Climbing and Affinity Spaces

I found this article about Brown Girls Climb interesting and informative. One piece of the history I didn’t know but should have: Jim Crow extended to National and State Parks. I can certainly relate to the unease of filling up at a gas station adorned with Confederate flags. Also, the interviews here really affirm the value of affinity spaces. I’m glad these spaces exist 

Warning:  the article is behind the Washington Post paywall, so you may or may not be able to view depending on whether you have a subscription, your viewing history, your desire and ability to evade paywalls, etc.

I just don't get these stories. It says she climbed with friends for over a year and nothing bad happened to her except that she felt nervous camping, but still she stopped climbing with those people and only climbs with brown girls.  It's weird to me how someone can share an activity for so much time with a group of people and then decide they aren't your friends because they don't look like you. People can choose to hang out with people for whatever reason they want, but I don't see this as an example of a role model.

Thanks for posting that, Kalil. I agree, it was sobering for me to realize that most of the climbing history we idolize from the 40s, 50s, and 60s was in the greater context of Jim Crow. I'm also glad that more and more affinity spaces are popping up and growing.

Hy Vong wrote:

What I've found living in Salt Lake City, being a outdoors mecca that it is, is that sometimes sharing an activity isn't enough to grow a connection beyond mere acquaintances. It recently happened to me during the pandemic where I got locked in with a group of people. Lots of outdoor play time esued. But recently beginning to wonder why, after spending so much time doing the things with these people why don't I feel close or connected to them? Sometimes time and shared hobbies isn't enough to grow a deep connection. So I can see where she's coming from.

MP will probably burn me to the stake for this, but I know as a first generation asian american women, I've noticed that connection, love, and acceptance comes more readily from other asian american women. There's something beautiful about never having to explain yourself to someone with a similar cultural / experiential background.

We don't get as mad when parents ditch their single friends for other parent friends. (Or vice versa!). Or that LBGTQ bars exist. Or emotional support men's groups exist. I think the same can be applied here.

I guess I'll take that as a compliment! But do you only climb or do hobbies with Asian women? That's where I think it gets weird. It's hard enough to find partners but then to be so exclusive for a hobby has to be difficult and awkward.

Kalil Oldham wrote:

I certainly respect your right to this opinion, but I also think you're also underselling the experience of the climber profiled in the article. As a Black woman, camping and climbing in an area rife with outward symbols of white supremacy is a safety issue, not one of mere nervousness. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of racist route names. For a Black woman, climbing (and discussing/projecting) routes called "Tar Baby" and "Runaway Slave" prompted an emotional response that other climbers in her group didn't experience. The affinity space allows people to talk about these experiences with other folks who are likely to understand them and express some empathy. It's not a slight against her white (or non-Black POC) partners, but rather a celebration of an opportunity to connect. Doesn't seem objectionable to me.

I haven't been to the New River Gorge. Are there really outward symbols of white supremacy there?

I know about the route names as that has been discussed ad nauseum here. It's good to hear they are changing. But I still don't see the reasoning behind seeing route names and then deliberately choosing not to climb with white people who did not even name the routes.

Astrid Reywrote:

I just don't get these stories. It says she climbed with friends for over a year and nothing bad happened to her except that she felt nervous camping, but still she stopped climbing with those people and only climbs with brown girls.  It's weird to me how someone can share an activity for so much time with a group of people and then decide they aren't your friends because they don't look like you. People can choose to hang out with people for whatever reason they want, but I don't see this as an example of a role model.

Here is MY story.
My wife and I were in a supermarket, chatting, and NOT using English.
A "gentleman" in front of us starting railing about immigrants who should use "real language" to talk while being  around "real Americans". Since we were still ignoring him, he got riled even more, and eventually left the counter without his groceries.

So, yes, this was in the  United States of America. 

So, Astrid, your story is not someone else's story, let it be.

