When Men were Men…
T’is true that there is nothing new in the world – we have been down this path of retrospectively denouncing celebrities, judging them by modern mores, before.
‘Falcon’ came from a privileged background – but scarcely led a privileged life. His Father had inherited a Plymouth brewery, and a country estate in Devon – “the property, a small country estate, was complete with a nice home, a stream at the bottom of the garden, three large greenhouses, dogs, a peacock on the lawn and a small staff of maids and gardeners”. When Falcon was still a young man, the brewery was sold, the money badly invested, and the family became homeless and penniless – forced to move to a rented house in Somerset. As the Guardian would have it today – ‘the children’s education disrupted, the family forced to move away from their social network’ – but there was no housing cap to blame then, the family just had to get on with it, and everyone, including the girls, had to take jobs.
Long before that, out of choice, rather than necessity, Falcon had been sent into a form of apprenticeship – aged 13. He was forced to climb to 120′ above ground – with no safety net; bullied, shouted at; and lived a life of extreme deprivation in the name of making ‘a man out of the boy’. His natural diffidence, shyness and dislike of blood, cruelty to animals and anything vaguely unpleasant had been drilled out of him – anathema to today’s mollycoddled society. His only route out of this lifestyle was not via ‘Jobseekers allowance’ and the ease of the ubiquitous sofa – but to undertake ever more dangerous tasks in the hope of being selected for advancement.
When he was 29, his Father died, leaving the family utterly penniless. Falcon supported his Mother and his sisters from his meagre salary, leaving himself not a penny to spend on anything but the bare necessities of life.
So it was that Falcon volunteered for a voyage into the unknown; to lead an expedition to Antartica. Not out of interest in matters Polar, but as advancement to solve the families financial situation. Falcon was to become better known to us as Robert Falcon Scott, or ‘Scott of the Antarctic’.
It was 100 years ago today, January 17th 1912, that he arrived at what he thought was the South Pole, only to discover that the Norwegian team led by Admundsen had beaten him to it.
Would he have taken that path in life had he had Jobseeker’s Allowance, had the family had tax credits and housing allowance? No doubt someone will come along and say that I am advocating a return to a society where children were sent up chimneys, but it is worth reflecting that we have not only taken away from young men the necessity to prove themselves, but also the opportunity. We still have adventurous explorers today – Ranulph Fiennes, or Sir Ranulph Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes as I should call him. Only those with a life of privilege can prove themselves in that way – Falcon may have been born into privilege, but it didn’t last long. By the time he was 13 he was living a life that would be unknown today, of hardship and deprivation, and it was his efforts to lift himself out of that life that led to the celebration of his outstanding drive and feats of endurance.
As is the way of modern life, 70 years later, from the comfort of the centrally heated apartment, and the ease of the electric typewriter, several books appeared which mocked Scott. He was, apparently, a ‘heroic bungler’, ‘a man who had led his companions to their death’. Scott was lucky perhaps, in that he died before a knighthood could be bestowed upon him, which spared him the modern scourge of celebrity – calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood after death…
Only Ranulph Fiennes, the only person truly qualified amongst those who clamoured to write the definitive ’revisionist’ biography of Scott was prepared to defend him, in a book called ‘To the Families of the Defamed Dead’. Defaming the Dead is not, it seems, a new preoccupation.
Today, there is barely a mention of this 100th anniversary. Though amusingly I see the feminists have remembered, publishing a piece in the obscure Australian on-line paper, the ‘Northern Rivers Echo’ – it was only Scott’s misogyny allegedly, that prevented Marie Stopes from being the official palaeobotanist on that doomed expedition! The article does at least allow that it was carrying the rocks that Stopes had requested he bring back for her that ultimately delayed the men and led to their death. She, of course, went on to create the movement which allows women to destroy the outcome of their carnal desires with dastardly men – such a shame he didn’t let her go with him 100 years ago.
