Talk:Ernest Shackleton

/Archive 1

South: the story of Shackleton's last expedition, 1914-1917

I have created s:South: the story of Shackleton's last expedition, 1914-1917 at enWS. I was going to wikilink, however, I see that you have a later edition, rather than this 1920 edition, so I left it for your consideration. billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should mentiom that Schakleton was a Knight Bachelor (Kt.B.), not a member of the first or or second class of an order (neither a C.V.O. or an O.B.E. can be addressed as "Sir"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus777 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attitude toward "weaklings"

In his own account, "South!" Shackleton displays a markedly unheroic contempt for what he called "weaklings".

After leaving the ice-bound ship, he has a litter of puppies and the ship's cat shot. There was no shortage of food at the time and the deaths of the animals caused grief to his men, particularly the carpenter. Shackleton noticed this, but did not seem to care.

When landing on Elephant Island, Shackleton pushed the youngest member of the crew into the surf so that he could be the first man to set foot on Elephant Island. Blackbarrow, the crewmember, sat there in the surf looking stunned, but not moving. Then Shackleton happened to recall that Blackbarrow had two badly frostbitten feet and was an invalid, incapable of walking. Shackleton then joked that Blackbarrow was the first to sit on Elephant Island.

It is interesting to note that in 1908, he himself was the weakling. Perhaps he was overcompensating for his own feelings of inadequacy, but that hardly excuses such callous treatment of his men.

By contrast, Robert Falcon Scott, who has been lionized and then labeled "bungler", once jumped down a crevasse to rescue two sled dogs which had fallen in.

193.2.57.25 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article contains only facts which present Shackleton in a heroic light.

Even a brief reading of Shackleton's account "South!" will provide many instances in which Shackleton displayed a lack of compassion for the weak, including members of his own crew. The shooting of the carpenter's cat was the reason for the tension between him and Shackleton, but this fact is glossed over in the article.

Shackleton's gift of his gloves to another member of the crew is cited as evidence of his heroic nature, but Shackleton also pushed a frostbitten invalid into the cold surf of Elephant Island, and then joked about it rather than apologize. It is a captain's responsibility to be aware of the condition of his men, and not to endanger them unnecessarily. Blackbarrow, the man who was pushed into the surf, later had to have five toes amputated from his right foot. (source: "South!")

Shackleton was not always heroic, as his own words indicate. But all evidence of non-heroic qualities has been suppressed from the article.

193.2.57.25 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will first note that this article passed WP:FAC, which is the most rigourous assessment process for articles on Wikipedia, and no one raised any issues there that the article was not neutral (not that someone could not have missed it). As someone who also wishes Mrs. Chippy (the cat) and the puppies would not have have been shot, I can understand your feelings. However, and this is the important point, Wikipedia is not written to reflect the feelings of those who edit it, it is supposed to be written from Neutral Point of View based on what others have written in independent third-party reliable sources. If you know of such sources that agree in the interpretation of the facts that you put forward here, please cite them. Note that no one disputes that the animals were shot, or that Blackbarrow was pushed into the water on Elephant Island (although if he could not walk, how else was he going to get off the boat?). What is needed here is a reliable source that says the things you do. If not, then your points are Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

By contrast, Robert Falcon Scott, who has been lionized and then labeled "bungler", once jumped down a crevasse to rescue two sled dogs which had fallen in. - Scott's final trek to the Pole failed because he was too soft-hearted to leave behind one of his men, so that as a result they had an extra mouth to feed - they had made food and fuel allowances for four men on the trip to the Pole and they ended up taking five - they then ran out of paraffin to heat their food during prolonged bad weather and all died. Shackleton would never have done that.

Shackleton knew how to lead men, and that meant that in certain circumstances knowing when to persuade, cajole, push, or threaten, the men whose lives where in his hands. It also means knowing when to be hard on your men when it is in their own best interests, making them do something that they may not like doing but which will keep them alive instead of dead. People who do not understand the situation will often resent this, but at least they live to resent it, rather than being left behind in a cairn to be found by others several years later.