Hy Vong wrote:

What I've found living in Salt Lake City, being a outdoors mecca that it is, is that sometimes sharing an activity isn't enough to grow a connection beyond mere acquaintances. It recently happened to me during the pandemic where I got locked in with a group of people. Lots of outdoor play time ensued. But recently beginning to wonder why, after spending so much time doing the things with these people why don't I feel close or connected to them? Sometimes time and shared hobbies isn't enough to grow a deep connection. So I can see where she's coming from.

I hear that! There are definitely some folks who just want to talk climbing with climbing partners. It's cool and all, but does keep the friendship from growing. But great climbing buddies and close friends don't have to be the same people. IMHE, it's not just white folks, nor all white folks, that become strictly climbing buddies. Definitely sounds like you need some more climbing/recreating friends, though. Here's hoping that works out better for ya post-rona!

Does anyone have a non-paywalled version of the article? I'm curious now what it's about, but don't have WaPo login credentials. 

I see a fair amount of outward symbols of white supremacy in a red county in WA, so I’d imagine there are a fair amount of dip shits with confederate flags running around the southern woods. Skimming the article, I don’t think it was necessarily  the outward symbols in those woods, as much as knowing the history of the place and what happened to her ancestors.

I believe she also said she primarily climbs with other POC, not exclusively, and she mentions that she was with this group primarily because of  being thrown together by the pandemic.

Regardless, she felt Comfortable enough to get good enough for a sponsorship, so while I agree that racism is a problem in the world today, the whole thing has a tinge of “boosting my IG fan base” to me.

But I’m a white guy. Roast away.

Those who tie their self worth to an Instagram account aren’t fun to climb with, doesn’t matter what color their skin is. 

Hy Vong wrote:

I think there's more nuance to relationship formation than you're acknowledging.

Here's what I am inferring the author did:

1. Hang out with a bunch of white people.
2. Found the affinity group
3. Started spending time with the affinity group
4. Maybe felt more comfortable hanging out with them / a closer connection
5. Realized that time is limited and she'd rather be spending time with people who make her feel comfortable
6. Brown people happen to make her feel more comfortable than white people for a variety of reasons. I don't know. I'm not brown. 

I think it's clear that it hasn't been difficult or awkward for her to find partners who look like her. 

Here's what I don't think the author did:

1. Checks race. IF(Race = Black) THEN BEGIN "Friendship" ELSE "Do not attempt friendship". I don't think she's intentionally excluding purely because of race. 

Of course I don't only climb or do hobbies with Asian women. Honestly my favorite people I've climbed with happen to be tall white dudes (dime a dozen, the lot of you). But if there was a group of Tiny Asian Girls Who Do Outdoors Stuff in SLC I might check that out. I might find that I really enjoy spending time with them because they pack bun thit nuong in their backpacks instead of PB&Js and celebrate peak bagging with summit boba in addition to bring the usual stuff on the table that other climbing partners do. I might find myself spending more time with them then my egg carton of tall white boys who are scattered across the country or doing other stuff. I might not. 

People don't get mad when women have box wine and cheesy Hallmark movie nights or when Alcoholics Anonymous get together. Let's extend that same acceptance to other identity groups. 

Oh shit did I just get sucked into the cesspool that is MP defending how friendships are made?   

I love when POC infer white people are all the same and they can’t figure out why they get pushback from white people on topics like these. 

Thanks for the paywall beta, Hy. I wanted to highlight this piece of good news from the article: 

The New River Alliance of Climbers, a nonprofit climbing advocacy organization, determined that 68 route names in the New were racist, sexist or intolerant. Of those, 50 have been changed after members of the group’s Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) Committee, which reviewed the names, spoke directly to the first ascensionists or guidebook authors. 

vwall wrote:

Really well said, thanks Hy. I don't see this as lumping all white people together, I see it as the opposite: acknowledging that there are a lot of factors that go into why someone feels more or less comfortable with a particular group and it's ok to seek out that comfort. 