Between abortion and health and safety rules, the welfare state and the removal of competition between children, will we ever see another Robert Falcon Scott?
January 22, 2013 at 08:51
-
Much as I admired Scott, I always preferred Shackleton; his expedition went
tits-up before it even started, yet he managed to move his entire crew several
hundred miles (can’t remember the exact number) to dry land (Elephant Island),
then sailed a thousand miles in an open lifeboat, to a speck of an island in
the South Atlantic, scaled its icy peaks, to get help from the base on South
Georgia. All his crew survived. He also reported the only recorded attack on
humans (that I know of) by orcas in the wild. I was further piqued when a
great-aunt told me that he had dated her a few times while she was working at
the British embassy in Lisbon, when he was on a fund-raising tour.
BTW, John Pickworth, he used horses to pull the sleds, not dogs, against
the advice of people like Amundsen (yes, they ate them).
- January 21, 2013 at 12:47
-
@ members of Scott’s expedition were masochistic in the extreme @
Ha! They had no idea what real pain is like !!
This is the new men’s
man……..
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a452298/men-in-agony-experiencing-simulated-labour-pains-video.html
- January 20, 2013 at 00:15
-
I have just finished reading “The Worst Journey in The World” by Apsley
Cherry-Garrard and it seemed plain as a pikestaff that the majority of the
English members of Scott’s expedition were masochistic in the extreme and
seemed to delight in pushing themselves to the brink of death by exhaustion
and cold. Men’s men to the point of unhealthiness, brave as lions, tough as
old boots ( you really have to read the book and be staggered at the
privations they uncomplainingly and selflessly endured) and ultimately, by all
rational standards, mad as a box of frogs. Cherry-Apsley absolutely
hero-worshiped Scott, as did most of the team, but then went on to describe, I
thought, rather a creepy kind of guy.
-
January 18, 2013 at 19:57
-
Sorry, I made a mess of that.
First point which hasn’t come out because I seem to have misused chevrons
was that I wasn’t looking at “discovery” in the narrow context of one
following in earlier footsteps and one not, but the broader purposes and
achievements of Scott’s whole expedition compared to Amundsen’s. I doubt Scott
hauled back geological samples that merely duplicated any already collected,
the northern party explored a fresh area and there was pioneeing work in film,
ornithology and other fields. Even the failure of the motor sleds contributed
to the fund of knowledge.
-
January 18, 2013 at 19:45
-
>>Actually not true. Scott’s southern expedition discovered precisely
nothing new, because he followed Shackleton’s Nimrod expedition in virtually
every single step. This concept of the ‘non race’ was dreamed up by Scott
lovers to avoid discussions about why he lost the race.<> one wonders
if his real weakness was Shackleton’s strength, viz. making the decision to
turn back short of the Pole rather than die a hero <<
There was never such a straightforward choice in 1911. It was certainly a
very poor decision not to go to the pole with just Wilson, Bowers and Crean,
but it was only on the way back weeks later that “dying as heroes” crept onto
the agenda. Susan Solomon’s The Coldest March explains – ironically,
meteorological data collected precisely because Scott’s expedition wasn’t
there merely to “race” helps confirm it was ultimately freakish weather that
killed them. See http://www.coldestmarch.com/
-
January 22, 2013 at 08:44
-
Don’t you just wish there was a “Preview” button?
- January 18, 2013 at 16:25
-
When Britain was sending explorers and adventurers out into the world (and
yes, spare me the standard issue ‘they were only doing it for personal gain’
line or because it was all part of a huge evil empire plan) it is worth
remembering that these people came from not 60 or 65 million but more like 20
or 25 million. In other words, the percentage of these outward-going people
was considerably higher than we would have now.
-
January 18, 2013 at 13:50
-
Very good reflective piece which highlights several things:
‘Damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ applies to a lot of situations
and people.
