ARTICLE: Black Lives Matter - Resources for the Outdoor Community

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The outdoor community is not known for its racial or cultural diversity. Raheim Robinson, NYC climber.

As the world reacts to the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, we at UKC and UKH are joining millions across the globe who seek to listen, learn and stand with people of colour in the fight against racism. The outdoor community is not known for its racial or cultural diversity, and it's arguably beyond time that we actively discuss the ways in which systemic racism, individual biases, cultural norms and barriers to participation have shaped the outdoor and adventure spaces we inhabit.

We hope to cover this issue in greater depth in future months as we educate ourselves and speak with BAME outdoor activists and athletes, but in the interim, here's a list of resources - some specific to the outdoor sphere, some related to the wider global anti-racism movement - for people to read, watch and listen to. Most of these outdoor-specific organisations are US-based, but they are nonetheless valuable in our own context. If you have any suggestions or recommendations, we are happy to update this list - please comment in the forums or email us.



Read more
33
 kirstypallas 04 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thank you for this Natalie, I'm really pleased to see that UKC is committed to featuring more BAME climbers and athletes in the future. Also great to see a list of UK resources and POC too, as I think they often get slightly overshadowed by the US.

5
 TobyA 04 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I saw on Berghaus's instagram feed they were promoting Rhiane Fatinikun, who if I understood correctly, is founder of the Black Girls Hike club/organisation (?) out of Manchester. Seems like another good UK based effort. https://www.facebook.com/bghmcr/

What she says about going to the Kendal festival last year in this article is really worrying https://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/news/rhiane-fatinikun-black-girls-hike/ it kind of suggests all those people who think "I'm sure outdoorsy people aren't racist" need to think a lot more deeply.

6
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Muchas Gracias por este Natalie. 

¡Eres el mejor! 

5
 kgosicat 05 Jun 2020

Thanks so much for this! A few more Instagram accounts to maybe add 🙃

@hak90

@rockandsun1

@felinefavia

@indigenouswomenhike

3
 jimtitt 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It's useful to readers if acronyms are explained the first time they are used.

 C Witter 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thanks Natalie. A welcome article. It's a real shame that 6 white men deeply wedded to the discourse of the "culture wars" had to come along and dislike it, like the morons they are. More to come, surely.

I'm not criticising, but perhaps, if addressing the under-representation of BAME people in the outdoors is something UKC is committed to, the UKC team could do with recruiting someone - or, at least more regular articles/features from BAME writers?

 

39
 RX-78 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

My daughter went to a very diverse girls school in London, I would say for the majority of girls there that doing the DoE award was their first proper experience of hiking and camping. Even though it poured rain at times most seemed to enjoy the experience. I guess one issue might be cost of equipment, in this case the school helped provide, training on map reading skills, rucksacks and camping equipment and also transport.

When my children were in cub scouts the racial mix was very good but this dropped off in the older children, so that in explorer the vast majority were white. Not sure why.

Post edited at 10:13
 kirstypallas 05 Jun 2020
In reply to C Witter:

That's a really good point, to not just feature POC athletes, but also create a space for their voices too.

5
 Donotello 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

'In the online 2019 BMC equality survey, 0% of respondents identified as Black, Black British, Mixed: White and Black or Black: any other.' - That speaks volumes.

I very much doubt the price tag of climbing indoors helps either. I in no way mean to typecast but I have noticed over the years a lot of non-white groups seem excellent at banding together for free outdoor group sports. Cricket in most locals parks, basketball at the Deaner (skatepark with basketball courts in Bristol) etc, I can't imagine the £10-12 a go price tag is very appealing for those who have a culture of free group sports such as the above.

Post edited at 11:18
5
 La benya 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I'm not sure how I would feel if I was being promoted purely because of my skin colour, rather than being the best in my chosen discipline.  But then again i'm not black so I cant really relate- can anyone comment from a position of greater knowledge for me? At the moment it just seems you're pointing them out because they're black and they climb- which doesn't seem right.

edit to add- some are clearly noteworthy by their merit alone and are indeed some of the best around.

Post edited at 11:26
9
In reply to La benya:

> I'm not sure how I would feel if I was being promoted purely because of my skin colour, rather than being the best in my chosen discipline.  But then again i'm not black so I cant really relate- can anyone comment from a position of greater knowledge for me?

That's a bit of an ironic statement, since that's exactly what white people (like myself) generally experience. Our lives are easier in a myriad of interconnected ways because of the colour of our skin.

33
 La benya 05 Jun 2020
In reply to pancakeandchips:

I've never been promoted (in a social media sense) because of an unusual (for the sphere of influence concerned) physical attribute.  I'm a red head- can I be promoted as a poster boy for the NBA as we are underrepresented.

Positive discrimination is a questionable subject- but i was really asking how it made the actual individuals feel. as you point out they face an uphill battle against baked in white privilege so o they feel fine about leveraging any advantage they have, or does as i suspect leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

8
 Greywall 05 Jun 2020
In reply to La benya:

Not sure if you are referring to their list of athletes on Instagram but my feed is a mix of top athletes (Danial Woods, Adam Ondra etc.), local climbers (Louis Parkinson, Xian Goh etc) and climbers with interesting content (Hoseok Lee, Magnus Mitbo etc.) so I don't think climbers have to be the best to be promoted.

 La benya 05 Jun 2020
In reply to Greywall:

Yes- all of which will have a USP more than just their skin colour.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

@yasrockaddict

@wafaa.amerofficial

@said_belhaj

3
 munro 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thanks for this, Nat.

It fascinates me that, at the time of writing this, 14 people have actually gone out of their way to 'dislike' this article.

Apart from La Benya's (I'm sure, very genuine) concern about how the climbers listed in the article personally feel about being listed there, none of the people that have disliked this have articulated why they've done that. The outcome is that anyone looking at this may well deduce that over 25% of UKC users (again, that's roughly the split of 'likes'/'dislikes' at the time of writing) don't want to encourage diversity in climbing and the outdoors.

If the people that did dislike it fancied actually sharing why then perhaps that wouldn't be one of the takeaways. Or maybe they'd rather not publicly share why they've chosen to do that.

Post edited at 13:49
9
 alexm198 05 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Kudos to UKC for speaking up, and for being explicit about their desire to educate themselves on this more in the future. Something that all white people (of which I am one) need to be better at. This problem will not go away until we all confront the history of this country (and others). 

I echo C Witter's comment and find it astonishing that as of right now, 14 people have disliked this article. Blows my mind that close to 25% of votes cast have been negative. I have to say I found that really disappointing and not in keeping with my anecdotal experience of many years in the climbing community, which seems generally made up of reasonable, tolerant, compassionate and progressive folk. 

I'm usually not one to argue that the dislike button suppresses discussion, but here I think it actually is. I, and I'm sure many others, would be interested in hearing why the people who are disliking this are doing so, because I think talking about this is important if we are to confront systemic racism in a useful way. 

Post edited at 14:59
11
 alexm198 05 Jun 2020
In reply to munro:

Whoops, just seen I made many of the same points you did. Should have read the comments before posting - apologies!

 heleno 05 Jun 2020
In reply to munro:

Okay, I may be being wildly optimistic here, but might some of the 'dislikes' be for the current situation (under-representation of BAME men and women in the outdoor community) rather than for the article itself?

