UKH

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2022/apr/24/kinder-scout-90-years-on-uks...

I do think that more ethnic diversity in the outdoors would be good, and I do think that for a BAME person joining a Ramblers Group or a Climbing Club, could be rather forbidding, if you would like to get a taste as a White person, go down your local mosque for a chat, I promise you will be made very welcome, and you will not be forced to convert, but just try it.
However I do have issues with the article. I have always thought the Trespasses, and Kinder was not the only one come from the working class roots, of the town workers wanting to access the Moorland that was in walking or train distance of their home in the Northern Industrial centres. Its also why places such as Laddow and other such venues where popular as they were accessible to the working person. Thats not changed, the Moors are still there, just put on your shoes, stick a butty in your pocket and go for a walk, cheap as chips.Its why I started, wanted a cheap way to fill a Sunday, and had no spare money.
As to Muslim Hikers and Black Girls Hike, if they want to form groups, its a free country, but I cannot help but think its sad, its just less mixing of people, all these people would be more than welcome in any Ramblers group or climbing club I have been in or am in. I really think that these groups need to make much more of an effort, but what that effort would be I really do not know. Maybe club Secretaries should write to local organisations with high proportions of BAME people and invite them.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/hill_talk/mls_needed_for_historic_event_i...

is there much to add to add ?

Groups like Muslim hikers aren’t causing less mixing of people if those people wouldn’t be joining the Ramblers otherwise anyway. I’d expect that over time the result of these groups empowering people to be out doing something they otherwise might not be will be more engagement between different communities, not less. 

Not really, thanks for the link.

10 MLs to go for a walk, crikey, makes the outdoors seem really scary, not a place I would want to go.

guess it depends on where they survey  --- the River Wharfe around Grassington and Burnsall on a sunny weekend isn't 1% white or Middle Class - thankfully

May be its only 1% that have time and money (or daftness) to be out mid week on the high fells in bad weather.

I don't have a problem with Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish hiking groups. Specifically because there is a level of choice in the matter of your faith, and people of similar faith getting together for whatever reason is fine IMO. 

In more sane times a men's only or women's only hiking club wouldn't be a problem either but there are a lot of bees and a lot of bonnets lately so I'm sure some would scream bloody murder over such things.

However having hiking groups wherein your skin colour is this defining characteristic does seem like a step backwards to me. Blacks only or whites only hiking groups don't sit well, and you can't really have one without the other, without unacceptable discrimination on some level. 

Personally I prefer the activity itself to be the only necessary uniting/common factor. I hike, you hike, let's hike together. Any club that segregates, compels, differentiates or draws attention to largely irrelevant characteristics isn't for me. The recent obsession with identity makes this all far more complicated and stark than it need be in my opinion. I miss the simple 'content of your character' ideal and hope we start heading back that way soon. 

There are safety expectations on organised events. That’s not scary or unusual. Does running scare you because races have marshalls and first aiders? Do you get scared by seeing floor-walkers at a climbing wall?

They would be torn apart (not least on here) if someone inexperienced had an accident and needed MRT if it could have been avoided by having e.g. MLs supporting the event.

They are/were simultaneously criticised on here for being both too safety conscious and not safety conscious enough. It’s almost like their safety measures for the event aren’t actually the thing people have an issue with. 

There's experiencing the outdoors, then there are outdoor events and clubs.  I can imagine issues arising with regard to the last two but can't for the life of me think of a single thing that stops anyone of any class or colour experiencing the outdoors if they wish to.

Just as a wild guess - are you white and male?

UKC forums largely white and middle class

I can. If you are unsure about footpaths and access, you may avoid wandering off onto land that you do not own, as you might get into trouble with someone.

What has that got to do with it? Are you saying that I cannot have empathy? There may well be barriers I would simply like to see them listed. There are of course travel and financial issues but these are social not racial.

What has that got to do with race?  You seem to be implying that coloured people are less likley to understand the issues.  If I may say so that's rather racist.

Papers chase headlines and sales. 

Me I enjoy the hills.  I was out on Dartmoor just yesterday and chatted with a group of Asian lads as we raced one another up Yes tor.  Several of them. Just out enjoying the moors as was I.  I lost the race by the way. Young folk do that to ya.

Walk report here if any one is interested.

https://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=43846.0

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Then I have misunderstood. I thought that the post was about racism and a subtle accusation that white, middle class men were guilty of it and somehow preventing persons of colour from going into the outdoors. I got the impression that Akbar Malik thought that as well.

I’m not the OP but I think you have misunderstood, yes, on multiple levels. Raising the topic of systemic societal issues/inequalities isn’t an attack on you.

Whether or not you agree with him on the specific route to achieve it, Steve stated an desire for a more inclusive and cohesive society. Honestly, I think it’s a shame that you (and many others) see that as a personal attack on yourself. 

I never thought it was but as a white middle class male and as such the target of the implied accusation of racism I feel a duty to express an alternative opinion, on behalf of white middle class males, which happens to be in line with that of Akbar Malik.

Instead of getting into a slanging match perhaps someone would be kind enough to list me the barriers mentioned. I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong.  That's what debate is about.

Where was this accusation of racism? 

There have been numerous articles on here and elsewhere written by people able to offer personal perspectives.

That sounds like a cop out. Why are you dodging a simple request?  Look on it as your opportunity to enlighten me.

If you are wanting to understand the barriers you could do a lot worse than reading some stuff by Reni Eddo-Lodge:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-w...

I recently listened to her book by the same title on Audible and found that it definitely challenged some of my previous thoughts about race, the parallels between racism, sexism and ableism were all very striking. I felt genuinely uncomfortable at points listening to it, and was confronted with the fact that I had previously held a variety of racist attitudes, not using racist slurs (which were very commonly used by my mother's partner) but ignoring the impact that race has in British society.

It's not an outright accusation but it is implied.

Honestly? Mostly because these threads rarely feel productive at the best of times, and your opening stance of name calling and accusations doesn’t give me any reason to think you are actually interested in a good faith discussion.

Where?

It was interpreted that way by the poster most  likely to have first-hand experience of racism so it seems reasonable.  Regardless The OP had a strong sociology, hand-wringing, we-are-all- terrible, flavour to it, which is pretty irritating. 

Or perhaps it was inferred by the reader.

Sociology?

A sociologists might be interested in why you find it "irritating".  They'd probably tell you it something to do with power, and people feeling theirs is threatened.

I'm sure they would.... It gets  very tedious.

Could they interest themselves in trying to find out why the demographic disparity exists, getting to the root causes, so we can do something about it? (If something needs to be done, that is...) That might be helpful to everyone.

Have you actually read or studied any sociology? 