Human beings are ready to ‘denigrate’ because it is they who put people on
a pedestal or dustbin to begin with. Honours are meted out by those who in
another time and life might be under public attack for some wrongful
doing.
That the judgements made by society as to what is acceptable are a
moveable. Going back 100 years does not necessarily suggest sending children
up chimneys, but is a reminder that the responsibilities for your family
members is not the function of the state, unless they tell you to reproduce
specifically.
Many families in circumstances like Scott’s have pooled /
shared and given to each other in quite complex ways. Many of those who have
more selfish lives are those who sit on sofas and judge negatively, whilst
displaying a ready tendency to remind us of ‘what they are entitled to
request’.
One of these in modern times is the common social worker who cannot
understand families of elders may have a history like Scott’s, but because
they perch on sofas they shout loudly ‘financial abuse’ when resources are
seen to be shared in such families. So they break up families who can
care.
-
January 18, 2013 at 13:39
-
And before that there was the Donner Party incident. I once read an
excellent novel, ‘Rabbit Boss’ which explored the tragedy from the eyes of
native Americans watching the while people eat each other from a
distance…..
-
January 22, 2013 at 08:41
-
I suppose they had long knives and forks, then, did they….? hehehehe
- January 17, 2013 at 20:38
-
Red Dwarf have a different take..
Kryten: I beg you to reconsider, Sir. Human history is resplendent with
examples of such sacrifice. Remember Captain Oates: “I’m going out for a walk.
I may be some time.”
Rimmer: Yes, but the thing is, about Captain Oates;
the thing you have to remember about Captain Oates; … Captain Oates was a
prat. If that’d been me, I’d’ve stayed in the tent, whacked Scott over the
head with a frozen husky, and then eaten him.
Lister: You would too,
wouldn’t you?
Rimmer: History, Lister, is written by the winners. How do we
know that Oates went out for this legendary walk? From the only surviving
document: Scott’s diary. And he’s hardly likely to have written down,
“February the First, bludgeoned Oates to death while he slept, then scoffed
him along with the last packet of instant mash.” How’s that going to look when
he gets rescued, eh? No, much better to say, “Oates made the supreme
sacrifice,” while you’re dabbing up his gravy with the last piece of crusty
bread
-
January 18, 2013 at 00:03
-
Thanks for the reminder Saul
- January 18, 2013 at 13:23
-
The modern “real-life” story that so popularised the cynical notions of
people in-extremis eating one another was the Andes plane crash, but
nobody killed one another then, in order to eat their flesh. The survivors
cut slices off the frozen already-dead bodies that were left exposed after
the plane had come down. My memory of the Oates thing was that he knew he
was going to die anyway because of advanced gangrene/frostbite and wanted
to avoid consuming any more supplies, as he knew he was a hopeless case
anyway. I would guess he was in excrutiating pain too.
- January 18, 2013 at 13:46
-
If you read the excellent Limb/Cordingley biography of Oates this is
exactly what he did. Oates may have been many things but he had no
desire to be a hero.
-
January 17, 2013 at 19:05
-
Whatever else he may have done, and even ignoring why he did it, the
lasting legacy of Oates’ ‘I’m going out now….I may be some time’ is replayed
every harsh winter by people of my acquaintance just for the lulz…..as
recently as half an hour ago when the fireside logpile needed replenishing. Of
course my 16 year old has no idea who he was and resists my attempts to inform
her.
-
January 17, 2013 at 16:44
-
>>He might not have won the race, but no one is going to forget him.
I have always felt rather sorry for him, personally. For losing the race, that
is.<<
However, it could be argued that although there was a race in the loosest
sense because of the national prestige at stake for whoever got their first –
Scott, Amundsen or someone else – it was never really a race between the two
of them, because Scott had a broader set of goals. Which he achieved in
spades, all bar getting home alive. Amundsen was racing pure and simple, Scott
wasn’t, so it’s hardly surprising he “won”.
