4 ms·

I get that Shackleton is an icon of persistence, but counterpoint, his voyages and business ventures mostly ended in failure, and at one point while stranded in

by frisco 5y ago

I get that Shackleton is an icon of persistence, but counterpoint, his voyages and business ventures mostly ended in failure, and at one point while stranded in the ice he shot the ship's cat which he thought was a 'weakling'. I get he survived harsh conditions, but I'm not sure he's a role model to look up to.

kitd 5y ago
I think that's more a function of where his expeditions were taking place. Everything had to line up perfectly for "success" in those sorts of environments and with the resources they had. The trick is knowing when to bow out gracefully and admit defeat (and just get yourselves out of there alive), something that Scott failed to do.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I'm more of a fan of Chippy McNish and captain Frank Worsley, some of the shit they pulled off is amazing, often having to battle Shackleton to do the right thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_McNish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_McNish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Worsley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Worsley
dash2 5y ago
His failures are more interesting than most peoples’s successes.
mutatio 5y ago
These takes are interesting, as invariably I think they don't give much thought into the context of the person in question. I'm not excusing the execution of the cat, it is indeed distasteful, however you're applying moral restrictions on his actions as an equal, i.e. from the context of our safe, armchair observer position. Would I randomly execute a cat in my position? Hell no. Can I guarantee under life or death survival situations my morality might malfunction? I'm quite sure of it.
jgrahamc 5y ago
In one of Sir John Franklin’s books about mapping parts of Canada he describes shooting a man because the chap has gone mad (if I remember well).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
madaxe_again 5y ago
Shackleton was rather renowned for being, um, headstrong. If he got an idea in his head, that was what would happen, and how it would happen. While this may have been endemic in them surviving, it was equally relevant in them ending up in the situation in the first place. Whalers at South Georgia, where they set in before heading for the continent, warned him that the sea ice conditions were unusual, and that he postpone a month for the sea ice to move. I forget which of his crews’ journals it was that has the account, but to say he was dismissive would be an understatement. In addition, their provisioning was all over the place, he having paid more attention to which brand associations would be profitable than what would store well or provide adequate calories in the conditions. He did the same on his previous expedition, although the shortfall was made up for by pony meat, as the ponies, which he had been advised would be ill-suited to Antarctic conditions, were, unsurprisingly, ill-suited to Antarctic conditions. Oh, and he brought a car along, which also went as well as you’d expect. I guess he’s a role model for the idea of move fast and break things, and for the idea that ignoring the advice and wisdom of others will get you into interesting situations.

by frisco 5y ago

kitd 5y ago

I think that's more a function of where his expeditions were taking place. Everything had to line up perfectly for "success" in those sorts of environments and with the resources they had. The trick is knowing when to bow out gracefully and admit defeat (and just get yourselves out of there alive), something that Scott failed to do.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I'm more of a fan of Chippy McNish and captain Frank Worsley, some of the shit they pulled off is amazing, often having to battle Shackleton to do the right thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_McNish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_McNish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Worsley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Worsley

dash2 5y ago

His failures are more interesting than most peoples’s successes.

mutatio 5y ago

These takes are interesting, as invariably I think they don't give much thought into the context of the person in question. I'm not excusing the execution of the cat, it is indeed distasteful, however you're applying moral restrictions on his actions as an equal, i.e. from the context of our safe, armchair observer position. Would I randomly execute a cat in my position? Hell no. Can I guarantee under life or death survival situations my morality might malfunction? I'm quite sure of it.

jgrahamc 5y ago

In one of Sir John Franklin’s books about mapping parts of Canada he describes shooting a man because the chap has gone mad (if I remember well).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

madaxe_again 5y ago

Shackleton was rather renowned for being, um, headstrong. If he got an idea in his head, that was what would happen, and how it would happen. While this may have been endemic in them surviving, it was equally relevant in them ending up in the situation in the first place. Whalers at South Georgia, where they set in before heading for the continent, warned him that the sea ice conditions were unusual, and that he postpone a month for the sea ice to move. I forget which of his crews’ journals it was that has the account, but to say he was dismissive would be an understatement. In addition, their provisioning was all over the place, he having paid more attention to which brand associations would be profitable than what would store well or provide adequate calories in the conditions. He did the same on his previous expedition, although the shortfall was made up for by pony meat, as the ponies, which he had been advised would be ill-suited to Antarctic conditions, were, unsurprisingly, ill-suited to Antarctic conditions. Oh, and he brought a car along, which also went as well as you’d expect. I guess he’s a role model for the idea of move fast and break things, and for the idea that ignoring the advice and wisdom of others will get you into interesting situations.