It seemed a pretty random word to throw in there. BTW, I read the OP very differently from what you are seem to be suggesting - rather the statement of it being "sad" to divide people further in walking or climbing groups, was a good example of the naïve supposed "colour blindness" that Eddo-Lodge talks about in the article Spenser linked above. 

That is a huge amount of what sociology is.

Opinions differ to some degree on that to some degree. Of course loads of sociologists are heavily involved in promoting policies, but a bit like you need climate scientists to explain how and why the climate is changing, they might not be the best people to come up with the policies on specific issues of climate protection.

I have tried to engage with some. I found it.to be

Anecdote

Anecdote 

Anecdote 

Conclusion in line with author's political opinion. 

Which was disappointing. Also a lot.of handwringing about trivialities and almost nothing on  big issues.

I know. I'm asking them to get on with it, and put us all out of our misery.

What were you reading? Classic ethnographic studies will of course be "anecdote", but how are we going to have any idea of what, say, prison guards in a US private prison say and think; or how young African-American men in an American city (I think it was D.C.) become progressively more embroiled in the "criminal justice system"; if some one doesn't go and listen to what those prison guards, or young Black men, are saying and watching what they are doing.

There's plenty of 'big data' and number crunching sociology going on as well if that's your thing. And there's a place for both. I guess it's relatively straight forward to show that family income/socio-economic class has a strong correlation with how well kids do in school, but to try and understand why this is needs people to go into schools and observe, or interview students and their families, or question teachers etc etc. which again is often anecdotal. 

 (If something needs to be done, that is.)

Crux of the matter.

If non white people want to get out and enjoy the hills, good luck to them and give them as much support as possible.

But if they don't want to enjoy the hills in the same way as most UKC ers do,  just accept the fact that they're not interested , instead of assuming that there must be  "barriers" preventing them from enjoying the outdoors.

"There's experiencing the outdoors, then there are outdoor events and clubs.  I can imagine issues arising with regard to the last two but can't for the life of me think of a single thing that stops anyone of any class or colour experiencing the outdoors if they wish to."

That was my opening stance which provoked a sarcastic response of "let me guess - are you middle class and white" rather than presenting a list of those barriers which would have been more helpful. This together with the title of the post "National Parks Largely white and middle class." suggests to me that infering that racism was in play here seems perfectly reasonable.

I did not intend to name call but rather point out, (apparently very clumsily)that some views, which at face value seem to be supportive of ethnic minorities, can be perceived as racist.  As Akbar also pointed out. Apologies if this came across as name calling, it was not my intention.

With regard to a good faith discussion that is exactly what I would like but in the absence of any reasons why ethnic minorities are prevented from accessing the outdoors there's not much to discuss. 

In reply to nathan79:

The countryside in general tends to be white and middle class and the predominantly white middle class organisation I work for has been ineffectually agonising over fo for some time now

However, quite a bit of useful  data can be found in the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (MENE now the People and Nature Survey)  https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-na...

BAME figures  for visiting the 'natural environment' are consistently  lower than other groups but that is overall rather than looking a t specific outdoor spaces such as parks for example. 

Yeah, I'm not calling anyone a horrible racist or anything but we seem to have this sort of conversation every time we talk about Black Girls Hike or Muslim Hikers or the Pinnacle Club or the Women's Trad Festival or Not So Trad or whatever and it feels like some number of people have decided what their opinion is - that we don't need this sort of thing and it would be much better if we all just went climbing together - and they aren't planning to change that opinion and they aren't really interested in listening to the people who are actually involved in these sorts of things explaining why it's not that simple and why they think they're valuable.

I think that is widely accepted. The real issue is why that is, and whether that situation 'needs to be changed'.

That's where Toby's sociologists should be beavering away with carefully designed (not leading) questionnaires and analysis, not simple bean counters.

I remember chatting to an ex colleague who is Nigerian and moved to the UK as a teenager. I asked him why very few black people participate in activities like skiing and climbing etc. The reason he gave was that in Nigeria (I guess the same may be true for 95% of sub-Saharan countries), doing an activity that could result in injury could either mean not getting any medical treatment or bankrupting your whole family in the process.

So taking any unnecessary risks is seen as being reckless and selfish and is greatly discouraged.

In reply to Thread:

I find it quite funny that while on one hand people seem to want to encourage more to enjoy the outdoors, but there's also no shortage of people moaning about how crags are too busy, getting damaged, litter, dog mess, people mess, stone stacking, playing music, selfies, graffiti, keeping areas secret/off the map/keeping punters and indoor types out etc etc. 

Are you all certain you want more people enjoying the outdoors with you? Sometimes you don't act like it...

The Defra  Landscapes review has stated the government aims to encourage more participation in the outdoors and barriers undoubtedly exist  - perhaps most notably around perceptions of the countryside and the reception that might be received. 

https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/August-2021_Access-to-na...

https://www.openspace.eca.ed.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Black-and-Min...

Those are valid "barriers" that need to be addressed and I do have some sympathy. I recall visiting North Wales in the late 50' and 60's, even into the 70's and being faced with rudeness and at times downright hostility if you were not Welsh. People would be in a  shop and talking English but as soon as you walked in they would change to Welsh as an example. It never stopped us visiting but I suppose it's inevitable that minorities will always feel this way to some extent. I hadn't really thought of things like this as being a barrier to access but I suppose they are if you are not hard nosed enough to ignore it.  Which we did.

Not sure how you knew what language they were talking before you entered the shop? Even if they did swap from English to Welsh then so what, people in Wales talking Welsh, how extraordinary!

Also bilingual Welsh people tend to swap and change English and Welsh on the go, mid-sentence when having a chat. I've lived in Wales all my life, don't really speak any Welsh. But if I'm out with some bilingual friends they will fade in and out of Welsh/English

Interesting that that attitude doesn't extend to health & safety at work or in their lives in general in Nigeria!

If you are trying to claim that there was not a strong anti-English sentiment prevalent in those days you really are deluding yourself. You are being obtuse, you knew what I meant.  They would be speaking English then revert to Welsh as we got closer. I'm not condemning it, simply stating fact.

Sorry being picky here, but as someone who is English, but lived in Wales from the age of 1 to 18, I can assure you this isn't happening and is English paranoia.

Yes there is an intolerance by some Welsh people towards the English. I've been on the blunt end of that one a few times.

But as others have said, the Welsh switch languages continuously.

Also, they would have no idea that you don't speak Welsh. You speaking English in an English accident does not mean you don't also speak Welsh, so they are not going to talk about you in a language you might be able to speak.

Not me. Hell is other people, regardless of race, religion or class. The NP can **** right off encouraging people to visit.

Yours misanthropically

Ridge

Come on, now . The chances of someone speaking with  a recognisably English accent, either regional or RP, actually being able to speak and understand Welsh are very very slim. Unless they were speaking English with a Welsh accent.