- January 18, 2013 at 13:44
-
Actually not true. Scott’s southern expedition discovered precisely
nothing new, because he followed Shackleton’s Nimrod expedition in virtually
every single step. This concept of the ‘non race’ was dreamed up by Scott
lovers to avoid discussions about why he lost the race.
Not only was Scott racing Amundsen, he was also racing Shackleton.
- January 17, 2013 at 15:58
-
Seems appropriate:
Let every game’s end find you still upon the battling line;
For when the
One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name,
He writes – not that you
won or lost – but how you played the Game
- January 17, 2013 at 15:55
-
-
January 20, 2013 at 19:52
-
That link says “On top of the mast is Junior Seaman Alan Ferguson who was
the last ‘Button Boy’ to perform the feat…”
So presumably (and predictably, and sadly), they aren’t allowed to do it
any more – “because of Health and Safety”.
God how I hate that phrase and everything it stands for.
- January 20, 2013 at 23:24
-
“God how I hate that phrase and everything it stands for.”
Amen.
- January 22, 2013 at 08:36
-
Even worse is “risk assessment”.
-
January 17, 2013 at 12:48
-
He might not have won the race, but no one is going to forget him. I have
always felt rather sorry for him, personally. For losing the race, that
is.
-
January 17, 2013 at 11:56
-
I’ve read loads about Scott and have a decent collection of books on him,
and first “got into” the story 20-odd years ago when Roland Huntford brought
out the knocking book you refer to. It was also made into a TV series, with
look-alikes Martin “George Gently” Shaw as Scott, Sylvester “Dr Who” McCoy as
Bowers and Stephen “Adrian Mole’s dad” Moore as the great Edward Wilson. I
fell for it at first, but with the wisdom of years realised that what was
going on was precisely judging the conduct of people in one era by the
standards of another – okay, the gap between the eras is longer than in the
story currently in the news, but the principle is the same.
Reading it now, Huntford’s take on Scott comes over as vindictive and
founded on a false premise. But what the heck, he must have made a few quid
from taking this line. Recent years have seen the scientific work which he
sneers at re-evaluated and it seems clear that Scott really was undone by
freakish weather, and also that Amundsen took a huge risk in where he pitched
his base and if he’d done it a couple of years later it would have broken away
as a berg and none of his lot would ever have been heard of again.
I had my antennae pricked for the centenary well ahead, from the centenary
of the Terra Nova’s departure from Cardiff in June 2010, and to be fair Scott
DID get a very fair crack of the whip in the media, including many reports on
primetime TV news, throughout the extended anniverdary, with the revisionist
view pretty much dismissed. The absolute highlight for me was Ranulph Fiennes
giving Jon Snow (who I love as a broadcaster) a battering when Snow
interviewed him from a Huntford-ish standpoint. If it was boxing, the referee
would have stopped it. To be fair, I think Snow had been hung out to dry by a
researcher primng him with duff questions, and I’ve never seen him so
out-argued by an interviewee.
Scott and his party did get due credit this time last year, and it
gladdened my heart.
- January 18, 2013 at 13:42
-
It’s arguable. Scott took risks continually, pushing to the limits.
Shackleton did too (if you’ve read Heart of the Antarctic for example) and
just got away with it. Amundsen learnt from early exploring in Norway and
his own near misses the problems of such an approach.
Those risks were bound at some point to come wildly unstuck. If you look
(for example) at Amundsen’s safety margins vs Scott’s the gap is ridiculous.
Even if Scott, Wilson and Bowers had made it to One Ton Camp it is by no
means assured that they would have got back safely.
Whist it is true that Huntford does not venerate Scott as some do, many
of his criticisms do have a degree of truth. There were some very strange
decisions made. Huntford does not hold back from criticising Amundsen mind,
over his ‘early start’ and his treatment of Hjalmar Johansen.
But no-one should ever doubt Robert Scott’s bravery, or that of the men
who travelled with him.