Really? When’s the last time you used “dime a dozen” to explain variety?

B Pwrote:

Really? When’s the last time you used “dime a dozen” to explain variety?

Have you considerd changing your regular brand to new

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

Seriously you seem to be working very hard to turn this into something its not, how about accepting people relaying their experience.

Big Redwrote:

Thanks for posting that, Kalil. I agree, it was sobering for me to realize that most of the climbing history we idolize from the 40s, 50s, and 60s was in the greater context of Jim Crow. 

At the risk of again upsetting some folks, I've been stewing over this for a couple of hours, and have to say something. Yes, climbing in the "40s,, 50s, and '60s" was indeed within the "greater context of Jim Crow", but so was basically every other aspect of US life during those decades and beyond. Why single out 'climbing'? For that matter, most of the highly influential and important climbing in Europe during the '20s and '30s, was made not only within the "greater context" of first Fascism, then Nazism, but was, in fact, often strongly encouraged and directly supported by those odious regimes. And, almost all Himalayan climbing, with the possible exception of a handful of recent climbs, directly benefited from Imperialism. These are all very negative aspects of our shared past, and we must resolve to continue to do better in the present and into the future, but the climbs still were done, the adventures, the challenges, the successes and failures, the tragedies all occurred both within and independent of such 'contexts'---and the routes (well, most of them) are still there. We need not, and should not, reject or even diminish such events just because they occurred when they did---with all the 'baggage' that 'when' entailed. Sure if any climbers of the 40s, 50s, or 60s--or now, climbed to advance racial prejudice and separation, that should be called out (though their climbs still cannot be 'erased'), but the mere fact that the climbs occurred during the period of Jim Crow, and the participants potentially unintentionally benefitted in some way from such policies, does not in any way diminish those climbing efforts and achievements.

Climbing and Affinity Spaces

The last time we had a thread about this topic it was called Climb United

Did we give up on unity already?

Alan Rubinwrote:

 We need not, and should not, reject or even diminish such events just because they occurred when they did---with all the 'baggage' that 'when' entailed. 

I mostly agree with you, Al. Since we're on a climbing forum, I think we can "single out" climbing for reflection. I think it's important to keep historical context in mind when looking at any achievement or person, not because it diminishes the achievement but because it helps us learn a more complete narrative than the one presented in magazines and stoke videos. Climbing tends towards idolizing the climb/climber/era while ignoring what was going on at the time: someone watching Valley Uprising today might miss out on an opportunity to learn how segregation and Jim Crow dictated who could easily access natural spaces and instead leave with the impression that climbing has always belonged to young white men and (a few) women. It's all part of the lore of climbing we tell ourselves and others, and I'm glad that non-white, non-male climbers are shaping that narrative too.

Kalil Oldhamwrote:

I found this article about Brown Girls Climb interesting and informative. One piece of the history I didn’t know but should have: Jim Crow extended to National and State Parks. I can certainly relate to the unease of filling up at a gas station adorned with Confederate flags. Also, the interviews here really affirm the value of affinity spaces. I’m glad these spaces exist.

Actually that article did not really capture the complexity of Jim Crow and national parks. For the most part, national parks followed the same Jim Crow segregation/discrimination laws of their respective regions. So obviously national parks like Shenandoah in VA or Great Smoky Mountains in TN were just as segregated as their adjacent communities were. But Yosemite actually had several entries in the Green Book, which listed safe spots for black travelers. Even in Yosemite black visitators never topped 1% of total visitation, but still that's right in line with the overall California population demographics in the first half of the 20th century. 

Astrid Reywrote:

I haven't been to the New River Gorge. Are there really outward symbols of white supremacy there?

Trumpist and Confederate flags fly everywhere here; I consider those outward symbols of white supremacy and the people who fly them are true pieces of shit, but honestly there's no greater concentration of these flags at the NRG than there is in rural Ohio. 

