forgotten explorers

[Joonsy]

i watched the programme last night on polar explorer William Spiers Bruce, I’m not a massive fan of it's presenter Neil Oliver generally but found that programme very interesting as i had never heard of Bruce before, it struck a chord with me how he had largely been forgotten after his death and denied a polar medal while Captain Scott received worldwide fame even though Scott arguably achieved less than Bruce (scientifically anyway), it seemed Bruce had upset the establishment so was ignored while Scott was an ''establishment'' man so received acclaim, in other words ''fitting-in'' with the establishment was more important than their true accomplishments, while Scott is portrayed as a hero even though he achieved little more than immense suffering Bruce's weather station is actually still in use today, Captain John Franklin was another who received fame for supposedly discovering the North-West Passage while apparently it was actually the explorer John Rae, Franklin was turned in to a hero after his disappearance and his probable cannibalism denied while Rae who discovered the truth about the lost Franklin expedition was shunned for daring to tell the true facts. I couldn’t help thinking that who you know is more important than what you know and how peoples deeds get forgotten or twisted simply because they didn’t fit-in with the establishment’s thinking, there must be many more forgotten explorers lost in history, explorers that explored for exploration and science and not just for fame, such men that did not want the truth distorted just to receive recognition, explorers that were not prepared to turn fact into fantasy which is why they probably remain forgotten, even today this selective thinking is why we live in a world dominated by celebrity status.

 

[rik_uk3]

A fine explorer as were many others but lets not take away the merits of Scott's expedition which was primarily science focused and much of his data was still being studied and analysed for decades after his demise.

 

[Gagnrad]

... Scott is portrayed as a hero even though he achieved little more than immense suffering ...

Well, he should have used dogs, dogs, and only dogs. Man-hauling in that environment was ridiculous; ponies were no use; and the tractor-devices were a washout. in technological terms -- and here I mean the technology of movement, clothing, and food -- generally going with what indigenous people use in similar environments would be the best strategy. This is what the Norwegians did. And Amundsen was lucky in having someone of Nansen's calibre as a precursor. (Nansen, as well as his achievements in exploration, designed his own ship, worked as a diplomat, and as a zoologist, making important discoveries in neurology.)

However, Scott was unlucky with the weather. Also, he was unlucky in getting bad advice from the medical "experts". Vilhjálmur Stefánsson, one of the cleverest of the explorers, and a first-rate anthropologist, is quite clear on this.

One of the commonly-available recent biographies -- the man's name escapes me -- is downright nasty and mean-minded about Scott, and one almost wonders what Scott might have done to the writer. The same man fawns on Shackleton.

Why people have to pick favourites among explorers (as they tend to do elsewhere) one wonders -- and I guess that was your main point.

But, anyway, this guy does. In fact, Shackleton took his approach straight from Scott and made the same sort of plans. He was just far less meticulous, conscientious, and organized than Scott. And that, as it happens, by an irony of fate, is why he didn't lose anyone to scurvy. Like Scott, he took the wrong foods. Unlike Scott, being disorganized, he didn't take enough food ... and that paradoxically was fortunate, because it meant his men were forced to shoot fresh food for themselves. Here's Stefansson:

?The organization, and the rest of the first Shackleton expedition, went with a hurrah. They were as careless as Scott had been careful; they did not have Scott's type of backing, scientific or financial. They arrived helter skelter on the shores of the Antarctic Continent, pitched camp, and discovered that they did not have enough food for the winter, nor had they taken such painstaking care as Scott to provide themselves with fruits or other antiscorbutics in New Zealand. Compared with Scott's, their routine was slipshod as to cleanliness, exercise, and several of the ordinary hygienic prescriptions.

What signifies is that Scott's men, with unlimited quantities of jams and marmalades, cereals and fruits, grains, curries, and potted meats, had been little inclined to add seals and penguins to their dietary. With Shackleton it was neither wisdom or acceptance of good advice but dire necessity which drove to such use of penguin and seal that Dr. Alister Forbes Mackay, physician from Edinburgh, who was a member of that Shackleton expedition and later physician of my ship the Karluk, told me he estimated half the food during their stay in the Antarctic was fresh meat.


In spite of the lack of care, (indeed, as we now see it, because of their lack), Shackleton had better average health than Scott. There was never a sign of scurvy; every man retained his full strength; and they accomplished that spring what most authorities still consider the greatest physical achievement ever made in the southern polar regions. With men dragging the sledge a considerable part of the way, they got to latitude 88° 23 S., practically within sight of the Pole.


Scott began his second venture as he had begun the first, by asking the medical profession of Britain for protection from scurvy and by receiving from them once more the good old advice about lime juice, fruits, and the rest. In winter quarters he again placed reliance on that advice and on constant medical supervision, on a planned and carefully varied diet, on numerous scientific tests to determine the condition of the men, on exercise, fresh air, sanitation in all its standard forms. The men lived on the foods of the United Kingdom, supplemented by the fruit and garden produce of New Zealand. Because they had so much which they were used to, they ate little of what they had never learned to like, the penguins and seals..

 

[fishfish]

love the song by stan rogers 'north west passage'.

 

[rg598]

It is a sad reality of exploration. Politics play as much of a role as the exploration itself; from fund raising to actually capitalizing on the achievement.

 

[rik_uk3]

Well, he should have used dogs, dogs, and only dogs. Man-hauling in that environment was ridiculous; ponies were no use; and the tractor-devices were a washout. in technological terms -- and here I mean the technology of movement, clothing, and food -- generally going with what indigenous people use in similar environments would be the best strategy. This is what the Norwegians did. And Amundsen was lucky in having someone of Nansen's calibre as a precursor. (Nansen, as well as his achievements in exploration, designed his own ship, worked as a diplomat, and as a zoologist, making important discoveries in neurology.)

However, Scott was unlucky with the weather. Also, he was unlucky in getting bad advice from the medical "experts". Vilhjálmur Stefánsson, one of the cleverest of the explorers, and a first-rate anthropologist, is quite clear on this.

One of the commonly-available recent biographies -- the man's name escapes me -- is downright nasty and mean-minded about Scott, and one almost wonders what Scott might have done to the writer. The same man fawns on Shackleton.

Why people have to pick favourites among explorers (as they tend to do elsewhere) one wonders -- and I guess that was your main point.

But, anyway, this guy does. In fact, Shackleton took his approach straight from Scott and made the same sort of plans. He was just far less meticulous, conscientious, and organized than Scott. And that, as it happens, by an irony of fate, is why he didn't lose anyone to scurvy. Like Scott, he took the wrong foods. Unlike Scott, being disorganized, he didn't take enough food ... and that paradoxically was fortunate, because it meant his men were forced to shoot fresh food for themselves. Here's Stefansson:

Go and read
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captain-Scott-Sir-Ranulph-Fiennes/dp/0340826991
Then come back and re-write your reply freeing it from several points that are completely wrong.