When you are in difficult, possibly dangerous, circumstances, then you take orders from (whoever) knows what they are doing, and Shacklteon knew what he was doing, and (unlike some of the others) he knew what was at stake - they were thousands of miles away from any outside help in an era when everything had to come by steamship. They were on their own in the middle of nowhere. That sorts the men from the boys, and some of the criticisms of Shackleton show just which of the two their authors were. The South Pole was/is a dangerous place, and Shackleton brought all his men back alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.55.226 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

British English

Does anyone have any objection to me adding a Template:British English notice to this article, and changing the American English (such as civilization, organization) to British English (civilisation, organisation)? Shackleton is described as a Anglo-Irish, so I'd expect it to written in British English. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As there's no objection - I've changed some of the article's spellings to British English. --George2001^hi 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What does Nationality 'Anglo-Irish' mean? Should it not just be 'British'? He might have been Anglo-Irish but that wasn't his nationality. "When I returned from the 'Nimrod' Expedition on which we had to turn back from our attempt to plant the British flag on the South Pole, being beaten by stress of circumstances within ninety-seven miles of our goal, my mind turned to the crossing of the continent, for I was morally certain that either Amundsen or Scott would reach the Pole on our own route or a parallel one. After hearing of the Norwegian success I began to make preparations to start a last great journey--so that the first crossing of the last continent should be achieved by a British Expedition." - South --Flexdream (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I came here to change that. He was Anglo-Irish ethnically, but there's no such nationality. He was British. I'm changing it. Jonchapple (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC

There is, however, a nationality called Irish and given that he was born in Ireland rather than Britain that is the most natural designation. 86.42.16.3 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that when he was born in Ireland it was part of Britain, and he always called himself British. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ireland was not "part of Britain". It was ruled by Britain, by a state which, explicitly acknowledging that Ireland was not "part of Britain", was named the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. It's not as if "Irish" people stopped existing simply because the country was under British colonial rule. If this were the case, somebody's going to have to go around Wikipedia and change the definition of all people born in Ireland during British rule from "Irish" to "British". 86.42.16.3 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for not accurately describing the political situation in Ireland at the time of Shackleton's birth. Is it safe to say that he was born a subject of Queen Victoria (and remained a subject of the British monarch the rest of his life)? Second, his Anglo-Irish family moved to greater London when he was about 10 years old, and he was typically seen as a British person the rest of his life (though the article notes this view was not always shared bu Irish newspapers). Third, as far as precedents go, I think on Wikipedia the rule is to identify a person's nationality by the country s/he spends most of his or her life in - thus C.D. Howe, who was born in the United States of America but moved to Cananda at age 23, is described as Canadian in the lead of his article (also a FA). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This one always causes a debate on wikipedia is there any way of sorting it out? God knows I suppose. For one, we could say that there is a difference between a nation and a state (as Weber et al would)-the state being the land ruled by the government the nation being the people with a shared culture, a little bit simplistic but there you go. In the case of Great Britain during the time under discussion it was actually known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Act of Union 1801)-Ireland was treated as a different (not seperate but different) territory. This can be evidenced by looking at acts and laws where the heading Ireland was always used for example the Census of Ireland was used on the census returns. I know from studying the period and looking at many Hansard debates that an MP from Ireland was referred to as being from Ireland. I suppose what I am trying to say in a long winded way is that the term Irish/British were not always mutually exclusive which, seems to cause a lot of confusion nowadays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.12.178 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am not clear what your complaint is or what you want changed. The article makes it clear that he was born in Ireland and spent the first 10 years of his life there, then moved to Greater London and spent the rest of his life in Britain (or out exploring). The article also makes it clear that Irish newspapers called him Irish. For what it's worth, Shackleton's Nimrod Expedition was formally called the British Antarctic Expedition by Shackleton himself (despite its not receiving financial support from either the British government or the (British) Royal Geographic Society). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no complaint it is just a general comment on how this always pops up on wikipedia with regards Irish people born during this time. Irish/British was not always mutually exclusive during his lifetime i.e Shackleton calling himself British doesn't automatically mean he was rejecting the Irish part of his identity. 86.47.12.178 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)