Let's do another theoretical survey - Bhangra dance class participants are largely Asian and women (I don't know if this is the case, I'm just making an assumption don't shoot me).  Is that a problem? No. Then why is it a problem for people in NPs to be white and middle class? As Akbar has said, there isn't a culture of outdoor stuff amongst the 'non-white&middle class' community.  Historically, black/asian migrants came to work in lower-paid industries in cities, so along with the cultural reasons Akbar's stated they didn't have the time or money to go into the NPs.  In many respects those migrant communities kept themselves to themselves. When I'd visit my Grandparents in Bradford in the 80's the Pakistani community appeared to be hardly integrated - couples would both be Pakistani. Kids hanging out on street corners would be all Pakistani, or all white.  The parents would all be working in their 'traditional industries'.  When I went about 5 years ago there was far more integration in all respects.  I would expect to see the same increase in going to TGO amongst those non-white communities. What would be interesting would be to see what things are like in their home or other countries - In India / Ethiopia, is going out in the 'great outdoors' a thing?  They both have mountains.  If it is, then why isn't it for those people in the UK?

That's a little naive.  One of my friends spoke Welsh and lived locally in Llanberis. He would often translate and tell us they were saying something not very welcoming about the bloody English tourists.

I have a Northern accent and I speak Welsh. My accent was driven by my parents and I learnt Welsh in school.

I wouldn't doubt this at all. Tourists in places like Betws in peak season must be an absolute nightmare for locals. What I don't believe is the idea of Welsh people switching languages when an English person walks into a shop.

My experience is the opposite, they will be normally be speaking predominantly Welsh to each other. If an English only speaking  tourist entered a pub/shop they will either ignore them and carry on in Welsh. They might switch to English to make someone feel welcome/exchange pleasantries. The odd idiot might want to upset, annoy or intimidate someone, but they would do this in English, why do it in a language the intended victim doesn't understand?

I've heard this "Oh they all speak Welsh as soon as you're in earshot," thing for years, exclusively from people who really just want something to whinge about. It's also said, admittedly to a much lesser extent, about Gaelic speakers in the Hebrides as well.

FWIW, I've worked with a few contractors from North Wales and they all spoke Welsh until I was in earshot whereupon they spoke English, even though I had nothing to do with their conversation and my role is generally unwelcome with them. I've never had any issues when I visited Wales either, admittedly a long time ago.

I've no doubt it goes on, but I don't believe for a second that it's typical.

I'm reminded of this:  youtube.com/watch?v=XkCBhKs4faI&

I don't doubt any of what you say, but I still think that people with English accents who are also fluent in Welsh are a rarity.

If the switch thing was a reality I wouldn't blame them at all. If Yorkshire people were able to drop into an unintelligible dialect to keep offcomers in the dark they'd do it at every opportunity. They try their damnedest even now.

Basically it's only a bit like lowering your voice to exclude others from your business.

If you think  being treated a bit rudely in a shop is harsh treatment at the hands of the Welsh, wait till they stone you off a crag in a hail of anti English abuse.

I do not lie and object strongly to being accused of doing so. Please bear in mind I was talking about the 50's and 60's.  Things have moved on signifcantly since then so if you were not around then how can you possibly know or comment?  An apology would be nice

Not common I agree, but with English parents moving to Wales to work and Welsh being compulsory in schools I'd say its becoming more so. You also need to factor in that kids who become bilingual often have the accent of the language they are speaking at the time. I don't think you can tell my nieces are Welsh when they are speaking English. Certainly nobody in England can tell that Italian is their cousins first language when she is over here on holiday. 

My friend was from Sheffield but had lived in Llanberis for many years.  He learnt some Welsh in order to give support to his son who was at school there. He was by no means fluent but knew enough to get the gist of a conversation.

I suppose that he was English and could understand some Welsh was thought to be rare/unusual sort of highlights the problems MFL teachers face in the UK. If someone walked into a cafe in the Sudtirol speaking Italian, with and Italian accent, the staff would probably respond to them in Italian. However everyone would assume that they more than likely  spoke German fluently as well. (or visa versa) 

I think you'd have to do a bit of re-writing of history to try to say there was no ill-feeling towards the English in some parts of Wales. Not universally obviously. But

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/nostalgia/welsh-history-month-1980-...

The Not the Nine O'Clock News 'Come home to a real fire, buy a cottage in Wales' skit wasn't without foundation.

I'd guess that its much less rare for English incomers to speak a little Welsh now than it used to be. I'm English and lived in mid Wales until very recently, I've picked up a little bit and I know quite a few others who are either fluent or getting there. Its not just parents with kids in school either.

We seem to have wandered a little from the thread title. But do carry on, I for one am enjoying the thread more reading some of the later posts.  Just no one come down to Cornwall. Or we will all have to all learn Cornish and chat mischievously about you.

Also in reply to other disbelievers, I experienced this several times in the early sixties in North Wales, mainly in out of the way village pubs. This sometimes comes up in discussions with mates today.

My partner also experienced this in the nineties when on a University  trip to the Ffestiniog area when English was switched to Welsh with laughing and looks that that became unfriendly enough for the group to leave. These are not anecdotal experiences.

They are anecdotal experiences and they're also from 60 and 30 years ago.

I never called you a liar. I said you were being paranoid.

You were there back then I take it? What was your experience?

I doubt very much that you were there so you are neither qualified nor competent to comment on it in such a dismissive manner.

I remember going in to Woolworths in Caernavon with my Mum in the late 60s while on holiday & the staff switching to Welsh. We swapped to Spanish (Mum's first language) & they quickly went back to English. But in years of visiting Wales (Dad was Welsh, still have family there) its the only time I can remember it happening.

Maybe we could agree that the hostility was very real in the seventies ( so your feeling of persecution  then was quite justified) but things have changed for the better happily  and there really is a welcome in the hillsides?

Not according to the Financial Times in particular their source "Megan"

https://nation.cymru/news/financial-times-removes-anti-welsh-language-comme...

Only anecdotal but his wife's experience is similar to mine

https://whywelsh.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/welsh-speakers-are-unwelcoming/

In reply to Akbar Malik:

You make a good point about living in Huddersfield and this applies to most northern settings. Anyone living there can see the hills, often in a National Park or AONB, from their front door and, if they so choose, can get foot-on-fell after an hour's walking; quicker by bus. 

All schools should spend a lot more time getting the kids to be aware of local possibilities in the outdoors. Then they'll have more choices.

I wasn't there in the 50's and 60's. But your story isn't unique.  It's really common for English people to believe that the Welsh are switching language "all because I entered the room". Many English people still say it happens today.

