[Redacted] Area in Suck Creek Canyon

Discussion moved from area comments section.

JL

The name of this area is indisputably offensive. Change it.

Though it may be, it's not mine to change.

I propose "Camp Granada"

youtu.be/4yFTOvO0utY

Ha, classic stuff.

Maybe:

Concentration Camp(s are evil)

To clarify: This crag came to be called the "Concentration Camp" spontaneously in 1988 when someone, during an early flurry of first ascent activity, noted the high concentration of good climbing there. Giddy with a new area, someone (about a dozen climbers were there, basically the entire Chattanooga "community") commented, "This place is really concentrated."
"Yeah, it really is," we all agreed.
"It's a real concentration camp!" another added.
And the name stuck.
Context really is everything. The name, CC, was never intended to be specifically offensive to anyone; it actually was a kind of inside joke. But, of course, most on Mountain Project weren't in on the joke.
Yes, concentration camps are evil places, and, the name, CC, did become descriptive as the area developed. Routes there, and elsewhere in the canyon, could be considered "evil" in that some are objectively dangerous--loose, blocky, sandy--longish and adventurous. Some route names are also descriptive (Battle Wagon, Lust Point Horror, Bombs Away, Hate Crime, etc).Approaches and route finding are often challenging, and the gear you get is gear you place yourself.
So, it's not for everyone.
This is the origin/background of the area name. When the name stuck, the intention was not to 'exclude' anyone. Climbing, by its very nature in the 80's, excluded many; it was still a dangerous, often unwelcoming, fringe activity. We didn't' imagine then that it would become a "sport," a vehicle of mass marketing and a safe (largely) indoor pastime. But obviously it did.
Thus now the need to homogenize, comfortize and sanitize.
So, 'redact' if you want; we will still call the area by its original name.
And, face it, if sanitizing descriptive nomenclature becomes a priory, you'll have to "redact" the name 'Suck Creek' itself. I mean, to be consistent, it is vulgar and overly suggestive. Some one might be offended.
Irony aside, all are welcome to climb in Suck Creek Canyon--obviously. The area, itself, is a bit hostile, but no one is excluded. Bring a sense of adventure, and I'll show you around myself. I'll even give you a place to park.
And, if you do come, accept the challenge: climb on Suck Creek's terms, not your own.

The Suck can indeed be an evil place but loved dearly by some. I’m happy old guard took the initiative to share some history. Maybe some folks who didn’t know the names origin can look at it in a different light. Maybe not... but context is everything.

This crag is called the Concentration Camp. The name has been redacted by mp admin at the request of some armchair activist.

This area has given me countless memories and proud moments. I’m saddened that the name has been redacted, especially given the context given by the master above. Certainly, anyone that climbs here can see the concentration of solid lines.

This is not about "activism" nor about the valid history of climbing itself and the development of this wall. It is great to know how the wall came about and important to hear the thoughts at the time. This is about a name that is overtly and explicitly representative of evil! Evil domestically and abroad, presently and historically. Even more, having a route named "Mein Kampf" only increases the harmfulness of these names.

No. Context isn’t everything. I don’t care what the original intent was or was not. We live in 2020 now. Names can be changed. The rock stays the same.

If it really was about the concentration of hard routes, why isn’t it just called “Concentration Crag” or “Concentration Wall”? Flippantly naming a area of rock after that resulted in the millions of deaths is just... well, gross.

And there is also no excuse for a route named “Mein Kampf” - ever. Equating a hard climbing route to Hitler’s basis for anti-semitism and the Final Solution is beyond bad taste.

I say: change it.

"Words that cannot be said out loud."

Blashpemy!

Ridiculous snowflake puritans, redact thyselves!

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

"Words that cannot be said out loud."

Blashpemy!

People can say whatever they want, but MP, guidebook authors, etc., have ZERO obligation to perpetuate the poor decision-making of yesteryear’s route developers.

Honestly the justification is pretty weak, and Chris got it completely right. It didn't just happen to be called concentration camp, it's not a camp, it's a wall of rock, it's obviously a joke about actual concentration camps. I never understand why people attempt to justify the names by explaining that that it's "just an inside joke", like yeah we know, and it's in very bad taste.