There is a certain ambiguity to a Like/Dislike (similarly on Facebook) when responding to a criticism of a situation - should they apply to the criticism or to the situation itself?

Post edited at 15:29
6
 Robert Durran 05 Jun 2020
In reply to alexm198:

> I echo C Witter's comment and find it astonishing that as of right now, 14 people have disliked this article.

Indeed, though, given that this is an issue of bias and discrimination, I did find it slightly surprising that C Witter assumed the dislikers were "white men".

2
 Tom Briggs 05 Jun 2020
In reply to alexm198:

> Kudos to UKC for speaking up, and for being explicit about their desire to educate themselves on this more in the future. Something that all white people (of which I am one) need to be better at. This problem will not go away until we all confront the history of this country (and others). 

> I echo C Witter's comment and find it astonishing that as of right now, 14 people have disliked this article. Blows my mind that close to 25% of votes cast have been negative. I have to say I found that really disappointing and not in keeping with my anecdotal experience of many years in the climbing community, which seems generally made up of reasonable, tolerant, compassionate and progressive folk. 

> I'm usually not one to argue that the dislike button suppresses discussion, but here I think it actually is. I, and I'm sure many others, would be interested in hearing why the people who are disliking this are doing so, because I think talking about this is important if we are to confront systemic racism in a useful way. 

100% agree.

2
 La benya 05 Jun 2020
In reply to munro:

I didn't dislike.

Is encouraging diversity for the sake of it a goal we should be aiming for?  Giving everyone equal opportunity for everything, 100% yes! But promoting equality when there may be other reasons why a disparity exists which is not down to any prejudice, is pointless.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

3
 C Witter 05 Jun 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Indeed, though, given that this is an issue of bias and discrimination, I did find it slightly surprising that C Witter assumed the dislikers were "white men".

I sincerely doubt it was anyone other than white men disliking the article - though I'm happy to be corrected. I wrote it partly to provoke, by saying to those people who disliked it: we see you.

And, in fact, you really don't have to go far to find instances of racism on UKC - some more, and some less subtle. Just take a look at how the OP was treated on this thread: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/black_lives_matter-720320?v=1 The woman who posted this was greeted with hostility (64 dislikes!) for suggesting a Black Lives Matter thread was needed and patronised for not finding a different thread which is not anyway actually about celebrating BLM but opens with criticism of the BLM protesters in London. Whilst there were sympathetic/solidaritious comments, there was also the inevitable "all lives matter" debate to be had, as well as people downplaying racism as a significant issue in the UK, claiming it had little relevance to climbing and calling the BLM movement "a load of [pointless] hand wringing".

Other threads in the forums include one discussing viral footage of a white woman weaponising racist policing against an African American man, Christian Cooper. Cooper is cast by the OP as having subtly threatened to rape her and as 'deliberately using his maleness and his blackness' to scare her. Perhaps the OP is genuinely concerned about violence against women, but this kind of (at best) ignorance is sad to see and - not meaning to single out that thread - is pretty typical of UKC forum discussion. I know it's a mixed picture, but, personally, I can't imagine the UKC forums would be a comfortable place for many BAME people.

14
 munro 05 Jun 2020
In reply to La benya:

You're embarrassing yourself (at best) - but I'll speak to one part of what you've said.

The article itself works toward equal opportunity by providing people from BAME backgrounds with relevant role models and encouraging them to get involved in an otherwise white-dominated sport/activity/lifestyle.

Clearly demonstrating that climbing is open and welcoming to all (bar excessive tick-markers) improves equality of opportunity because, from an optics point of view, it makes it more accessible.

24
 La benya 05 Jun 2020
In reply to munro:

Whatt part of my response is embarrassing? Is it because I haven't blindly just clapped and asked a few questions?

Yours is a very easy way of shutting down debate. Why are you on a forum? 

3
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Really happy to see this article posted! Thanks for speaking up about it and showing you stand in solidarity. Sharing all the facts and figures like this may make people uncomfortable but that’s what we need to hear and start addressing how we can all make changes to that, and also what is happening right now! 

6
 planetmarshall 05 Jun 2020
In reply to La benya:

> Positive discrimination is a questionable subject- but i was really asking how it made the actual individuals feel. as you point out they face an uphill battle against baked in white privilege so o they feel fine about leveraging any advantage they have, or does as i suspect leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

If you are White, middle class, straight, able-bodied and male you have experienced positive discrimination throughout your entire life.

39
 La benya 05 Jun 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

I never said anything to the contrary. 

But please keep trying to find something to get offended about. 

3
 bouldery bits 05 Jun 2020
In reply to Greywall:

> Not sure if you are referring to their list of athletes on Instagram but my feed is a mix of top athletes (Danial Woods, Adam Ondra etc.), local climbers (Louis Parkinson, Xian Goh etc) and climbers with interesting content (Hoseok Lee, Magnus Mitbo etc.) so I don't think climbers have to be the best to be promoted.

You're right.

They're all sh*t.

3
 bouldery bits 05 Jun 2020
In reply to munro:

> Clearly demonstrating that climbing is open and welcoming to all (bar excessive tick-markers) improves equality of opportunity because, from an optics point of view, it makes it more accessible.

Optics.

What does that even mean?

No one knows what it means. It's provocative. It gets the people going.

3
 olddirtydoggy 05 Jun 2020
In reply to alexm198:

> I echo C Witter's comment and find it astonishing that as of right now, 14 people have disliked this article. Blows my mind that close to 25% of votes cast have been negative. I have to say I found that really disappointing and not in keeping with my anecdotal experience of many years in the climbing community, which seems generally made up of reasonable, tolerant, compassionate and progressive folk. 

> I'm usually not one to argue that the dislike button suppresses discussion, but here I think it actually is. I, and I'm sure many others, would be interested in hearing why the people who are disliking this are doing so, because I think talking about this is important if we are to confront systemic racism in a useful way. 

Ok I'll stick my neck on the block. I don't like issues of gender and race attached to climbing. I've got friends of all colours and I've had the chat with some of them on topics like schemes that promote minority involvement and some of them feel unease towards them. There are cultural differences in some communities such as the British Pakistani communities when it comes to the outdoors, some of the members of those communities I've spoken to really don't understand why we do what we do, they genuinely don't understand why a person will sweat like hell to climb a pile of earth.

I don't really care for these kinds of articles personally but feel free to keep doing them. I hope posters with differing opinions on this topic don't brand dislikers as having issues with minorities as that couldn't be further from the truth, I would take attacks like that very personal and deeply offensive.

Post edited at 23:43
7
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Even though I have commented on this thread twice it has not been put in Recent Postings in my profile.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/user/profile.php?id=148472

S

Post edited at 01:28
1
 S.Kew 06 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I would say it is inclusive. Everytime i go to a wall there is more BAME climbers. I should imagine in 20 years there will be loads. Just takes time. Certainly less outside, but i don’t think this will change, as alot of the bame community reside in big built up cities. If they start moving to countryside locations this may change. Loads of indoor centres on their doorstep though. 

The fact is once all this settles down the do gooders will concentrate on the next thing and this will all be forgotten. White middle class will go back to their lives and go back to protesting against climate change etc. MUPPETS.

28
 scoth 06 Jun 2020
In reply to S.Kew:

I'm curious why would you be so dismissive of people calling for action on racism and climate change? (both of which I think are inextricably linked).