Foolishness, perhaps, and one wonders if his real weakness was
Shackleton’s strength, viz. making the decision to turn back short of the
Pole rather than die a Hero.
- January 17, 2013 at 11:12
-
My father was apparently a good artist and the teachers at school had
suggested he should use that talent to earn a living. However when he came out
of the army at the end of WWI, he found a menial job and studied accountancy
at evening classes and subsequently qualified.
I remember once when I was
young asking him why he didn’t take up art, he simply replied “Because I
didn’t want to starve”.
That’s how it was in the twenties, I assume that
things were probably harder ten or twenty years earlier.
-
January 17, 2013 at 10:10
-
Scott was wholly irresponsible. Where was his health and safety risk
assessment? Did he even bother with a high visibility vest or hard hat? And
what about a gender and race awareness course? I bet none of that was carried
out before he strode off on his reckless, so-called “adventures”. Even worse,
I suspect his sled was not platered with gaudy adverts for fizzy drinks full
of sugar and video games; indeed he probably consulted no focus groups at all
in his selfish quest, and he did not have the decency to have an on off soap
opera relationship with a talentless floozie from the Music Hall which could
be spread all over the daily newspapers.
How things have changed for the
better!
- January 17, 2013 at 11:18
-
Upon reading his memoirs, I saw a lack of opportunities for bi/gay/trans/
or hermaphrodites in his party, let alone a smoking enforcement/ethnic
community liason officer. In hindsight, the expedition was doomed to failure
from the start….
-
January 17, 2013 at 11:41
-
My goodness! They were allowed TO SMOKE! More scandal. And as you
rightly point out, there seem to have no members of the transgendered
community reflected in the party. All in all, a shameful episode.
- January 18, 2013 at
12:50
-
You neglect to mention (perhaps out of a regard for decency) that
Scott and his team wore outer garments fashioned from (it is difficult
to type these words) the skins of murdered animals – real animals,
killed and skinned for their fur! Surely this man should be not just
neglected but expunged from history…
- January 18, 2013 at
16:41
-
Additionally, this being the Antarctic (the only place of earth
without a Tesco’s) and missing their fave burgers, the poor huskies…
well, lets just say Scott and the chaps had a couple of them over for
dinner one evening.
- January 17, 2013 at 09:47
-
I think the message to be taken from Scott’s life, and Shackleton as well,
is that sense of self reliance. They didn’t expect “the authorities” to take
responsibility for their lives, or anyone else to provide for them. They
accepted the cards they’d been dealt and played them to the best of their
ability.
Today it seems no-one has to take responsibility, it’s always someone
else’s responsibility. Here in NZ, for some time now, there have been a series
of adverts which effectively absolve people from individual responsibility;
apparently you shouldn’t let your mate become a statistic in the weekend
A&E admissions for drunkenness, you should intervene in domestic arguments
to defuse the situation, mates don’t let mates drink drive. Whilst I accept
that to make society better there are times we should provide wiser counsel it
is, ultimately, the choice of the individual to step outside society’s rules.
Ultimately this process of negating individual responsibility can only make us
weaker.
-
January 18, 2013 at 12:37
-
“I think the message to be taken from Scott’s life, and Shackleton as
well, is that sense of self reliance…”
If I may, I would like to add Fridtjof
Nansen as perhaps the very best example of ‘get-up and go’, EVER! Merely
reading Nansen’s life (and family) history is breath taking enough but drill
down on his exploits and you’re left gasping for air. Its a real shame his
story isn’t more widely known, Perhaps our great historian Gildas the
Monk might like to consider Nansen as a topic for a future article?
Will we see the likes of these explorers again? Yes I think we will.
There is still much to strive for and human nature being what it is a man
(or woman) will come forward to claim the moment. The lesson though is not
so much what is over the next hill but the character of those prepared to go
look, no matter the personal cost.
