Shooting The Messenger
When initially blogging on Mark Inglis and the decision to continue an ascent of Mt Everest when stumbling across a dying climber (David Sharp), I was reacting to the NZ Herald article on the front page of Wednesday's edition that had NZ icon Sir Ed Hillary expressing his outrage. Like many who probably read this piece, it left me abhorrent that on the face of it, 40 people could walk past a dying man while continuing on their own pursuits.
Given that Inglis himself has been rescued from a mountain (indeed, that being the reason he is a double amputee), I subsequently reasoned that surely he would be the last person on earth to walk past someone in a similar predicament to one he has personally experienced. So I've spent a fair bit of time looking for information and in some respects, I wish I hadn't bothered as it's a tale full of tragedy and irony, as well as leaving a sour taste in the mouth regarding the actions of some involved in the commercial enterprises that surround the desire of people to climb the world's highest mountain.
There is too much to blog in one go, so this piece will concentrate on the reaction to the decision not to provide any assistance to Sharp, which is the thing grabbing most of the attention - and a fair bit of it, too, not just here in NZ but around the world. Given my ever decreasing reliance on mainstream media as a source of accurate information, I've transcripted the two interviews Inglis has given to TVNZ's Close Up programme (yes I realise TVNZ is also MSM but in these interviews, you get to hear what Inglis himself has to say), as well as reading many articles on this website (and others).
I'm not going to either criticise or defend Inglis, principally for the reason that I'm certainly in no position to judge his, or anybody else's, actions. One of the reasons I wish I'd not bothered is the amount of vitriolic comments directed mainly at him that I've seen from armchair critics - if you don't believe me, take a look at reader comments from either the NZ Herald or The Times (UK).
One of the tragic things coming out of this is how quick people are to judge the actions of another without full knowledge of all the facts. And one of the ironies is Inglis is copping a fair bit of flak, when (a) he is the only person who has bothered to speak about the situation encountered, and (b) given his disability, he would probably have been the last person in any position to help.
As Inglis has said, 40 people passed Sharp on their way up Everest that morning. And how many people have offered any public comment on what was happening up there? One - Inglis. Try as I might (and I have tried pretty hard), I haven't found any comments from any of the other 39. This is a classic case of "shoot the messenger" and he has my sympathy in coping with the scrutiny at a time when he (and we) should be celebrating his tremendous achievement.
That said, I'm not defending his actions. And I guess people have a right to express their opinion on whether he did the "right" or "wrong" thing. It's generating a lot of hot air as it strikes at the basic core of humanity, and certainly gives plenty of ammunition to those who think our society is more about "I" and less about "us".
However, there also needs to be some empathy shown towards Inglis (and perhaps the other 39) who was faced with a situation that let's face it, not many of us would like to deal with. Oh yes, we can all sit in the comfort of our living rooms and say we'd do all that we could to save the life of a fellow man, but I've never experienced conditions at 8500m a.s.l. and I don't have two carbon fibre sticks that substitute as legs. We can be sceptical about the real motivation as to why these 40 people continued along their merry way (we don't want to waste that $75,000, do we?), but without any evidence such thoughts start to fall into the category of baseless accusations.
So in a nutshell, Inglis should be left alone. Not because he made the right decision; those criticising his apparent lack of compassion should perhaps show some compassion themselves towards someone who was in a situation none of us would wish to face, in an environment few of us can even comprehend.
Required Reading
On the back-burner (I'm going to wait a few days to see what else comes out of the woodwork):
Part 2 - Unanswered questions: Putting together the puzzle of what happened (and there ain't many pieces).
Part 3 - The Everest definition of Professional: Not exactly what you'd find in the dictionary.
Given that Inglis himself has been rescued from a mountain (indeed, that being the reason he is a double amputee), I subsequently reasoned that surely he would be the last person on earth to walk past someone in a similar predicament to one he has personally experienced. So I've spent a fair bit of time looking for information and in some respects, I wish I hadn't bothered as it's a tale full of tragedy and irony, as well as leaving a sour taste in the mouth regarding the actions of some involved in the commercial enterprises that surround the desire of people to climb the world's highest mountain.
There is too much to blog in one go, so this piece will concentrate on the reaction to the decision not to provide any assistance to Sharp, which is the thing grabbing most of the attention - and a fair bit of it, too, not just here in NZ but around the world. Given my ever decreasing reliance on mainstream media as a source of accurate information, I've transcripted the two interviews Inglis has given to TVNZ's Close Up programme (yes I realise TVNZ is also MSM but in these interviews, you get to hear what Inglis himself has to say), as well as reading many articles on this website (and others).
I'm not going to either criticise or defend Inglis, principally for the reason that I'm certainly in no position to judge his, or anybody else's, actions. One of the reasons I wish I'd not bothered is the amount of vitriolic comments directed mainly at him that I've seen from armchair critics - if you don't believe me, take a look at reader comments from either the NZ Herald or The Times (UK).
One of the tragic things coming out of this is how quick people are to judge the actions of another without full knowledge of all the facts. And one of the ironies is Inglis is copping a fair bit of flak, when (a) he is the only person who has bothered to speak about the situation encountered, and (b) given his disability, he would probably have been the last person in any position to help.
As Inglis has said, 40 people passed Sharp on their way up Everest that morning. And how many people have offered any public comment on what was happening up there? One - Inglis. Try as I might (and I have tried pretty hard), I haven't found any comments from any of the other 39. This is a classic case of "shoot the messenger" and he has my sympathy in coping with the scrutiny at a time when he (and we) should be celebrating his tremendous achievement.
That said, I'm not defending his actions. And I guess people have a right to express their opinion on whether he did the "right" or "wrong" thing. It's generating a lot of hot air as it strikes at the basic core of humanity, and certainly gives plenty of ammunition to those who think our society is more about "I" and less about "us".
However, there also needs to be some empathy shown towards Inglis (and perhaps the other 39) who was faced with a situation that let's face it, not many of us would like to deal with. Oh yes, we can all sit in the comfort of our living rooms and say we'd do all that we could to save the life of a fellow man, but I've never experienced conditions at 8500m a.s.l. and I don't have two carbon fibre sticks that substitute as legs. We can be sceptical about the real motivation as to why these 40 people continued along their merry way (we don't want to waste that $75,000, do we?), but without any evidence such thoughts start to fall into the category of baseless accusations.
So in a nutshell, Inglis should be left alone. Not because he made the right decision; those criticising his apparent lack of compassion should perhaps show some compassion themselves towards someone who was in a situation none of us would wish to face, in an environment few of us can even comprehend.
Required Reading
On the back-burner (I'm going to wait a few days to see what else comes out of the woodwork):
Part 2 - Unanswered questions: Putting together the puzzle of what happened (and there ain't many pieces).
Part 3 - The Everest definition of Professional: Not exactly what you'd find in the dictionary.
Labels: Everest
posted by Rob Crawford at 5:51 PM
6 Comments:
IMHO, I think the main reason the uninformed moved en masse to condemn Inglis was due to the fact the original criticism came from Sir Ed.
The guy on the $5 bill has all his comments taken as gospel; the fact that climbing has changed in the last 53 years gets overlooked
Sportsfreak
I had just fnished reading your original post on Wednesday and was making my way back to my journalism class when I was stopped in the street by Southland TV wanting to know my opinion on the subject.
My line of thinking was similar to yours in the fact that surely Inglis knows what it is like needing to be rescued and would have helped out if he could have.
And hey, when you climb Everest you are taking plenty of risk and are on your own to a certain point. You can't just call 111 and get a taxi off the mountain like you could in NZ!
Of course Inglis made the right decision.
That British guy was obviously a dickhead and should have taken more oxygen.
Inglis is a dickhead too.
Look at those fingers! What a loser.
Its disappointing to see Hillary picking on a guy with no legs. I'd be pretty pissed off if i got home after climbing everest with no legs to be shot down by the legend himself. No one can make rational decisions above 8000m. And if anyone should feel guilty for passing a dying climber its the guides. Inglis was probably the last person on the mountain capable of offering help. And as for Daniel Sokol of BBC, who would ever risk their own life by staying and holding the hand of a dying man??? You either try and help, or you save yourself.
Would it be fair to say that a lot of Sir Ed’s life and actions have been driven by good old-fashioned guilt?
The good works he’s done in Nepal are totally commendable, but it seems reasonably obvious that these were in part driven by his desire to make amends for the tragic end of Tensing Norgay. The sherpa had felt he never got the recognition for his part of the initial ascent of Everest. So I’d say that his radar for perceived injustice is pretty highly tuned.
But to dump it on the guy with only 2 quickly disappearing limbs is a bit shonky.
Sportsfreak
Post a Comment
<< Home