7
 scoth 06 Jun 2020
In reply to heleno:

Or maybe some of the dislikers see the article as tokenistic. Because from posts above, I think some people are confusing positive discrimination with tokenism.

I personally welcome the move for more diverse representation on UKC. A webinar on this could be a helpful way of holding an initial discussion on this.

3
 S.Kew 06 Jun 2020
In reply to scoth:

The point is if it wasn’t climate change, racism etc, it would be whatever is the IN/COOL/HIP thing at the time to protest about. Then after the big protest and keyboard battles they go back to their cushty lives looking at the next holiday to go on via a plane or clothing item to order, which has been made using cheap child labour. Hypocrites of the highest order. Then something else comes up to protest about. Protesting for the sake of protesting to give their lives a meaning and to feel a part of something. 
MUPPETS

28
 dsh 06 Jun 2020
In reply to S.Kew:

Maybe some people see it like that. I think a lot of people are starting to genuinely see the system for what it is and want to help in any way they can including positive discourse on the subject. 

A lot of people have the point of view that racism is all genocide and burning crosses and innate evil. People don't want to think this of themselves so it makes it harder to see the real racism that exists in most of society. It's really difficult to see a learned subconscious prejudice. I've heard it said about New England that the only thing a New Englander hates more than racism is minorities. I think that applies to the outdoor space too and especially UKC. People hate racism but say listening to minority voices is positive discrimination. Or as in the other thread, they'll use the actions of a few to dismiss an entire movement, or ask why they aren't being considered too. Most people don't have a hatred for minorities but a lot of people dismiss the issues they face.

1
 alexm198 06 Jun 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Cool, thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to articulate why you disliked the article. And I think what you say about interpreting a user's 'dislike' as their having an issue with minorities is a really important point. I think that is exactly what people will assume of those that dislike, and that's precisely why it's important to engage with and discuss it. 

For what it's worth, I disagree with you when you say 'I don't like issues of gender and race attached to climbing', because I don't think there is a way that you can unattach them. I can't see a way to have an informed dialogue about representation in climbing without those issues being a part of it. 

Your point about minorities feeling unease towards programmes which try to be more inclusive is a good one. It's a subtle issue and there is, of course, a thin line between tokenism and inclusivity. My own opinion is that we need to listen to minority voices and let them lead this discussion, but I appreciate that that approach brings with it its own difficulties. The bottom line for me is that no, a UKC article isn't going to solve these problems, but talking about it is a step in the right direction. 

1
 olddirtydoggy 06 Jun 2020
In reply to alexm198:

Great reply, we have 2 very differing opinions yet we can articulate them respectfully without lauching attacks at each other.

Some years back, a good friend of mine from Jamaican heritage was setting up a business in 3D cad design. Another friend of ours suggested getting in touch with some org that was providing assistance in business start up for people of colour. He said they can stick their help up their &%$£*?!! as he didn't want help based on his colour. I had an enormous amount of respect for him taking that stance and today he's based in London with an office that employs around 10 people without any help based on his ethnic origins.

I wonder on the outdoors whether we are expecting people of certain backgrounds to take on our passions and interests because of some perception that there are barriers. Another friend of mine who comes from a Catholic Indian background hates the countryside yet 2 of my climbing partners who both fled from rural villages in Burma during a genocide love the outdoors. I doubt they would accept there have been barriers in accessing the outdoors in this country. The barriers might be more cultural differences and approaches to the outdoors.

I really don't feel this these missing people from the mountains are a result of racism. Let people do what they want.

2
 Will Hempstead 06 Jun 2020
In reply to S.Kew:

"if it wasn’t climate change, racism etc, it would be whatever is the IN/COOL/HIP thing at the time to protest about."

Bloody snowflakes. What do they think they're doing raising issues such as racism and climate change. 

If these 'MUPPETS' keep making noise then maybe the government will listen and make some kind of changes to try and address them. And then maybe we can live in a world where people are not killed in the streets because of the colour of their skin and scottish winter wont be a sport thats doomed to melt forever. Maybe maybe maybe.....

I dont think thats such a bad thing but then again I'm not a complete dullard. 

1
 Yanis Nayu 06 Jun 2020
In reply to scoth:

I haven’t disliked it because I don’t use the dislike button, but I do find it patronising, and when I read the bit about not flooding people’s inboxes with condolences I just didn’t get it. Why would I offer condolences out of the blue to somebody I don’t know regarding somebody they don’t know? Maybe it’s just me. 

2
 Coel Hellier 06 Jun 2020
In reply to munro:

> If the people that did dislike it fancied actually sharing why ...

I've turned off the like/dislike buttons, so haven't "disliked" it, but there are things one could dislike about the article:

(1) The automatic leap from "there is unequal participation" to "this is a problem that needs fixing".

Why would one expect an activity to have equal representation from different parts of the overall community?

For example, the UK has large immigrant communities from India, and from Poland.  If I went to a cricket match I would be likely to meet a fair number of people from India, but few from Poland.  Would I conclude that cricket was racist against Poles?  No, I'd conclude that India has a strong cultural cricket tradition whereas Poland does not. Is that any sort of a problem? No it's isn't.  Does it need fixing? No it doesn't.

Of course if there were any *real* barriers to particular groups participating, then yes, they should be removed, but talk of "cultural" and "invisible" barriers is dubious. 

There are lots of things from whippet racing to rap concerts where I would not expect equal participation rates. So what?

(2) Articles like this often remove agency from the minority group, as though they just get acted upon and are never actors.  For example:

"Sport England concluded that people from BAME backgrounds are more likely to be physically inactive than those who are white, and that sport is therefore 'letting down' BAME groups and not leading the cause for more equal participation."

So "sport" (whatever that is) is somehow the agent responsible for this state of affairs, whereas the BAME people themselves are not?   The ill-defined abstract entity "sport" is to blame here, for "letting people down".  Hmmm. 

8

Some points to address from your comments:

I asked the majority of the individuals listed whether or not they would like to be featured, in particular those who do not overtly position themselves as activists or those who don't discuss issues relating to race frequently. Although it could be perceived as tokenism, visibility within a sport or chosen area plays a key role in giving minority ethnic groups the confidence to participate. It's also healthy for non-BAME individuals to broaden their social media feed (and in real life!) by following people from different ethnic groups so they can listen and learn about the issues they face. This has been actively encouraged on social media by black people in the last week or so, hence the idea of sharing a resource list tailored to the outdoor community.

Regarding the 'please don't flood their inboxes' line, this was a point brought up by one of the listed climbers, as they and others have been experiencing questions and condolences. 

I agree that the article could be seen as taking agency away from marginalised groups, but we felt that as a media outlet we had to take a stance and set out our position on the matter. The article and list was compiled with input and opinions from some of the people included in it. We are encouraging them to contribute to the site and hope to share some essays and narratives in the near future.

White people might not be actively stopping or discouraging people of colour from taking part in climbing, AKA overt racism, but there are no doubt invisible 'barriers' (doesn't seem like the best term) in the form of covert, systemic racism, lack of role models and socioeconomic reasons amongst many others. This article on Mpora is worth reading: https://mpora.com/multi-sport/does-the-outdoors-have-a-race-problem/?fbclid...

It's not enough for white people to think that climbing/the outdoors isn't excluding of people of colour, we have to listen to their experiences and believe them. As Zoë described in the article, individual minority groups face different forms of racism from other minority groups; just because someone we know doesn't face any issues doesn't mean there aren't any for other BAME people. We're not expecting equal participation rates, but rather equality of opportunity. 

And yes, good to discuss what you don't 'get' or like about the article, rather than just disliking. The discussion on here has been more encouraging than some of the comments on social media. 

Post edited at 21:12
11
 olddirtydoggy 06 Jun 2020
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

One point I'll give ground on is "lack of role models", I'll agree that we often identify with those we share common things with. Ethnic groups do often gravitate towards things that identify their racial group. For example, I prefer rock music but my British born Jamaican friend prefers R&B. I can appreciate some of his music and he can enjoy mine. That said I enjoy cooking curry using authentic asian method, simply because the party in my mouth is worth the effort.

I like the fact that we have cultural diversity in the UK and there seems to be an idea that cultural identity needs to be broken down by melting it all together. I would argue that a diverse mix makes a much more richer experience as I can go out and eat food from other cultures, hear languages spoken I can't understand, spend time with friends who come from backgrounds culturally different to mine and that I would argue is a wonderful thing.

I don't feel the need to visit my local mosque and I don't feel the need to go join in a New Zealand Haka if such a thing was possible. My local mosque would no doubt welcome me with open arms and that's great but should we go actively looking to bring anyone into anything? I can only judge from the pool of friends I mix with that come from many countries and I would argue that they are all comfortable in their own skin and don't feel marginalised. If I asked them if the outdoors somehow feels out of reach, off limits or some other invisible barrier then they would look at me like I've had a stroke.

Post edited at 23:02
5
 Niall_H 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> (1) The automatic leap from "there is unequal participation" to "this is a problem that needs fixing".

Since we like - often quite loudly - to insist that climbing's a open and inclusive activity, maybe identifying gaps in our inclusiveness suggests places where we should act.

Cricket may, or may not, have inclusion issues - but that's hardly a reason to down-play those that climbing has.

14
 Bobling 07 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It's late, too late to be posting pi$$ed on forums but hey there you go.

I had a memory today of an incident a while back and of the UKC response to it which is relevant to the subject matter.  It was way back in 2012 when a youth centre in St Agnes was subjected to a racially motivated arson attack.  The centre is called the Hope Project and there was an amazing rally of support for it on UKC.  The centre looks like it is still there - https://www.facebook.com/the-hope-project-cornwall-124482530973726/

There's a thread here: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/premier_posts/beacon_of_hope_restoration_... which includes reference to the JD incident, (Johnny what did you do?!).

By posting I'd like to celebrate the great F**k you to racism that UKC produced almost ten years ago, but also to wonder if some similar outcome could be achieved now.  We're not talking about which influencers' or athletes' social media accounts we should or shouldn't be following but about supporting outdoors centres that can help BAME and disadvantaged children experience the wonderful world we climbers experience.

I wonder what happened to my wife's (unused) climbing boots that I posted to them?  Were they ever worn by someone making their first steps in the vertical world?

I wonder if Sam Farmer is still around?  Surely there is an interview piece or video piece in there UKC?

 Coel Hellier 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Niall_H:

> Since we like - often quite loudly - to insist that climbing's a open and inclusive activity, maybe identifying gaps in our inclusiveness suggests places where we should act.

Absolutely, if there are actual and real barriers to participation by minority groups, then let's identify and remove them. 

But we should not take unequal participation rates as necessarily implying that there are "barriers"; they could just reflect cultural differences, or neutral factors such as geography (a kid in London has less opportunity to get into Munroing than a kid in Ullapool, but would have all sorts of other opportunities that a kid in Ullapool would not have).

1
 Coel Hellier 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> I agree that the article could be seen as taking agency away from marginalised groups, ...

Even the word "marginalised" takes agency away from minority groups.  It's a done-to-them word, not a them-doing word. 

It's also a concept-creep word out of the woke playbook. The term "minority" group is factual and neutral, but there are lots of non-white minority groups in the UK that do not feel "marginalised".

5
 Andy Moles 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> there are no doubt invisible 'barriers' (doesn't seem like the best term) in the form of covert, systemic racism, lack of role models and socioeconomic reasons amongst many others. This article on Mpora is worth reading: https://mpora.com/multi-sport/does-the-outdoors-have-a-race-problem/?fbclid...

Good article, people should read it.

The question of whether or not 'barriers' is an appropriate term is really what this debate hinges on. I have some sympathy with Coel Hellier's point that unequal representation in an activity is not necessarily a problem in itself (although the Mpora article makes valid points at the end about why in this case it might be).

But to assume an understanding of the underlying reasons is a mistake - we simply don't. To deny the existence of subtler forms of exclusion is a failure of imagination. Both suggest status quo bias - there's no firm evidence that intervention will make a difference, so I'll assume it's best to do nothing. At worst we end up with the pathetic and depressing view of S.Kew that any challenge to the way things are is nothing more than token posturing and hypocrisy.

We don't really know why minorities are underrepresented in the outdoors, but the reasons are likely to be various and complex. We will never find out whether 'invisible barriers' exist, or whether the activities themselves simply lack 'pull' for those from certain cultural backgrounds, if we aren't open minded to experimenting with change.

Post edited at 08:34
1
 NessMM 07 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Safe Haven by REI is another good one to add to the list!

vimeo.com/291750614

 AymanC 07 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I disliked. So as requested by at least one responder, I’s like to join the conversation. If you disagree with me, great - that’s what discussion is about.  
A bit of nitpicking of terms below but I feel it’s important not to slip down the route of rhetoric I hear so often from America.

I’ve got two devils advocate questions:

-Why is it a problem that the outdoors could be not diverse racially or culturally?

For instance, is it a problem if 99% of midwives are women, if in certain uni courses Asian people are ‘overrepresented’.

-How do you *know* it isn’t the interests of different people/cultures that’s the major factor in this perceived ‘imbalance’.

I suggest articles this are ultimately harmful to the cause against racism around the world.  Focusing on identity politics (like focusing on political correctness) detracts from effective and causes and is ultimately a form of slacktivism. Articles with this line of reasoning are damaging because they proliferate ideas based on assumptions and falsehoods (often made by white saviours) and even slightly boost American hegemony through applying their terminology and situations to the rest of the world. 

Here are some problem terms.


‘Underrepresentation’ - based on the fallacy that any disparity between percentages of perceived races in a population and participation in something = ‘covert/systemic’ bias or ‘subtle/overt’ racism.  Why are population stats taken as a gold standard to base the assumption that all cultures/people are the same so should have exactly the same interests?

‘People of Colour’  - American term that essential means ‘non white-westerners’ lumps such a large and incredibly diverse set of people’s together it’s a meaningless category. (The article shows this “excluding Chinese” - why?). It assumes the experiences had by this set of people is shared or comparable.

‘BAME’ is essentially the UK version of the above because of wanting to avoid the use of the word coloured. But articles like this never seem to clarify if they are referring to different stats and appear to use ‘POC’ and ‘BAME’ interchangeably which is at best unhelpful. 
 

Lastly just to add to the anecdotal evidence- the two walls I’ve spent most time at in the UK are more diverse than the city populations. (I’ve worked at one so I’ve seen the numbers)

6
In reply to Bobling:

We did this piece with Sam at the time: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/features/beacon_of_hope-4515 

I've not heard from him in years

 Jon Stewart 07 Jun 2020
In reply to AymanC:

> -Why is it a problem that the outdoors could be not diverse racially or culturally?

If we perceived that 'the outdoors' is a good thing, then it means that people seem to be missing out on that good thing due to their race or culture. It might be the case that people of different races and cultures have different good things that white people are missing out on too.

Many people's idea of the type of society they want to live in is one that's not ghettoised. So, when they go to the Lake District for a walk, they don't just want to see middle class white people, and when they go to an urban sports facility, they don't want to just see black people. In their idea of a good society, people mix together rather than staying in ghettos.

> -How do you *know* it isn’t the interests of different people/cultures that’s the major factor in this perceived ‘imbalance’.

I don't think it's possible to know. But it's not a clear-cut difference between 'interests' and people being put off doing something because they don't think they'll fit in. 

> Here are some problem terms.

> ‘Underrepresentation’ 

What's wrong with using this in a factual way? If, say, black people are underrepresented in climbing, then that's a statistical fact. We can can then discuss whether or not that's interesting, or a problem, or not. What's wrong with a word that describes the factual situation, and doesn't carry with it the connotations you assign to it?

> ‘People of Colour’

I don't think it's helpful to tell people how they should or should not be describing themselves. If non-white people want a word or expression to describe themselves as one category, I don't think it's up to anyone (whether they happen to be white, black, or anything else) to tell them they shouldn't use that language. And if non-white people get treated differently in society to whites in ways which are similar across the different minorities that fall within that large category, then it is necessary to have a term otherwise how do you talk about it?

> ‘BAME’ is essentially the UK version of the above because of wanting to avoid the use of the word coloured. But articles like this never seem to clarify if they are referring to different stats and appear to use ‘POC’ and ‘BAME’ interchangeably which is at best unhelpful. 

POC, BAME, non-white, ethnic minority all mean the same thing to me. What's the issue?

Post edited at 15:36
10
 Coel Hellier 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> Good article, people should read it.

OK, I've read it.  Here are some thoughts on it.

First, once again there's the weird attribution of agency:

"It's time for the outdoors to rethink its strategy ..."  and "is it possible that the UK is simply not interested in seeing people of colour outside of cities?".

So agency, the capacity to think and act, is attributed to abstract entities such as "the outdoors" (?), "the UK" or "sport", but never to the so-called "marginalised" communities.  They are corks on a sea, unable to decide for themselves what they want or to influence their own future. 

Second, the only real substantive reason given for why few "people of colour" take part in outdoor activities is that they see few blacks doing it, and so don't think to do it themselves. Yes, people do indeed find it easier to get into things if they see people like themselves doing it.

But if that's the only "barrier" then it's not that much of an actual barrier. That alone is not sufficient to conclude that "the outdoors" has "a race problem".

One might think that, at this point, the author would exhort his fellows: "So just get on and do it, you don't actually need same-colour role models, there is nothing actually stopping you, and you might find you enjoy it". 

But no, there's no such suggestion. The minority group have no agency.  So instead, it is the responsibility of everyone else, of "the outdoors" to find and promote role models.  And if they don't they're at fault:

"... the outdoor industry is depriving [strong word that] hundreds of thousands if not millions out of the joy that our sports can provide." 

And if people do want to do such outreach then great.  I'm aware of city-centre walls (for commercial self-interest as much as anything) targeting ethic minorities with targeted advertising and special-offer introductory deals -- which is good.  

But if some groups are just not that interested, then ok, that is not actually a problem and does not need fixing.  I'd presume they're spending their time on other activities that are just as fulfilling and rewarding, maybe more so.  There's no reason why equal participation from all groups should be a goal, and no reason why the lack of it is in itself a "problem".

6
 mrphilipoldham 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Indeed. 

This is perhaps all completely anecdotal, but I feel that it's all I can offer from my own limited experience. I have (and will no doubt again) climbed with partners of  East Asian and Middle Eastern heritage. I have offered to take out two separate friends of African heritage for a taster and they (politely) laughed at me, and said no thanks. They have appreciation for what I do and the benefits it brings me, but don't see anything in it for them. One likes cars, and his idea of being included in countryside pursuits is having his BMW photographed at Winnats Pass. The other loves football, and we occasionally play together.

My work often involves spending time with different minorities, so much so that we talk about hobbies and I've never once had someone say to me how they tried to get in to hiking/scrambling/bouldering/climbing but couldn't find a way. Most of the time I get a puzzled 'why would you want to do that?' sort of look. 

I don't know how as a community we would find out about someone in that position however, but if even just one member of any particular community has hit a brick wall then we should quite rightly aim to remove it as a barrier. 

Coincidentally in my last couple of runs around Kinder reservoir I think I've seen more groups of BAME folk than I have in all my years spent round there. All met with a courteous hello, or smile and always returned. 

2
 olddirtydoggy 07 Jun 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Exactly the same as my own experience with some friends of colour.

There are benefits to trying things outside of what your perception of personal culture relate to. A couple of years back I got invited to an anniversary party and I must have been one of a small number of white people in a hired room full of Afro-Carribean people celebrating 30 odd years of 2 friends being together. A night of goat curry, red stripe beer and dancehall music wouldn't have been my idea of a night out but getting thrown into that moment made for an enjoyable experience with very friendly people.

Would I usually go to a night club putting on a dancehall night? Probably not. Am I missing out? I don't know as I'm living a life doing the things I enjoy.

I'm keen to hear from someone from a minority engaging in the outdoors who feels they have hit barriers. Would I be right so far in saying this narrative has been led by 'white people' suggesting people of colour have been slighted? Not sure yet, feel free to educate. Been a good thread so far, actually enjoyed reading this.

Post edited at 16:47
 Yanis Nayu 07 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

What percentage of the UKC staff are BAME?

2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I only know of Rebecca Ting.

 Coel Hellier 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>  What percentage of the UKC staff are BAME?

See photo here:    https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2020/05/become_a_supporter_of_ukclimbing_an...

2
 Andy Moles 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree with much of what you say there, but not your downplaying of the significance of prominent role models. The Tiger Woods and Williams sisters examples given in the article make a good case for how influential they can be. 

The attribution of agency to abstract entities is indeed weird, but charitably I'd suggest it's just poor wording.

You seem to inclined to believe that the reasons for few people from minorities taking part in the outdoors are that individuals from certain cultural backgrounds are simply not interested, and you may be right. But how do you know? How do you know that people don't experience a sense of unwelcomeness in activities and places where they see hardly anyone of their own ethnicity, and that the outdoor community could take steps to overcome that? I agree that equal participation is a pointless goal, but to assume that 'barriers' don't exist just because you personally don't see them is a failure of imagination. 

You applaud outreach, however, which implies you recognise that something might be lacking in the status quo. It seems your problem is actually mostly to do with the way these articles emphasise agency and blame, and I don't totally disagree.

1
 Dogwatch 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If, say, black people are underrepresented in climbing, then that's a statistical fact.

No, it's a normative statement with a built-in assumption that participation in climbing should follow some kind of predefined profile. Attaching the prefix "under" implies a problem. We aren't talking about participation in higher education, the professions or anything else that is actually important. It's just climbing. If people want to climb, that's fine. If they don't, that is also perfectly fine. It really doesn't matter.

3
 Dogwatch 07 Jun 2020
In reply to alexm198:

> I echo C Witter's comment and find it astonishing that as of right now, 14 people have disliked this article. Blows my mind that close to 25% of votes cast have been negative. I have to say I found that really disappointing and not in keeping with my anecdotal experience of many years in the climbing community, which seems generally made up of reasonable, tolerant, compassionate and progressive folk. 

So you don't consider you can be "reasonable, tolerant, compassionate and progressive" and dislike the article? Well you've made your prejudices clear.

I disliked it. I find the concept of "white privilege" to be divisive and the "test yourself for racism" links to be patronising. Aspects of the piece reek of virtue-signalling. 

5
 olddirtydoggy 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> You seem to inclined to believe that the reasons for few people from minorities taking part in the outdoors are that individuals from certain cultural backgrounds are simply not interested, and you may be right. But how do you know? How do you know that people don't experience a sense of unwelcomeness in activities and places where they see hardly anyone of their own ethnicity, and that the outdoor community could take steps to overcome that? . 

Whilst you clearly directed that towards Coel, my opinion on this isn't so far off his and from my point of view I can only base my observations on the interactions I've had with friends when discussing my outdoors pursuits and they really don't seem interested. What I will add is that I've many white British friends who although are not passionate about the outdsoors, they are no strangers to taking the family over Stanage edge and ending in the pub for a pint, interestingly my friends of colour don't do that because of a lack of interest.

Muamba, a good friend of mine from Zambia is an urban photographer and I suggested he should come out with us and try his hand as something to do with climbing photography as he's a master of capturing a moment. We offered to bring him with us to Lawrencefield and maybe even dangle him off a rope and see what happens. He politely declined, a mate took him up to the Lakes and he said it was the worst day of his life, no web access and all the rest of it, just not for him. Barriers have not stopped him going outdoors.

Post edited at 18:50
4
 olddirtydoggy 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Dogwatch:

You're right, I didn't particularly appreciate his observations either so stuck my neck out and posted why I disliked it. He has replied again expressing an understanding as to why some of us are posting negative. Polite dialog is always a winner and most of us can politely disagree. Say why you don't like the article.

2
 Coel Hellier 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

> I agree with much of what you say there, but not your downplaying of the significance of prominent role models. The Tiger Woods and Williams sisters examples given in the article make a good case for how influential they can be. 

I agree, role models can be hugely influential.  I wasn't trying to downplay role models in terms of who goes in which direction. 

What I am denying is whether it matters that much, whether there is a problem that needs fixing.

I get a lot of fulfillment out of outdoors climbing and walking.  A work colleague, instead, spends all his time in amateur dramatics and pursuing theatre and opera.   So what?   I presume that he is getting the same life-satisfaction out of that that I get out of climbing.  I don't regard my lifestyle as superior, just different. 

Similarly, my taste in music is metal.  But, I presume that someone who is fan of soul or jazz gets the same pleasure out of that that I get out of metal.  The latter is just my choice. I don't presume it's a "superior" choice. 

The idea that black people (or other ethnic minorities) should be out climbing strikes me as cultural imperialism.  It implies that the hobby of the Whites is the superior lifestyle, so the other ethnicities should adopt it.   I don't make that presumption.  It strikes me a cultureist. 

I don't presume that BAME communities "should" conform to White norms of participation in climbing or Munroing, and that something is wrong if they don't. 

OK, so they don't have role models that lead them to adopt climbing. So I presume that they do have role models that lead to other cultural activities, and I presume that those activities are just as worthy and fulfilling to them as my chosen hobbies are to me.  So I don't presume that they should stop doing those and instead take up climbing.  That strikes me as cultureist. 

So if a certain community is not into climbing (and thus does not have climbing role models and so their youth do not get into climbing) then that's simply not a problem.  I'll presume that their cultural activities are just as worthwhile.

What *would* be a problem is if a youth from that community who *did* want to take up climbing were prevented from doing so by actual barriers. Any such youth should be welcomed and encouraged. And if that youth then becomes a role model for that community and others follow, then great. 

But it seems that there are no (or few) real and actual barriers.  All there is is cultural differences. And that, to me, is simply not a problem.

Post edited at 19:30
6
 C Witter 07 Jun 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> Ok I'll stick my neck on the block. I don't like issues of gender and race attached to climbing.

> I don't really care for these kinds of articles personally

I'd just like to point out the disingenuous nature of comments like these from people who gravitate to any and every post on here the touches on emancipation, so that these grumpy quacks can offer up their pet anecdote ("I've got friends of all colours, and this one bloke this one time said...") as though this were hard won wisdom rather than simply a determination to dismiss any and every attempt to point out racism, misogyny, homophobia etc. "I just don't see these things as problems."

This from someone who posted on a thread about homosexuality in climbing:

"Is it safe as a straight man to be climbing with someone who is gay? Should I be worried when getting lowered down onto what I'm expecting to be 'safe' ground?"

But... it was all a joke... nevermind, eh! Get a sense of humour, right?

You think you're "sticking your neck on the block", battling with the "PC Brigade" but the reality is you're just talking out of your ass and you'd do better when you see articles like this one to just jog on all the way into the sea because your opinon is nothing more than same old tired crap we've heard so many times before.

26
 olddirtydoggy 07 Jun 2020
In reply to C Witter:

That's not very nice. I can only speak honestly from my own point of view. It might be my own experience doesn't fit in with your social political views but that doesn't mean it's right to launch a personal attack at me. The post you quoted was said in jest, I have no issues with gay people. Lighten up, stick the kettle on and calm your bad self down. Apologies if I've hurt your feelings.

4
 Jon Stewart 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Dogwatch:

> No, it's a normative statement with a built-in assumption that participation in climbing should follow some kind of predefined profile. Attaching the prefix "under" implies a problem.

I'm sorry, that's simply incorrect. Under or over representation is a factual comparison of a sub-group against a wider population.

I understand that in this context, there is an implication that the proportion of black climbers "should" equal that in the general population, but I specifically separated that implication because it isn't present in the term "under-representation". 

You can't start getting rid of words because in some context or other, it has an implication you don't happen to like. Under-representation is a factual word. That is a factual statement.

> We aren't talking about participation in higher education, the professions or anything else that is actually important. It's just climbing. If people want to climb, that's fine. If they don't, that is also perfectly fine. It really doesn't matter.

I haven't given any view on whether or not I think that under-representation of blacks or ethnic minorities is a problem. Quite deliberately. I do not believe that the proportion of different races in any sport or passtime should equal that in the general population. So please take your arguments about this to someone who has said something you disagree with, rather than someone who is accurately talking about the meaning of words.

3
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Also only two women.

2
 Andy Moles 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That is a lot of presumes.

I certainly wouldn't argue that people from ethnic minorities 'should' be climbing, but I am open minded to the possibility that the cultural status quo is not necessarily the best way things could be, and that certain forms of perceived exclusivity exist and limit people's sense of freedom and opportunity.

On many points I do agree with you though.

Post edited at 21:46
 Andy Moles 07 Jun 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

I don't doubt your accounts of your friends - I too have friends who are brown and disinterested in climbing. But that is purely anecdotal.