Whilst attitudes may have changed in Wales (not convinced all that much, Welsh Nash', i,e, Nationalist Welsh, is still strong with some in Wales [don't want to start another argument here, plenty of decent Welsh Nash people that are simply proud of being Welsh and want to maintain their language and culture, but sadly, a lot of scummy people also call themselves Welsh Nash, or at least they did a few decades ago]) but being able to speak the language I could hear that the switching happened before and after others (likely English people) walked in and what they were saying had nothing to do with other people in the room.

And it's not like I witnessed this a handful of times. It was every day. I even worked for a few years in a local food shop so heard all the gossip and generally knew what half the town was saying.

Your accusations boil down to they might have switched language because they might be saying something about you.  All this from what I assume are short term visits when you don't speak the language. How can you know?

The truth is you can't and my perspective is going to be a more accurate reflection, despite the decade difference.

If we can find a English person who speaks Welsh and lived there in the 50's and 60's I'll defer to their superior understanding.

Bottom line, the Welsh people that hate the English (Welsh Nash' [see note above]) were never speaking English to start with so you don't suspect them. It's the ordinary decent people that switch language that you are accusing of hating you.

Changing language is common for anyone who  is bilingual or close, my Mum used to swap between Spanish & English all the time if speaking with her sisters, often mid sentence. I do the same with French & English with some friends and used to do the same at work as more or less everyone in the office was at least bilingual (French & English). I had an Italian collegue who used to swap around between Italian, French, German & English depending on who he was talking to - interpreters hated him.

If you were not there it would be wiser and better mannered to question rather than contradict and insult.

What the hell has it got to do with the English what languages people in other countries speak?

Quite right, nothing at all.

It's sounding like you had one or a few unpleasant experiences 50 years ago and are extrapolating that to the entire Welsh nation. it also smells a little to me of "I'm English and I'm oppressed." I suspect the former is why you are getting such robust responses.

There have been a couple of posters in the past who've clearly had issues in visits to Scotland and decided to tar us all as English haters. 

It does go on, whether more or less now I don't know. But it isn't remotely typical here and I don't believe it's typical in Wales. I should add that this is based on talking to a lot of English people rather than my own perspective as a native.

I've been subjected to negative behaviour because of my accent when working in England, (from the cold shoulder to "f*ckin' sweaty sock/porridge wog" behind my back). Much more prevalent outside London and post 2016 though. I've also worked with a lot of English people who seem to think that making bigoted comments about the Welsh and the Irish to me will somehow get my approval. But again, it isn't typical.

So we're not talking about whole nations of people, we're only talking about arseholes.

Where did I extrapolate?  Show me the evidence and I will apologise as that was not my intent. If anyone thought I was referring to the Welsh in general they really should take some reading lessons.

To add some context I'm not simply talking about changing language mid conversation.  This was accompanied by brusqueness, sneers and a generally unfriendly demeanor and at times outright insults.

You used a half-century old anecdote to illustrate a point about why minorities might find the culture of the great outdoors hostile to them. The implication is as clear as day and if you can’t see that I give up. 

This whole discussion is made extremely difficult and tedious by a few who assume they can speak for all or are desperate to scream “Racist!” at every opportunity.

Second paragraph is not specifically aimed at you.

Perhaps it wasn't your intention to imply it was widespread and common, but again using your own words

I once asked in a pub, "Do you mind if I try a bit of Welsh?" 

"Go for it. "

"Dw i'n hoffi cwrw."

"Da iawn!", and a big smile. 

I didn't want to spoil it, so I stopped there. But it enhanced the experience of doing Cadair Idris. But I still had to pay for my beer. 

Well, after a quick Goggle translate.  I would have to agree.  Mae pob diwrnod yn ddiwrnod ysgol

The bastards. It would be because you're English.

I walked into a pub in Tremadog back then to join the rest of my club who'd arrived earlier. They were having to wait ages to get served. I happened to be wearing a t-shirt bearing the motif of the Welsh Scout Jamboree, and when I went to the bar I was served immediately. However the second time I went to the bar I also had to wait ages.

Now the locals in the bar were talking 100% in English at first, but changed full on to Welsh whenever we went to the bar. There wasn't a massive number in that warranted such a wait, but just the barman (or landlord) being an ass. Oh, and I can tell the difference between English and Welsh.

Sorry Dewi - the barman/landlord and his bunch of regulars in question were, not to put too fine a point on it - RACISTS.

And I'd also like to point out that - 

"I think you'd have to do a bit of re-writing of history to try to say there was no ill-feeling towards the Welsh in some parts of England. Not universally obviously. But"

What went on around the borders affected both sides - this unfortunately applies to any and all borders.

Or he just didn't pay attention to who arrived first. Happens all the time. You probably aren't center of his world.

How would you know this? You can't hear everyone in a pub. And why would a bunch of Welsh people in Tremadog choose to speak English in unison? Are you sure it wasn't just a group close to you speaking English? Depending on the topic at the time, English might be easier. Or maybe there were a bunch of English mates mixed in. My Welsh mates spoke Welsh to each-other, I listed, but they always spoke English to me, even when part of the same group.

Did you walk in waving an English flag? How exactly did you announce yourself? I suppose the Welsh probably have nothing better to do than listen out for English people so they can commit the most heinous crime of switching languages. Ha, that teaches you "saes". Dear lord?!?

Chances are, they didn't even notice you were there. If they did, they probably didn't care. If there were any English haters in that pub they would either keep it quiet or you'd know about it, I mean really know about it.

I have a slightly unusual perspective in that I am absolutely a middle class, middle aged white guy climber, as per UKC norm, but I’ve been with my South Asian partner for nearly two decades and so have become a very accepted part of a brown family. I eat their food, speak their language (not very well), go to the temple, have good friends amongst the family “back home” as well as here. So I’m an insider/outsider. Added to that I’m also a social scientist (economist) so have read plenty of the more quantitative papers on U.K. society that one poster above thinks are more worthy than ethnographic ones (he is wrong, btw). 

Some thoughts on the thread:

Language switching is absolutely a thing with bilingual people! This happens literally every day in my home to an extent that some monolingual Brits probably don’t appreciate. You can’t tell by someone’s accent what other languages they speak: I know many bilingual people who have totally typical English accents. Conversely I have relatives with quite strong subcontinental accents but I am told that English is their better tongue. If my family are out in the countryside and chatting in their language then I can assure you they are almost certainly not doing it to talk about people behind their back. They simply… like talking that way sometimes. 
 

Ethnic minorities in the U.K. are super heterogeneous, by country of origin, location in the U.K., religion, education, class, etc. Some people came here to work as doctors, some as mill workers. The experience of growing up in multicultural London is going to be very different to growing up in bi-cultural Keighley. Loads of Asian 60-something blokes have a “doing a runner from skinheads” story that their sons don’t have. There’s massive variety in things like second language speaking and religion even within one family, never mind between communities. (Every liberal who curses their Brexity dad must surely know that.) So it is very hard to generalise about people’s experiences, especially around something like visiting a national park or taking up outdoor sports, which plenty of white people eschew, and which is impacted by class, as well as race (both independently and through the class effect of racial prejudice). 

Nevertheless, it’s clear that for some ethnic minority Brits, there are barriers to access. We know this because… they tell us! Britain’s history of contact with non-Europeans should tell us that “finding an interlocutor who tells me what I like to hear” and assuming that’s the job done has a deep historical precedent and can clearly be a comfortable position. If you really want to know what those barriers are then many people who actually face them have written about it at length… but it is perhaps worth pointing out that shitty attitudes and aggressive stares at non-white people are still a thing in parts of rural Britain (Devon, I’m looking at you here). And the last time I heard a racist joke? Oh yes, that will have been in a climbing club hut. 

Here's a slightly odd anecdote from me, an English, white middle class, middle aged bloke. I once remonstrated with a driver of a really inconsiderate car parked across a gate. He too was a white, middle class, middle aged English bloke. He told me to f*** off back to where I came from and leave it for the locals. This was maybe 30 miles from "where I came from".

I have to say on one level it was hilarious. And yes, I laughed at him ( didn't improve his mood) but on another, just for a second, I was livid. I can't imagine how shit it must be if that is your day-day experience

I'm puzzled as to why white and middle class tend to get conflated in discussions such as this. Much of the hill stuff I do is on the Ochils, a couple of times a week, year after year. There's no doubt at all that in terms of the distribution of people met up there it's massively white, probably at least 95% (which is partly because the Ochils are in Scotland, which is itself massively white). But as to the proportion that is middle class (whatever that is), I'm not sure. If forced to try and put a figure on it, insofar as one can tell from passing encounters and brief hellos/chats, I'd say that around 50% could well be working class (whatever that is) and thus qualify as what I've found myself referring to over the years (with no disrespect intended) as "punters".

It depends how you define "middle class".  The OECD bases it on income, and on this basis around 60% of the population is middle class.  Others base it on occupation and status, and only 42% identify themselves as middle class.  However it's complicated.  People in the UK are more likely than those in other countries to identify themselves as working class, even when living middle class lifestyles, so self-identification may not be reliable.  Social categories ABC1s became the majority of the population in 2000 and the gap has been increasing since then.  

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/07/01/whither-the-middle-class/#:~:te...).

Whilst it would probably be wrong to say that those visiting the national parks are a true cross-section of society, it is not entirely surprising that they are largely white and largely middle class.

Yes, which is part of why I'm puzzled, I suppose, given that these definitions seem far less clear than back in say the 1960s and 70s when I was growing up. In terms of myself, I've no real idea what I am: my father was a railwayman, my mother a railwayman's wife (!) who brought up three kids in the classic housewife style. My two older sisters went on to have proper professional careers (social work and medicine), whereas I don't have a degree and I've had no formal career, just lots of bits of fairly short-term work and dead ends. I think I was brought up as working class, but it didn't seem like that as we were "aspirational", and on the basis of what's happened subsequently I suppose I am still more working class than whatever my sisters have become. But I don't know - I've always regarded myself as just me, and I suspect a lot of people see things in those kinds of terms.

As to people who actually go on the Ochils, neighbours and friends etc, it's a mixture - various medics and academics, but also a retired plumber and a retired railwayman, neither of whom seem at all middle class to me and who probably wouldn't take kindly to being referred to as such. But it's the way that "white and middle class" gets used as a sort of compound phrase that gets me - at risk of re-introducing Wales to the discussion, it's a bit like how folk casually talk about Snowdon as "the highest mountain in England and Wales"!

Anyway, must dash - I'm heading out shortly for my first chess match against another team (Dunfermline) in more than two years, as things gradually get going again post-Covid. And chess in Scotland (and, I think, the UK generally) is a proper mixture across the class structure, and undoubtedly much more non-white than hillgoing in all its forms (although with not many women/girls, which is another debate...).

You have to watch out for dodgy public school educated types up there sometimes - and not just those who preempted the recent stushie by hammering nails into Dollar Quarry to secure their washing line ropes.

A great pleasure of my early hill days was meeting the survivors of the 1930s  scene - even characters from Always a Little Further.  Stories from days when "Working Class" was obvious - you did not get weekends or the means to easily get to the hill.

Nothing stops black people from going into the countryside, that isn't the point of these new BAME outdoors groups, what they want is to go into the countryside with black people.  

And yet "these new BAME  outdoors groups"  do speak about "barriers" quite a lot.

Welcome to UKC , by the way.

A lot of these "barriers" appear to be based on perceptions.  That's not to say that they are not preventing access but to me a "barrier" is something that is purposefully put in place by others to prevent something. Perhaps the disagreement perpetuated on this forum is simply a matter of language.

White women would meet obstacles with a walking club called Black Girls Hike, and Muslim Hikers. It's illegal to run a club or association with a formal membership of more than 25 members which is racially exclusive.

Oh those silly ethnic girls who can’t use the English language properly! 

That's not what I meant but is a good example of how easy it is to get at cross purposes . I was referring to the language in the thread and the people contributing. Perhaps I could have been clearer

But the language of the thread reflects the same language that the people affected/trying to change things use…
 

I’ve seen before on UKC the need for many posters to be part of the solution. “But what can I do?” seems to be a common question or indeed assumption from many posters in these kinds of discussions. However what many of us can actually do - such as questioning our assumptions about what other people may experience - seems to be the hardest to put into practice.

You might be right regarding the technicalities of racially exclusive clubs but there's no reason in the world that a white woman can't join a muslim hiker group, is there? Assuming that she has adopted the faith, of course.

The 'barriers' experienced or perceived by members of the groups you mention may well be mostly unintentional, and some are based on worries due to unfamiliarity, or unknowns, rather than racism or hostility, but that doesn't make them any less real.

Last year a couple of us from the Pinnacle Club spent the evening with a group of Muslim women who were on an outdoor activity weekend in the Lakes organised by Wanderlust Women (a muslim women's hiking and adventure group).

We were interested to find out why they had signed up for an outdoor weekend with this all-Muslim women's group, as opposed to, say, a BMC Women's Ready to Rock course. The reasons they mentioned included ... being confident they could eat the food provided, knowing that time to pray would be factored in, not being the only one struggling to fit a helmet over a headscarf, not feeling like they stand out as the only brown face, worrying they'd be stared at walking in the countryside (it turns out they had been, but out of interest not hostility and they were OK about it as they were among friends ... ). 