We should ban all words and phrases that relate to bad things, right? And if there's more than one meaning, we should default to the worst meaning. It shows how sensitive and caring we are. (sarcasm). 

Changing the names will protect someone's feelings.

Also, guidebook authors have zero obligation to change names just because Mountain Project did.

People can say whatever they want, but MP, guidebook authors, etc., have ZERO obligation to perpetuate the poor decision-making of yesteryear’s route developers.

I happen to agree with you, for what its worth. Its the remedy to which I disagree. I think there should be far more restraint involved in the censorship mechanism and redacting a route should include the removal of said route from publication entirely. Yall don't get to rename other peoples' routes, basically. Either publish it or don't. 

FrankPSwrote:

We should ban all words and phrases that relate to bad things, right? And if there's more than one meaning, we should default to the worst meaning. It shows how sensitive and caring we are. (sarcasm). 

Changing the names will protect someone's feelings.

Damn you're right, on a side note, why do you care about the name staying the same? Is there a tangible reason for you not liking the name change? or perhaps, does it all just come down to feelings in the end?

God forbid we actually care about other people's feelings! To do so would literally be akin to government censorship and now I'm the one who's really oppressed.

Chris Fedorczakwrote:

People can say whatever they want, but MP, guidebook authors, etc., have ZERO obligation to perpetuate the poor decision-making of yesteryear’s route developers.

If MP and guidebook authors don’t like the names then don’t post the routes.
Im not trying to advocate for making people cringe at the crag when they hear a route name, but to give MP/guidebook authors free range to change names they deem offensive is rediculous.
Then who gets to police the police?

FrankPSwrote:

We should ban all words and phrases that relate to bad things, right? And if there's more than one meaning, we should default to the worst meaning. It shows how sensitive and caring we are. (sarcasm). 

Changing the names will protect someone's feelings.

Also, guidebook authors have zero obligation to change names just because Mountain Project did.

First, no one is banning people from saying anything. If you want to scream offensive euphemisms from the comfort of your own living room, have at it. What we are debating is the naming of a shared resource used by many. 

Ah, yes... "Concentration Camp" is sooooo ambiguous. I'm sure if we asked 100 people on the street what it meant, a significant percentage would simply say "a collection of things in a small space" and not "Nazi death camp." Riiiiiiight. 

Ask anyone who lost a relative in the Holocaust how they would feel rolling up to a route called "Mein Kampf" on a crag called "Concentration Camp" then get back to me about how they are just snowflakes and their feelings are overblown. 

And you're right, guidebook authors have zero obligation to change the name, but guidebook purchasers can choose which guidebook they buy. If I have two options, I know which direction I'm going. 

Chris Fedorczakwrote:

First, no one is banning people from saying anything. If you want to scream offensive euphemisms from the comfort of your own living room, have at it. What we are debating is the naming of a shared resource used by many. 

Ah, yes... "Concentration Camp" is sooooo ambiguous. I'm sure if we asked 100 people on the street what it meant, a significant percentage would simply say "a collection of things in a small space" and not "Nazi death camp." Riiiiiiight. 

Ask anyone who lost a relative in the Holocaust how they would feel rolling up to a route called "Mein Kampf" on a crag called "Concentration Camp" then get back to me about how they are just snowflakes and their feelings are overblown. 

And you're right, guidebook authors have zero obligation to change the name, but guidebook purchasers can choose which guidebook they buy. If I have two options, I know which direction I'm going. 

I think they should rename offensive routes like this: Gunfight aka Don't Bring a Knife to a Gunfight.  I personally think you should let people speak for themselves. We know you don't like the name(s), but you can really only speak for you and not anyone else.

And you're right, guidebook authors have zero obligation to change the name

Obligation? How about we all get the chance to edit any sentence you write here and remove or alter whatever it is we don't like, and then publish it and assign credit to YOU for the words we wrote for you (if you'd have only had the common decency to write them yourself we wouldn't have to go to such extremes, you forced our hand didn't you)? And then? To top it all off I will offer a disclaimer and say that since you submitted the route info you are liable for those edits.

“He always says that those who control the present can rewrite the past.”
― Anne Fortier, The Lost Sisterhood