 Yanis Nayu 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

To be fair, so is speaking to a few BAME people who say the opposite. 
 

I find what C Witter wrote dismissing what BAME people had said to other posters puzzling. We’re being told that we should stop and listen to BAME people - other posters have done that within their sphere, but it’s dismissed, because it doesn’t fit an accepted narrative. 
 

I’ve had friends, acquaintances and colleagues from BAME communities over the years and I’ve always been interested in what they’ve got to say about their experiences - which is probably why I find articles like this so patronising. 

3
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

In jest maybe, but a pretty unpleasant joke that plays on an old stereotype of gay men being perverts. I imagine most gay men are not great fans of being cast as untrustworthy sex offenders for your amusement. It’s not all that long since this was the mainstream opinion, so there’s history behind that “joke”.

I’ve no reason not to take you at your word that you have no issues with gay people, but at best jokes like that tend to come across as though someone is quite uncomfortable about homosexuality. Not saying you are, just that it’s worth knowing that this is how it will come across to many. 

Post edited at 22:12
5
 olddirtydoggy 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Stuart Williams:

The post was cropped and reposted without the context of where is was used, like I said, the old post was said in jest and no offense was intended. The thread here was going really well but when the posts go from polite disagreement via discussion to personal attacks on each other, that's me out.

That's my last post here.

4
 nufkin 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>  It implies that the hobby of the Whites is the superior lifestyle, so the other ethnicities should adopt it.

This is a good point. Though it might also be one that is inferred rather than implied in most cases where people, or perhaps more prominently organisations, seek to encourage underrepresented groups to participate in climbing (or whatever). Possibly a certain element of virtue signalling is involved, but for the most part I should think the intention should be taken at face value; 'I/we found something I enjoy doing that has enriched my/our life/lives, wouldn't it be good if this could be accessible to people who might not otherwise have considered it, or were afraid they wouldn't be welcome or allowed'

 Jon Stewart 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The idea that black people (or other ethnic minorities) should be out climbing strikes me as cultural imperialism.  It implies that the hobby of the Whites is the superior lifestyle, so the other ethnicities should adopt it. 

I think that's rubbish, and you know it - the motivation in the article is clearly one of removing barriers (whether they exist or not, I don't know), not imposing a white norm on non-white people. It's a devious dig at your "woke enemies" to pretend to see it that way, and I for one do not buy it for one nanosecond.

> So if a certain community is not into climbing (and thus does not have climbing role models and so their youth do not get into climbing) then that's simply not a problem.

I agree. Climbing is a niche activity. 

> What *would* be a problem is if a youth from that community who *did* want to take up climbing were prevented from doing so by actual barriers.

Totally agree.

> But it seems that there are no (or few) real and actual barriers.  All there is is cultural differences.

I can't be so sure. I haven't seen the world from any perspective other than my own, so I don't have your confidence.

While I don't think there's any reason to have a goal of equal representation of races in climbing (I think that would be ridiculous in fact), I think there is a worthwhile question with respect to the broader idea of 'the outdoors'. I see experiencing 'the outdoors' as an extremely valuable contribution to human wellbeing in general, for everyone, unlike climbing which is just a daft thing a few people do. That's why we have National Parks.

I don't think it's realistic to say that it's a cultural difference that white people want to go to beautiful beaches, swim in lakes, picnic by rivers, play with their kids in forests, see wild animals and interesting plants and fungi, but ethnic minorities would rather be in a crowded concrete environment. I just don't buy it. If it is the case (and I don't have evidence either way) that there's a big disparity in access to the outdoors then that's indicative of something that's gone wrong in our society. 

I suspect actually, that it's mostly a function of socio-economic status and not much of race independently. It suits me - in a very narrow sense - to keep the Lake District free from all those badly behaved poor people of all races (see various other recent threads), but that's not the society I want to live in. I want to believe I live in a society where it's considered normal to go out for a walk and a picnic somewhere beautiful no matter how much money you've got or what colour your skin is. I want everyone to take their kids out into the forest and see what lives there. Not all at the same time in the same forest mind you. I can easily find a quiet crag or felltop while it's busy on the beaches and by the lake.

Edit: Given the nature of this topic, I feel unfortunately compelled to clarify that there is some sarcasm in the final paragraph. And I also know that Coel was talking about climbing specifically, but I'm broadening the issue to the outdoors generally (which Coel wasn't talking about). This is to broaden the discussion since the article is about 'the outdoor community' not just climbing, not to try to put words into Coel's mouth.

Post edited at 23:45
1
 sg 07 Jun 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Indeed. 'Barriers' is a word that needs a lot better understanding by the people that don't see them or experience them. Neither Coel or you or I or anyone from a BAME community (sorry if I'm incorrectly assuming that you and Coel are white), see black and yellow tape strung across the road into Hathersage saying 'no BAME' in the way that certain pubs might once have done but the numbers and types of barriers that exist are more significant for some groups than others. That's where the most generalised ideas of structural and systemic racism come in. I can't even see all the barriers when I try hard to think about it, because I'm white.

4
mysterion 08 Jun 2020
In reply to sg:

> I can't even see all the barriers when I try hard to think about it, because I'm white.

Or maybe it's because they're not there.

7
 sg 08 Jun 2020
In reply to mysterion:

> Or maybe it's because they're not there.

Maybe, but that's the point - I shouldn't (as a white person) just assume that to be true, as 'I' have done for decades / centuries (depending on how long you want to consider 'me' as thinking that I'm not racist).

See what Banksy said about the pipe leaking in the upstairs flat. Structural racism involves the structures of society preventing redress from occurring because those with power both: 1. (sometimes unknowingly) prevent those without it from having a voice (to express barriers) and 2. (wrongly) assume that those without power do have a voice and / or there are no barriers.

2
 Andy Moles 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> To be fair, so is speaking to a few BAME people who say the opposite. 

True, but it doesn't have to be a problem that affects a given percentage of a population to be a problem. It's hard to see us getting more meaningful data than the raw numbers of participants in outdoor activities, which on their own certainly look quite stark.

I can understand why you might find an article like this patronising - it's always annoying having someone who knows a little about something try to tell you how it is. However, give it some benefit of the doubt. Are you so sure, just having spoken to some friends, that there isn't something in it?

My last post should have said uninterested, not disinterested - past my bedtime.

1
 C Witter 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> To be fair, so is speaking to a few BAME people who say the opposite. 

> I find what C Witter wrote dismissing what BAME people had said to other posters puzzling. We’re being told that we should stop and listen to BAME people - other posters have done that within their sphere, but it’s dismissed, because it doesn’t fit an accepted narrative. 

Even you, presumably, have sufficient intellect to distinguish between someone explaining their experiences and someone anecdotally reporting a conversation they had with someone. If not, then remember that even Donald Trump likes to say: "I have friends who are black; black people love me; we have tremendous conversations. They say, "Donald, you're the least racist person I know"." I guess that putting children in cages and calling on the army to shoot BLM protesters isn't racist, then, since he is always so open to listening to people of colour!

> I’ve had friends, acquaintances and colleagues from BAME communities over the years and I’ve always been interested in what they’ve got to say about their experiences - which is probably why I find articles like this so patronising. 

So, people are wrong to write articles promoting anti-racism because you're interested in the experiences of ethnic minorities? Right. That's very logical.