You might think these barriers aren't real, but how many of us would think about any of these issues on a climbing weekend away? Not out of meanness, but they're just not things we're used to considering. Add them up and they are enough to be discouraging.

This is just one anecdote I know. But it illustrates the role of 'affinity groups' (a term I've recently come across) in providing an environment where some (not all) people from underrepresented groups feel more comfortable and more supported to explore new and challenging activities.

You might not say that if you were a bloke and white who'd really like to get into Bhangra (as it looks cool and seems to combine formalism with improvisation in an interesting way), but were worried that you'd not fit in, or would be suspected of just being there to ogle the women, and - anyway - don't know any other blokes who have an interest in Bhangra.  Then you might be encouraged by a vocally inclusive or even men-only class as an introduction to the technique and forms.  And once you had those, you might well feel happier about joining a mainstream class as you'd know that you can fit in, do understand some of the habits and terminology of the group, and can short-circuit any whispering about your motives by being able to show that what you're here for is the dancing.

In that case, the specific-membership group could lead to broader inclusion in the more general group (or, at least, to one person getting some dancing in).  And I think that can apply to specific-membership climbing groups too.

Nadden ddu 

I have no argument with that but I think the use of the word "barriers" used in the context of race is a little emotive and may have led to some of the misunderstandings displayed in this thread.  "Barrier" suggests something purposefully put in place to prevent or disuade.  In the context of the OP, specifically access to ethinic minorities. This is what I meant when I said that I could not see any "barriers".

If there were actual "barriers" in this sense they would of course be highly objectionable but also easier to condemn and act on.  Perceptions and the feelings of exclusion of any minority group are harder to deal with but I don't see them as something that prevents participation with any form of  malicious intent.

I see what you did there... 

But if you go to a Bhangra dance class in South London and they all switch to speaking Welsh as soon as you walk in, that's when you know people really just don't want to talk to you...

You might want to check a dictionary.

Sorry if this isn't the case but you seem to be splitting hairs and dissembling to avoid accepting the overwhelming evidence that some members of minority groups perceive barriers. Why does there need to be malicious intent for this to be a problem?

I would just assume they were doing their best to overcome the language barrier, even though it only existed in my mind.

I have accepted that some minorities perceive barriers and explicitly stated so. You may call it splitting hairs I call it discussing. I'm simply questioning the use of the word "barriers" in the context of the thread. In discussions of this type there is an underlying tone of racism being at play i.e. malicious intent. I explained myself extensively with regard to my thoughts with the meaning of barriers and my issue with it so telling me to check a dictionary is simply proof that you have either not read or not understood my comments. Others have expressed similar views to mine so I am not alone.

It doesn't really matter to the individuals if the barrier is percieved or real, it still prevents them from participating and people arguing against tools which enable them to participate in spite of percieved barriers only serves to reinforce those barriers.

Did I argue that?  Please provide evidence. I am fully in support of encouraging people of all persuasions to participate in outdoor activities.  Always have been, always will so could you please explain why you have this incorrect perception of my attitudes.

In reply to Akbar Malik:

Well goodbye. I thought from the start you'd be too much of a thorn in the UKC side

You didn't see the Covid-related post (with a strikingly familiar writing style) in the 'Elon Musk' thread before it got deleted then?  The reason that Akbar Malik is banned now is that he turned out to be yet another Romthebear sockpuppet account.

What exactly are you accusing the UKC staff of here? Go on, be brave. 

Akbar didn’t say anything on this thread that hadn’t already been said, so are you seriously accusing them of banning someone for saying they are Muslim? If so, it says a lot about you that you are still happy to be here supporting the organisation. 

What does a "Romthebear sockpuppet account" mean? Apologies, lacking a bit of background info to understand.

No, he looked at me, saw me, and turned back to continue his conversation.

They were all at the bar, and within 15 feet of me - it's a small bar !

The thought had crossed my mind...

That's why I suggested that you check a dictionary - the word barrier doesn't have to suggest intent. As a side note, the first definition on thefreedictionary.com appropriately gives a mountain range as its first example.

I have a personal bugbear about arguments like these being reduced to semantics - it just looks like a way of avoiding the underlying issues. Incidentally, your definition of racism appears to be quite different to mine as well - we all have unconscious biases.

The reason we have banned the account in question is that they were spreading misinformation on another thread and were almost certainly not who they said they were. Their IP address is similar to other fake accounts set up recently.

Nick

Thank you for the patronising advice but as you seem unwilling or unable to achnowledge what I actually said there is no point continuing the conversation. 

That's probably so but it's a bit hard to check now. 

Deleting his comments from the Musk thread is one thing but removing them from this debate is hard to justify.

Call him a bot or whatever, I seem to recall that support for one of his comments went into three figures.

It's a bit easier to justify when his entire post was a lived experience of someone who probably didn't exist.

I'll repeat my question: what is your accusation? Why did you think "from the start" that UKC wouldn't tolerate their presence? 

I'm wary of UKCs policy of not discussing banned users, but if I was you I wouldn't be so proud of the amount of support someone got for seemingly using lies and impersonation to discount minority voices. I'd think a bit harder on that if I was you.

I'm never quite sure what to make of comments made along the lines of the thread title. It seems almost to suggest that "underrepresentation" of such and such a group is, somehow, the fault of those who are not "underrepresented".

I thought from the start that UKC  in general ( I hate references to hives and such) wouldn't be too happy with Akbar's first post.  Not specifically UKC management.

The likes actually showed I was wrong up to a point.

It's not a case of being proud of the amount of support given, just acknowledging the fact that the support did exist, even if it was founded on a falsehood.

So if a genuine poster voiced the same opinions, the support would presumably still be there.

Unless you are taking the line that no real human being could ever hold those opinions?

You're still avoiding saying why you thought they wouldn't be welcome. If anything, I'd say they were supporting the prevailing narrative on the thread. What is your accusation?

If a real person wants to voice a similar perspective that is fine and welcome, and their opinions can be discussed on their own merit. But an agenda-driven falsehood isn't worth anything. It doesn't matter how much support there is for it, a lie is still a lie. Number of likes is not a measure of truth or worth. Would you support and defend Putin's narratives about what is happening in Ukraine just because he got enough likes on social media?

There are multiple examples of genuine, relevant lived experience referenced on this thread and others which suggest that there are issues to be addressed. Why do you consider those genuine voices less worthy than lies and falsehoods?

Not at all, I should probably be the one apologising for using 'in' jargon.

A 'sockpuppet' is quite an old term now for somebody on a forum, newsgroup or whatever dishonestly setting up multiple accounts and pretending to be several different people, traditionally to back up their own argument or perhaps to "like" their own posts.  (I suppose pretending to be someone other than who you are without using multiple accounts at the same time to talk to yourself would more properly be called 'catfishing' these days, not sure.)