- January
17, 2013 at 09:40
-
When Men were Men…
by ANNA RACCOON on JANUARY 17, 2013
‘It was 100
years ago today, January 17th 1912′…
‘Today, there is barely a mention of
this 100th anniversary. ‘
Er…there might be a reason for that…
Sorry to hear about the flu – hope you feel better soon!
-
January 17, 2013 at 09:45
-
Oh come along Sir. Let’s not quibble about one year!!
- January 17, 2013 at
09:54
-
Ah well, should have stayed in bed shouldn’t I – well and truly screwed
that one up…….
Back to the duvet…
- January 17, 2013 at 09:58
-
@ Anna Raccoon
I shouldn’t worry. History is all bunk nowadays
anyway……..
- January 17, 2013 at 10:19
-
IP is right – my apologies for unleashing my inner pedant.
You’re spot on about the revisionist tendencies – there’s probably
some deep psychological explanation involving a sense of envy and
inadequacy in comparison to the achievements of previous generations.
One thing that sticks in my mind is Scott’s letter to his wife about
their 2-year-old son: “make the boy interested in natural history if you
can; it is better than games,” which suggests an attitude somewhat at
odds with some of the more recent portrayals of his character.
-
January 17, 2013 at 10:34
-
and look what became of that! His son actually advocated painting
warships pink!
-
January 17, 2013 at 11:44
-
‘It was 100 years ago today, January 17th 1912′…
A swift bit of revisionist editing to ‘It was 100 years ago today,
January 17th 1913′…, and I doubt 1 in a thousand readers will spot
it…………….
After all, the Ruskies fooled millions with their assertion of the
year of the Katyn massacre.
-
January 17, 2013 at 09:34
-
Well, of course, the young fellow was enjoying all the privileges that go
with being in the Patriarchy. Girls weren’t allowed such wonderful
opportunities as climbing 120′ without a safety net, and we all know that they
could do anything a chap could and better! If only they were allowed. And we
have to acknowledge that his reluctance to take the lady into the Antarctic
frozen wastes was due entirely to his hostility to women.
- January 17, 2013 at 09:40
-
- January 17, 2013 at 11:30
-
Nos 1 & 9 are clearly figments of imagination, as every feminist
will tell you that women were not able to attend Universities until, oh,
1980 or thereabouts and only because Germaine Greer forced her way in and
liberated all other women with her breaking down of the Patriarchal
barriers. PhDs in the late 1800 ?! Hah. Can’t be true.
- January 20, 2013 at 15:34
-
Illiterate Prat: “Girls weren’t allowed such wonderful opportunities as
climbing 120′ without a safety net, and we all know that they could do
anything a chap could and better! If only they were allowed. ”
Explain to me then why women can’t be considered for, say, Delta Force in
the US Army, or an Army Ranger, or be in the SAS? Would it really hurt that
much to admit there are some things, usually physical acts, that men can do
to a higher standard than women?
- January 20, 2013 at 15:50
-
“We all know’ because that is what we hear repeatedly from the Harriet
Harmans of the world and her radical feminist ilk.
Regarding the SAS, Delta, Rangers thingo, very, very few men can get to
that high standard either. Maybe one in 5000? The difference between 5000
women failing to qualify and 4999 men failing to qualify is statistically
insignificant. Train the gals and send ‘em in, I say. They can die just as
well as the men can and there is a lot of catching up to do. Quotas,
anyone?
- January 20, 2013 at 23:17
-
I suppose I should have also stated that there are things that no man
can do as well as a woman can. It works both ways. There is a physical,
tangible difference between the sexes. And it really bothers me when
people deny this fact just because they wish it wasn’t so. I wish Tony
Blair had never been so. But he’s still around.
- January 17, 2013 at 09:33
-
“I am just going outside and may be some time.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2106127/Captain-Lawrence-Oates-selfless-heroism-South-Pole-expedition.html#ixzz2IDwJ6YAp
{ 47 comments }