Furthermore, the town of Fayetteville, the gateway community to the NRG, has long been an island of tolerance in West Virginia. We've been hosting a national LGBT+++ climbing festival here for over a decade, we pride ourselves on being welcoming to absolutely everyone, and given the super high average age of a lot of our residents and the fact that out-of-state outdoor recreationists keep moving here in ever higher numbers, I could see us eventually becoming a solidly liberal/progressive community in the next decade or so like Bend or Moab (obviously there are pluses and minuses to this).

It pisses me off that the folks who were clamouring for route name changes around here the loudest, as well as the author of this article, obviously had no familiarity with what our climbing community is all about here. We've worked really hard for the community vibe we've got here, and a lot of conservative locals have fought us every step of the way. They had a narrative that because we're located within the heart of Trumpallachia, and because WV is so obviously racist and backward as a whole, that it must have been a bunch of blatant racists who flew their rebel flags at the crag and named all the routes offensive names out of spite and hatred for others. They were named by overall liberal-minded folks who liked to make ironic, edgy route names that nodded to our state and region's ugly issues, not unlike a lot of "offensive" route names across the nation. 

Pnelsonwrote:

Actually that article did not really capture the complexity of Jim Crow's and national parks. For the most part, national parks followed the same Jim Crow segregation/discrimination laws of their respective regions. So obviously national parks like Shenandoah in VA or Great Smoky Mountains in TN were just as segregated as their adjacent communities were. But Yosemite actually had several entries in the Green Book, which listed safe spots for black travelers. Even in Yosemite black visitators never topped 1% of total visitation, but still that's right in line with the overall California population demographics in the first half of the 20th century. 

I think we also can't ignore the existence of the green book in its own right, nor its necessity. It stands as but one concrete example of very real danger in our country for people of color. The green book might not exist today, but that doesn't mean there are not still dangers and attendant social structures for safety; but not everyone gets to see them. For example, I can almost guarantee that there's an informal information exchange among women in a social circle near you (generally, not @pnelson specifically) regarding men who are dangerous, even if you know these same men and would never guess them to be toxic, abusive, or predatory. We may not be aware of these things, but they certainly affect the context mentioned above. I'd posit that climbing is only being singled out in the sense that everything is being singled out (and therefore nothing specifically is). Since this is a climber's forum, it makes sense for climbing to be discussed in that context. 

Pnelsonwrote:

It pisses me off that the folks who were clamouring for route name changes around here the loudest, as well as the author of this article, obviously had no familiarity with what our climbing community is all about here. We've worked really hard for the community vibe we've got here, and a lot of conservative locals have fought us every step of the way. They had a narrative that because we're located within the heart of Trumpallachia, and because WV is so obviously racist and backward as a whole, that it must have been a bunch of blatant racists who flew their rebel flags at the crag and named all the routes offensive names out of spite and hatred for others. They were named by overall liberal-minded folks who liked to make ironic, edgy route names that nodded to our state and region's ugly issues, not unlike a lot of "offensive" route names across the nation. 

This seems like an issue that keeps coming up on MP: "is taking issue with what someone said the same as taking issue with their character?"

Yes, racists say racist things. But it doesn't hold that all racist things are said by racists. That just seems like basic logic. That racist route names exist does not mean that the people naming them were racist. That Hy Vong called tall white men a "dime a dozen" does not mean that she is racist. The person saying/naming might want to do a little introspection to be sure. But it does not make sense for the rest of us to assume things about their motivations.

At the same time, the intention doesn't change the insult. The question of route names isn't about intentions, it's about effects. It's perfectly fair for BP (and others) to feel insulted by Hy's comment. Nothing wrong with apologies/renaming/whatever in the face of hearing that folks are insulted. 

If I step on your foot and didn't mean to, I apologize and we all move on with our lives. And that apology doesn't make me a lesser person, right?