Romthebear was a regular poster here some time ago who was banned for various reasons and just kept re-registering as a 'new' user and popping up again with a different user name to double-down on the abusive behaviour that got him banned in the first place.  Sometimes these 'new' usernames were really blatant (eg: Romthebear2, Romthebear3, etc..), other times more creative.

Over the last couple of years there have been a few posters repeatedly popping up here under many different names to push a certain agenda, typically posting conspiracy theories to do with Covid, anti-vax type stuff, Trumpy misinformation - I'm sure you know the kind of thing.  One in particular has been really prodigious throughout the pandemic and has probably burned through a hundred or more different usernames now (and has been quite aggressive and unpleasant at times, abusive emails and such - especially with one regular poster in particular who invariably took the time to refute his Covid related nonsense).  It's a tedious on-going game of whack-a-mole for the forum moderators.

The writing style is fairly distinctive and whether or not it's the same person as the original 'Romthebear', it's become a kind of shorthand to call him 'Rom'.  As it turns out 'Akbar Malik' was actually Rom.  Again.

I didn't see it as Akbar supporting the main narrative which was why I was surprised at the support

It 's not for me to say which voices are more or less worthy but  Akbar's comments on this particular issue made sense to me. ( and apparently a few others)

That was really interesting, thanks for that. I like the "whack-a-mole" analogy.

Probably worth noting they almost certainly weren't a real person and as such their view is made up.

Yes, noted

Is it worth working out why “Akbar”’s comments made sense but Anita’s or Amira’s don’t?

I am amazed and appalled in equal measure that you don’t see a difference between truth and lies as long as something supports your assumptions.

Edit: that’s not quite true. I think I’m mostly appalled. 

Me too and I’m getting very bored with this policy. 
Something didn’t ring true with Akbars style - didn’t seem right. Showed my Muslim mate who also questioned it. It’s why I never bothered with this thread. Until now of course. 
 

It came across as really genuine to me. Didn't doubt it for one second. Although I'd like to read it again to see if I'd spot anything with hindsight but a little late now.

This episode has been quite interesting really a classic episode of trolls and missinformation feeding confirmation bias. I guess the answer is if you actually care about an issue then read up from some reputable sources (there are lots on the subject of minorities in outdoor activities, including lots on this website) rather than anecdote from randoms on the internet that happens to coincide with your world view.

It was subtle, and threw in key words so it did not come across as too blunt and seemed to be a reasonable argument. And an odd discussion/first post for a new member (seen this lots, raises suspicion straight way). The first post in reply to Tom V started out with: “Yes, kind of this.” Tom V had stated that we shouldn’t assume barriers exist. But in my experience (and I spend my whole working day with asylum seekers and refugees) barriers do exist. They tell me they do. The outdoor  groups referred to tell us that barriers exist (I’ve read all the articles).  A recent discussion about Rwanda highlighted the anti-religion sentiment held by many forum users - this is a barrier to participation. And the stuff about ‘Being close to family means that
we often prefer to live in urban areas.’….came across as a huge generalisation, but the careful wording (eg using the word ‘often’) took the edge off the generalising aspect. 

The ‘Stop trying to label us as Muslim Hikers’ was a give away, as these are self named groups, not us white middle classes telling people what to do. 

TBH, I agreed with much of the sentiment.  Anyway, I guessed this may happen so screen shotted it. How fekin sad am I.

Over 90% of UKCers expressing an opinion agreed with Akbar. 

hahaha, this made me laugh. To be honest, anybody who writes on a forum has to be a little bit sad to start with. I'm just impressed it was obvious enough for you to spot and take a screenshot. Bravo. 

The next obvious question is why bother? What was he aiming to achieve? Convince the climbing world to ignore minority groups? Why?

This is the quote that suggested that there weren't any barriers:

to me a "barrier" is something that is purposefully put in place by others to prevent something

I wasn't saying that you had argued against tools to remove the barriers, merely that those who do reinforce the barriers that are there and which people believe are there. 

I replied to you earlier in the thread suggesting to read some stuff by Reni Eddo-Lodge, this will help you get a better understanding of what I mean. 

It’s standard procedure:

1. new poster

2. first post within five seconds of creating the account

3. first post something topical, possibly slightly controversial that gives the new poster credibility (or something about wearing crampons up Helm Crag - lot of these last winter)

4. next post about how shit Covid vaccines are, that we are sheeple or whatever (I didn’t fully read their other posts on another thread but was getting that drift).

So it was some of these factors that made me question stuff. Like I said, I would agree with some of their sentiments - they made some good points. 

And that's the really dangerous thing about confirmation bias. We have an in-group member pretending to be an out-group member, confirming in-group member biases. Not meant as a criticism of yourself. The biases may be true or false (or probably subtly context dependent) but a single anecdote that confirms currently held beliefs is a dangerous thing. ANECDOTE != DATA regardless of validity

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but no - they agreed with the serial troll who has spent the last couple of years repeatedly getting banned for aggressively pushing the Kremlin 'conspiracy' party line on Covid and vaccines among various other things. 

Akbar never actually existed, other than as the latest of a long line of entirely fictional 'personas'.  He certainly did get a lot more "likes" than the Rombot has ever achieved before, its funny how critical evaluation goes right out the window when we're reading something that confirms our pre-existing ideas though innit?

We're pushing it a bit with the "don't discuss banned posters" thing here, but FWIW the mods try a lot harder to be fair and reasonable than they get credit for and it's a pretty thankless task.  (They're UKC staff, but it's nobody's actual job to mod the forums.) 

Posting material back into a thread that they've chosen to delete goes a step beyond that imo, and it does strike me as a bit out of order tbh.  Sometimes the mods do seem to just zap things rather than spend time on the nuance, but I think they put some careful thought into their decision to delete that post - it's a decision they're entitled to make, and it should really stay deleted.

The only climbers in the UK who don't spend a lot of their working day on the UKC forums... 🙄

Why does it have to be 'purposeful'?  I think this cuts to the heart of why so many posters here are ridiculously defensive about this stuff. 

A barrier doesn't have to be something that was deliberately designed by anyone, let alone specifically by you!  It's just a thing that's getting in the way.

It could be a historical thing - perhaps your grandad built a wall.  Or his grandad.  You didn't do it, you weren't even born yet when the wall was built.

It could be accidental, or an unintended consequence of something else.  You might put a fence around a field to keep your sheep in.  You have absolutely no intention or desire to keep walkers out, you just don't want to lose your sheep - but it's still a barrier that walkers need to cross to follow a path across that field.  See what I mean?

We all have unconscious biases, and we all have racist thoughts from time to time.  It's important to be able to contemplate that without losing our minds, and if we're going to discuss it it's important to be able to not to react to every idea that's mentioned without going off the deep end as if we're being accused of committing a war crime or something.

