for anything they want. If we start changing names without consulting FA’s or someone close to them who can speak for them I just think we will see a flood of requests to change names for all sorts of reasons (legitimate and stupid). Because who is to say one groups concerns are less valid than others. It sucks but that’s the way things work. Someone needs to get ahold of someone who had a hand in developing that wall and get their blessing.  

Anna Janecekwrote: After I posted on the site a series of questions, Russ Walling shares this insight:
The wall was named after the wife of Finn Newhouse, who was very much black and did lots of exploring around the area. She died in an abandoned mine shortly before the first routes went up on this wall. Her nickname was “Negress”, given to her by her husband. So I would imagine the naming is/was some sort of tribute?

This is a good reminder that these issues are much more complex than we realize. Perhaps something should be done to make this story more widely known?

Interesting to note that in the original intent of the naming the wall to honor a person, the result of that naming year later is someone remembers that person as the wife of a man. Even the original intent could be seen as yielding the result of turning an individual into a faceless idea devoid of individual humanity. Perhaps the name missed the mark of their intent?

Fail Fallingwrote:

Interesting to note that in the original intent of the naming the wall to honor a person, the result of that naming year later is someone remembers that person as the wife of a man. Even the original intent could be seen as yielding the result of turning an individual into a faceless idea devoid of individual humanity. Perhaps the name missed the mark of their intent?

Lol what? Now this is a sexism argument? You realize you responded to a woman right? #mansplaining

David LeBaronwrote: Being able to name a route what you please is absolutely the same as freedom of speech. Wether it be offensive, derogatory or in harmony with peoples beliefs, it’s an integral part of our freedom of expression. And others are welcome to be offended or in harmony. But changing the authors words, in most cases, is deemed more offensive than the author. 

It's also within our freedom of speech to collectively agree that a long standing name of something might make members of the climbing community feel alienated and unrecognized, and that the names could be changed. I'm not for political correctness for the sake of political correctness (especially regarding obscenity), but when climbers are affected by these names on a level of identity, it's an opportunity to reflect on how the name impacts other climbers. As other folks have pointed out on this thread, first ascentionists often have seemed welcome or at least open to changing the name, so if FA is open to it, and the community feels the name alienates other climbers, I don't see the harm from a freedom of speech standpoint in changing the name. Even if the FA was opposed to changing the name, the community could still refer to it as something else. There's freedom of speech, yes, but the power is also in how the public wishes to refer to it, and at some point, these things may change regardless of what the FA or guidebook author calls it, often regardless of race or political correctness.

Indian creek should also be renamed. Many natives I have met dislike that term.  

Negress Wall? Jesus. Do you even have to ask?

Shitcan that name.

I can't believe why I even have to write this here. The DICTIONARY says and everyone knows this is VERY OFFENSIVE. When Mississippi can charge their flag to help the inclusion of all Americans. We tree hugging, climbers in California can not charge this to be less offensive and more inclusive of all people of the world?

change it. 

It's so trendy to be offended. And if you aren't offended, you're a racist, sexist, xenophobe or homophobe.

Announcing that you are offended shows that you are a virtuous person.

It's not enough just to be offended. You must let everyone know. Shout it out.

And if you don't agree it's offensive, you should be pilloried, marginalized and silenced.  The mob knows best.

If you're on the fence about it, not sure if you're offended, you're wrong. The mob will let you know.

If you are one of the "victims" of the offense, but you're not offended, you are wrong and a phony. A traitor to your race.

Frank sounds offended.

So much hand wringing from some about the possible follow-on effects to the names of other routes, in the event that this obviously racist one was changed.

So little consideration from those same folks of the follow-on effects of memorializing racist names on the well being of other actual people.

Keep your eye on the ball.

Colonel Mustardwrote: Frank sounds offended.

Frank is offended that everyone isn't cool with edgy racist names.

Josh Gateswrote: So much hand wringing from some about the possible follow-on effects to the names of other routes, in the event that this obviously racist one was changed.

So little consideration from those same folks of the follow-on effects of memorializing racist names on the well being of other actual people.

Keep your eye on the ball.

My guess is almost everyone wants the name changed. The disagreement I feel is in the process.  I prefer to reach out to FA's or someone close to them and try to get someones blessing before changing it. Others would prefer that if we feel outraged for any reason we can just email a Mountain project admin and tell them how disgusted we are with the name and it should be changed immediately to whatever we want. Some will say that this one is just common sense (and I agree) but the next situation might not be.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

So if someone says “thank you” but I interpret it as “fuck you” then they’re the ones who are wrong?

Impact OVER intent - not, intent doesn't matter. Context matters.

If I intend to throw a baseball but it impacts your head I've fucked up. If we've intended to pay homage to a black woman in the community but we've impacted that same community in a way where they don't feel welcomed because of the name, well there you go.

Intent is important, but impact more so.

Also, your example isn't exactly something that plays itself out in the real world. My example does, and is, in this very thread.

FrankPSwrote: It's so trendy to be offended. And if you aren't offended, you're a racist, sexist, xenophobe or homophobe.

Announcing that you are offended shows that you are a virtuous person.

It's not enough just to be offended. You must let everyone know. Shout it out.

And if you don't agree it's offensive, you should be pilloried, marginalized and silenced.  The mob knows best.

If you're on the fence about it, not sure if you're offended, you're wrong. The mob will let you know.

If you are one of the "victims" of the offense, but you're not offended, you are wrong and a phony. A traitor to your race.

Frank, you're focusing on a small but vocal part of the picture.  There are lots of people who are not SJWs, don't give a crap about virtue signaling, and recognize that some people take things too far, but who also understand that we the people have not done a good job over the years recognizing, much less righting, historical wrongs...and maybe, just maybe, it's ok to change a few names, remove a few statues, modify a few flags, and generally make our society a more inclusive place that isn't constantly giving the middle finger to some of our fellow Americans.

I mean come on.  Negress Wall?  Do you really want to defend that?  It's not a slippery slope.  And frankly, even if it were, maybe it's ok to let the pendulum swing bit away from center for a while if it will help make people feel more comfortable in a culture that has not done a great job of this over the years.

The word "Negress" always makes me think of the power and beauty depicted in this sculpture: