[T]he comparison is not of the DT situation to Nazi Germany, if is of the relationships of the various actors (i.e., Dingus's I don't care about DT closure because I don't climb there is in fact analogous to the actors in the cited poem). . . . If you don't like the analogy, great.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Some people get offended when one compares life-and-death situations (Nazis) with recreation (rock climbing access)--but some people get offended about anything. The point is the same--if you really care promoting climbing access (I do as do many other climbers, many climbers don't), get involved and do what you can.
That doesn't mean all climbing access everywhere all the time, just as if you care about 2nd Amendment rights that doesn't mean you think everyone should be able to own/possess any type of weapon everywhere, or if you care about abortion rights that you think every pregnant woman should allowed to have an abortion up to 1 minute before giving birth, with no restrictions.
Truth is that climbing access is under attack for largely the same reasons in many places (it causes "psychic damage" to (some) Indians or would-be "pioneers" (City of Rocks) or whomever).
If you think that's wrong, do what you can to make your voice heard.

Godwin!

I think anyone that took the use of this analogy to mean that rock climbing closures are tantamount to nazi genocide are trying to find a problem, which is nothing new around here. An extreme analogy, no doubt, but I see what pfwein was trying to express.

The way you phrase this suggests you have no direct personal knowledge of this issue, at all. When you say ' climbers' you surely mean a handful of self-appointed locals who sorta moved in there and did what they wanted, like paving the floor, etc.

Personally I think the fucking paving stones were the camel that broke the straw's back. What you basically had - whether these locals care to admit it or not - was a small group practically seizing control of a public and cultural resource, for their own amusement and none other.

Now we climbers do that, don't get me wrong. I do that.

All I am saying is there are two sides to this story and you will rarely get the full scoop from a Tahoe local, no offence to them.

The rock is so insignificant in any meaningful terms that this is and will remain a local thing. The Washoe were here long before spandex clad sport climbers decided Cave Rock was their playground.

All that said I agree with you that allowing an indian group to exert control over public land resources on religious grounds is the same as allowing a christian group to erect a cross on public lands - with all the attendant precedence in law concerning 'come one, come all.'

The only way to reclaim Cave Rock now is

1. Constitutional challenge - who has the money for THAT?

2. Form a Cult of Climbing, fix it with enough trappings to get recognized as a cult, then claim access on cultural grounds using the 'if you let them you have to let us.'

But the bolts are being pulled or have been pulled. I think the biggest reason for this is - 'they' (someone in the government) know that the Washoe access is tenuous at best and built on very shakey constitutional grounds.

But I think they also know that if the bolts come out, they will not likely go back in - ever. The end result to a constitutional challenge now would be - FINE! Climbers can come back. But no fixed pro.

That would be a very.... 'hollow' (haha) victory indeed.

Smart fuckers, to pull the bolts. The locals know what it means. Put a fork in Cave Rock - it is one and truly OVER.

RIP Slayer.

DMT

Your first and second sentences conflict. Your claim that the only folks likely to criticize pfwein's use of Niemoeller here are simply typical flamers "trying to find a problem" is at odds with your own description of the analogy as "extreme." But "extreme" is on the money: The notion that Niemoeller's reference isn't Nazism is simply absurd.

I am willing accept pfwein's explanation that he didn't mean for one of the most famous quotations associated with the Holocaust to actually reference Nazism. All of us can be clumsy with quotation and analogy down in the tubez.

For all the lurkers, there are two problems with using Niemoeller in this context. First, the analogy likens climbers to Jews and other vicitims of Nazism whil identifying the feds, native Americans, and any other folks pursuing closures of climbing land to Nazis. Pfwein may not have "intended" that meaning, but it is there. Second, the thrust of Niemoeller's statement* is a quintessentially modern Protestant faith in the oneness of humankind: Jews, Communists, gypsies, etc. All are equal and all deserve the same support and sympathy.

In this context, the analogy would mean that all access issues are exactly the same: Big mining corporations subverting national monuments, state parks banning climbing while allowing sport rappelling, private landowners prohibiting poaching, NPS banning power drills on El Cap, Auburn Quarry getting filled in, Native American groups asking for voluntary seasonal closures on Devil's Tower, all represent the exact same kind and quantity of evil, and all should be opposed equally.

Some of you may join apeman in finding that part of the analogy insightful. To me, that level of the analogy is also so wrongheaded that I find apeman's enthusiasm difficult to understand. What strikes me most forcefully about the many access issues confronting the climbing community is how very different most of them are. I don't see the Washo's claims to Cave Rock as morally equivalent to Acme Mining Cos. claims to a national monument. But go ahead, party like it's 1999.

*Niemoeller's quote is not easy to pin down. See Herbert Marcuse's essay in source criticism here:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/...lty/marcuse/niem.htm

Edit for typo.

But you're right in that it's not worth the fight. But it is certainly worth the gripe space to complain about the First Amendment being violated! This is much more of an anti-religion kick than a climbing kick.