It's honestly a bit weird that we get so hysterically defensive about perceived (even imaginary) accusations of racism/bias/whatever anyway, and I suspect that overreaction is in part something that a lot of the 'culture war' bullshit that we see from the far right is actually designed to promote. 

If we can't acknowledge or contemplate our own unconscious biases, even in the privacy of our own thoughts, we can never be the masters of our own minds.  Contrary to that famous quote, I don't think you do actually need religion for good people to do (or at least endorse) bad things.  That'll do.

So WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

I have to go to work now, so don't have time to look out a link.  But there are youtube clips of Trevor Noah answering questions from the studio audience and talking about all sorts of things between takes on his American TV show.  He talks really eloquently (and amusingly) about this stuff in some of them, it's really worth a watch.

I was directly quoting something Gaston Rubberpants had posted up thread. 

I agree with you that barriers can be put up by accident.

A disability based example I experienced last year where a safety system installed to mitigate a hazard posed by the nature of the site erected a barrier for me:

Autistic person with issues around noise sensitivity seconded to a client office with a loud ticking noise present throughout the office, over the course of several months this caused my depression to return. A safety system installed to protect staff against a very real hazard was implemented in such a way as to make it unsafe for me to work there for extended periods of time.

No intention of limiting the number of people who can work on projects requiring access to that part of site, but it still happened.

I think you're the third or fourth person to respond to me about unconscious and I'm exactly not sure why. I was going to ignore them but fear they keep coming.

I never agreed with what Malik said. I said I thought it was genuine.

I don't disagree with it either to be fair. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Muslims that think that way and plenty that don't. I would suggest for a second that Muslims shall think a certain way. So I'm pretty indifferent to what he said so certainly not bias.

Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding something here.

Side thought, is "unconscious bias" really needed as a term. I was just thinking, wouldn't "agree" suffice? You could say you seek out information you agree with, or you believe information you "agree" with. Seems like a pointless term to me.

It's a fair point, and as someone who thought that the troll know as Akbar Malik's first post was a valuable contribution to what has imho been a very scrambled thread from the outset, it makes me think I need to turn off The Pub, Off Belay and Politics forums, because I cannot be bothered to check when a poster registered or their history every time. 

Right to roam only covers 8% of England and national parks remain inaccessible to people from working-class backgrounds
 

Perhaps the first half of the sentence is true? I have no idea. The second half is plainly bollocks..... not a good preamble for onward reading.
The commentary isn't factual anyway, it's an opinion piece.

I think people forget that the English language is defined by usage, not the dictionary (which just reflects usage)

I don’t think the language is the core issue, however, there is something interesting going on with it. “Barrier” is about as neutral as it gets. We could talk about language barriers or the blood-brain barrier, for example, all day long without anyone feeling attacked and getting upset.

I was thinking about the characteristics of language that might sit more comfortably with some of the posters above. “Challenges”? “Hurdles”? “Perceived issues”? All of these words site the problem within the person being marginalised. When we talk about challenges or hurdles they are something that an individual needs to overcome by themselves. The repeated use of “perceived” on this thread reframes any problems as imagined and again the sole responsibility of the person in who’s head they exist. All these words make it ‘someone else’s problem’ and absolve the rest of us of any responsibility.

I wonder if the reason people are uncomfortable with “barrier” is actually because it is neutral. Neutral implies a shared responsibility (not the same as blame) for the state of our society. One definition of privilege is “a lack of emotional labour”. To share responsibility for a problem is effortful and means sharing a little bit of the emotional labour others already have to carry, and this brings discomfort that people would understandably prefer to avoid.

The Dalia Lama talks about “compassion” as a willingness or ability to turn towards suffering with the intention to alleviate it. That first part is really hard, and I think that is often what people struggle with when asked to think about things like “barriers”. I think there are lots of people who are fundamentally good and kind, but lack the willingness or resilience to allow themselves to contact the suffering of others. That perhaps then contributes to some of the experiences that Eddo-Lodge talks about. 

As a final thought I was thinking about Eddo-Lodge’s reflections in the article Spenser linked to. She talked about her self-censorship and about  treading on eggshells to avoid being stereotyped and attacked as an “angry black person”. It made me reflect on the fact that neutral words like “barrier” are not carelessly chosen and much more consideration is likely given to the feelings of people like Gaston than they perhaps appreciate. 

Agreed but the lots of the articles on matters such as this use words such as "feels like", "get a sense that" etc. etc. when listing barriers. Any minority is bound to get these feelings. Indeed when I voiced them with regard to my experiences in Wales in the 60's and 70's I was roundly criticised. That's because they could be classified as my perceptions rather than real barriers to my visiting. It would never have occurred to me to post those experiences as "barriers" to my visiting Wales.

What might or might not occur to you to be “real” issues, in the context of a society that assumes you are the norm and that you are ultimately entitled to do what you want, isn’t really the point.

I’m curious whether you have any thoughts on the article spenser recommended to you?

I have no idea where that is coming from and I cannot be bothered to argue any more.  We seem to have gone way off topic and incorrect opinions regarding my views are being bandied about.  Just to be clear I am not denying that ethnic minorities face issues, I simply do not accept the implication that white middle class people are putting up barriers.  If I have jumped to the wrong conclusion with regard to the latter fair enough and sorry for wasting everyones time but that leaves us with nothing more to say does it?

I think some basic assumptions need revisiting and the resistance to doing so is one way that barriers are being maintained. For example, I’m not entirely convinced that the oft touted claim that “our sport/activity is really welcoming” is actually true. The fact that many posters would rather believe a fake account that told them what they wanted to hear rather than actual real people expressing their opinions suggests we have some way to go on this front.

These two paragraphs are very wise and sensible. To add to them, my experience has been that many men are not taught how or expected to perform emotional labour and can remain fundamentally isolated from others. Hence the very high suicide rate amongst men. Perhaps amongst some men (particularly older ones) I think there is an active dismissal of others’ pain and suffering. Any activity that has more men in it is going to struggle to a greater or lesser extent with this issue of actively accommodating others.

I think that's a little unfair.  Not showing emotions is not the same as not having them and back in the day stoicism was seen as a strength.

It's the fact that you think that this is implied that I find troubling - despite the title this story isn't about you, it's about people who've experienced barriers. The first response should be to listen and think on it, not to go on the defensive. Your assumption that you are being targeted is symptomatic of the wider war on woke when all that's being asked for here initially is consideration and empathy.

I’m afraid I don’t find buttoned up stoicism as particularly “strong”. Rather the opposite. Talking to older people I get the very strong impression that men did not attempt to understand women and being asked to understand the viewpoint of a non-white woman - even when they clearly write it out - seems to continue to be difficult.