Why don't you just say what you think, instead of being so disingenuously "puzzled" all the time.

11
 Yanis Nayu 08 Jun 2020
In reply to C Witter:

I find it patronising to be told (by a white person from a predominantly white organisation) to listen to people from ethnic minorities when I’ve been doing it for 30 years. I find it absurd that we’re only supposed to listen when they say what fits the narrative.

By the way, I’m not sure where you get off in being so rude and insulting. 

3
 MeMeMe 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I find it patronising to be told (by a white person from a predominantly white organisation) to listen to people from ethnic minorities when I’ve been doing it for 30 years. I find it absurd that we’re only supposed to listen when they say what fits the narrative.

Perhaps the article wasn't aimed at you.

I imagine I'd find 'learn how to rock climb' articles patronising which I why I don't find it necessary to read and then complain about them.

6
 Dogwatch 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm sorry, that's simply incorrect. Under or over representation is a factual comparison of a sub-group against a wider population.

Let's look at a dictionary definition. OED for instance:

under-represent

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]

Provide with insufficient or inadequate representation.

‘women are under-represented at high levels’

"Insufficient or inadequate" clearly shows the word is normative in effect, not merely factual.

2
 Jon Stewart 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Dogwatch:

Well I just looked at another definition: "insufficient or *disproportionately low* representation". 

Another, "represent in numbers that are disproportionately low". 

You're choosing a definition and then getting annoyed about it. I'm going to continue using it in the factual sense, but I take the point that it needs to be made clear, e.g. "while it's true that ethnic minorities are underrepresented in this sport, that doesn't appear to be a result of discrimination". 

1
 Dogwatch 08 Jun 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You're choosing a definition and then getting annoyed about it.

I chose from the OED, which is the definitive reference for British English. You don't give your source.

You are mistaking disagreement with annoyance.  

 scot1 08 Jun 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I've been active in the outdoors for 30 years and fellow enthusiasts seem in general so tolerant,educated and accepting. I can't imagine this sport has a problem with racism.There seems to be prejudice against townies, scallies,neds,junkies, alkies etc though,and these groups are woefully underrepresented in our sport. People of colour won't encounter barriers but I bet people seen as 'the underclass' might. Lets move on from the false idea that a lot of us are subconsciously racist and focus on the real issue,prejudice against the so called underclass. I'm as guilty as anyone, I'd be scared to share the crag with an ex car thief/junkie.In my prejudiced brain I believe that all outdoor folk should be smart,kind,non-racist,nonviolent etc, despite the fact that the more thuggish element might benefit from the outdoors. Please lets try to involve more so called 'undesirables' in our sport.

Post edited at 14:51
7
Removed User 11 Jun 2020
In reply to La benya:

Until POC can get into a position whereby they are able to contribute to policy there will never be informed change. Black and brown people are years behind when it comes to the outdoor as it's never been a place that have been sold to us or where we have felt welcome. How will this ever change unless people of colour are able to have a place at the table?

6
 Coel Hellier 11 Jun 2020
In reply to Removed UserPhilskills:

> Black and brown people are years behind when it comes to the outdoor as it's never been a place that have been sold to us or where we have felt welcome. How will this ever change unless people of colour are able to have a place at the table?

Has anyone actually denied you a place at the table?

And "policy" here is pretty irrelevant, all people need do is go out into the outdoors regardless of whether it has been "sold" to them.  There really is nothing stopping anyone. 

5
 La benya 11 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm not sure its my (or our) place to sell it to anyone, is it?

I got into climbing via a uni club, so the only difference in opportunity between me and the black guy next to me is whether we are at the same university... which is not a given as there are issues with under-representation in higher education but then that isn't an issue with climbing or 'the outdoors'.

1
 Coel Hellier 11 Jun 2020
In reply to La benya:

> I'm not sure its my (or our) place to sell it to anyone, is it?

Let's think about ways of getting into climbing currently (hill walking is easier).

(1) Indoor walls, and the "transfer to rock" courses they run.  I can't see these as being anything other than welcoming to minorities these days -- not least for commerical self-interest.   (Admittedly they cost money, so there's an economic barrier.)

(2) Commercial guides and companies.  Ditto, ditto. 

(3) School groups, youth groups, scout groups, etc.  Again, I can't see these as being anything other than welcoming to minorities these days.  (Admittedly there's a geographic issue, in that kids living in Sheffield would be much more likely to have such opportunities than kids in London.)

(4) University clubs.  Again, I can't see these as being anything other than welcoming to minorities these days.  I know what universities are like these days, and it would not be daunting for ethnic minority people to join in. Many such clubs have "freshers meets" where they try to attract new people. 

(5) Clubs. Now admittedly these can be cliquey and hard to get in with, and that could be very offputting to minorities.  They are not really there to teach novices, they are there for people who are already climbers to meet up.  

(6) Family, friends and acquaintances.  This is a good way for many people to get into it, and this would indeed be less of an option for ethnic minority groups where few are climbers currently.    One way of doing it is to meet people at indoor walls, and get to know people, and then tag along when they go outside. 

So, overall, it is admittedly not a doddle to get into climbing, though there are routes in.  But, the above list and any "barriers" would be pretty much the same for a white kid living in Lincoln who didn't have any family members who climbed and whose family lacked disposable income. 

7
 Dr Toph 12 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

If a person of colour says that they find there are barriers to accessing the outdoors based on ethnicity, then its not for us white folk to say that there are not, as we have not lived that life.
If you think that uni clubs, schools, groups don't present barriers to participation, then that is unfortunately a product of your own position of privilege, that you don't see them. I don't mean that in a criticism of your good nature and well meaning, its something that we all have to face up to.

I presume you read the two very insightful articles posted above, by Fatinkun and Young. Two of the significant barriers mentioned in the articles are safe space and role models.
As a white male I have never experienced the fear of racism while entering into outdoor activities, which are still predominantly white sports in the UK. If that is why Rhiane feels the need to create safe groups of black girl hikers, then that feeling is real.
As a white male I never lack for positive role models in the climbing world, whereas a quick scan around the current UKC articles, photos, ads and gear reviews presents only two non-white faces : one is Alannah Yip (and I think we can agree that east Asian climbers are not the topic of this debate, they are not only well represented, but crushing the comp climbing scene), the other is on the header of this very article. This could easily be seen to feed back into the perception of climbing being an all-white activity, in which a person of colour could feel intimidated or unsafe. Whether we individually think that all and sundry would be welcomed with equal and open arms at our local crag, its not to us to negate the lived experiences of those living in fear of racism their whole lives.
This could be an opportunity for organisations such as UKC to lead the way positively, by encouraging more diverse marketing imagery, employing more diverse gear reviewers etc. Its a relatively small thing, which might start a gradual sea change.

9
 EddieA 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Dr Toph:

Well said. 

1
 Ridge 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Bobling:

Thanks for posting the link to the Hope Project, I've been wondering how Sam was doing.

 OwainSimpson 16 Jun 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

UKC and UKH stand for United Kingdom Climbing and United Kingdom Hillwalking respectively. Hope that helps! 

1
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

 

> (5) Clubs. Now admittedly these can be cliquey and hard to get in with, and that could be very offputting to minorities.  They are not really there to teach novices, they are there for people who are already climbers to meet up.  

The only time in recent years that I've heard a racist joke is in a climbing club hut.

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...