Outerra forum

Outerra Engine => Off Topic => Topic started by: RaikoRaufoss on June 14, 2011, 01:42:17 am

Title: Scott vs. Amundsen: The Herald Sinks To A New Low
Post by: RaikoRaufoss on June 14, 2011, 01:42:17 am
I remember reading an article in The Sun a few years back about the poor education standards of British school children.  I posted it someplace, and quickly learned that The Sun is a tabloid.  Lesson learned.  Apparently, the people at The Herald honestly think that The Sun was being truthful and extended this "fact" to everyone in Great Britain, because I can see no other way they could publish this without being even more inhumanly cynical than they were:

To make it clear, I am a Amundsen supporter.  In the course of my research into the comparison of Scott vs. Amundsen, I notice a phenomenon I like to call "Scott Syndrome".  This phenomenon most frequently occurs with British individuals, and consists of ignoring the fact that Amundsen even existed.  Note that they don't mention him at all. And that's only the beginning.

How does this article attempt to mislead the British people?  Let us count the ways:


Which, incidentally, was how it was used to inspire Tommies going over the top at WWI slaughterhouses like the First Battle of the Somme.  I apologize for what looks a lot like a low blow, but the similarity is frightening.[/*]

In closing, the events will most likely fail.  Why?  It's not because of cultural shifts, as Crane and others would have you believe.  The faults were out there to find from 1922 onward, with Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey In the World pointing them out gently.  But no one paid any heed, even when the finger was pointed more directly.  It took Roland Huntford to wake people up.  The events will fail because people know the truth.  They know that Oates' death was closer to suicide than heroic sacrifice.  They've either forgotten that there was anything resembling science in the Terra Nova expedition, or they keep it separate from Scott.  They know that Scott and his men died needlessly so close to vital supplies, which they could have reached if they had either not wasted time collecting those much touted rock samples and not had them slowing them down in their starving state, or they had placed One Ton Depot at 80 degrees as intended (regardless of Solomon's weather argument).  But the real reason the events will fail is because, the world knows.
Title: Scott vs. Amundsen: The Herald Sinks To A New Low
Post by: RaikoRaufoss on July 03, 2011, 10:11:09 pm
"Don't frown at me like this,
don't bother to pretend that you actually care about the truth.
The truth is out there!
But nobody wants it because it just upsets them."
-Luigi Lucheni, in the musical Elisabeth

This caustic line proves quite timely, given the ridiculous lengths Scott apologists go to these days.  Note that this is a debunking of Scott apologists, not bashing the British.

First: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/the-cold-hard-facts-about-scotts-last-days-2304501.html

Then, of course, there's this: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/02/137481872/in-race-to-south-pole-scott-lost-or-did-he?ft=1&f=1004


This is like comparing Ian Kershaw's critically acclaimed biography of Hitler to a hypothetical dual biography of Hitler and Stalin, and automatically declaring the latter as the winner because Kershaw didn't include a biography of Stalin.[/*]

Shackleton never had such pretentions.  Neither did Scott.[/*]

What.  A.  Load.  Of.  ********.  Global warming was unknown in 1912.[/*]

The qualifier to the previous point, which incidentally fails, since if Antarctica was warmer in the past, then this proves cooling in at least the Antarctic region.[/*]

A blatant stealing of credit from Cherry-Garrard's legendary journey, and giving the credit for it exclusively to Scott's polar party.  It's bad enough when Scott took credit for the accomplishments of others back in the day.  We don't need others doing it for him today.[/*]

This is designed to mislead you into thinking that Scott was a huge scientific hero.  By getting himself and his Polar party killed, Scott jeopardized the science that Scott apologists tout.  For what would have happened to those samples if Scott's last camp had never been found by anyone?  Those finds would have been lost forever.  Credit for saving the samples should go to Atkinson's party which went looking for Scott's final resting place, not Scott who almost caused the samples to be lost for all time.[/*]

A repetition of the first point.  Amundsen's primary goal was the South Pole, and nothing else.  The fact that he sent three of his men to do geographic work on King Edward VII Land is incidental.  Scott's apologists, of course, conveniently leave out Fram's oceanographic work while Amundsen was racing for the Pole.  And Amundsen achieved something Scott couldn't: he led an expedition which handily beat Scott to the Pole, and got all his men back in great shape.[/*]