Roland Huntford and the character assassination of Robert Falcon Scott.
Roland Huntford is a biographer and student of polar exploration famous for his character assassination of Robert Falcon Scott in “The Last Place on Earth”.
Yes, Scott failed in his primary ambition of getting to the South Pole first. Yes, he made a number of errors such as relying on pony transportation and hauling sledges by foot in Antarctica rather than Amundsen’s smarter decision to use dogs. Amundsen was more efficient than Scott. Nevertheless, Scott had many attractive qualities. His death was tragic and heroic and it caught the public imagination. Rightly or wrongly, Scott is better remembered for having failed than the efficient and rather dull and inhuman Amundsen who succeeded. Scott’s expedition also undertook important scientific work which Amundsen did not do on his all out dash for the South Pole.
It is legitimate to say that Scott failed and to criticise the British obsession with honourable losers (which I think is a humane quality in the British character). I get Huntford’s point that really the best man won because Amundsen was more professional than the amateurish Scott. But Huntford’s approach to Scott is sneering and downright nasty.
Huntford tarnishes his book by the fanatical, personal hatred he displays towards Scott. Anyone would think that Scott had personally microwaved Huntford’s pet hamster. Huntford calls Scott “muddle headed”, a “bungler” and a naval officer who was the epitome of “regimented mediocrity”. Even positive aspects of Scott’s are seen as proof of his flaws: marrying an interesting woman, for instance, is interpreted as a sign that Scott was a hen-pecked loser.
Huntford denigrated Scott in all sorts of ways. He was not only an autocratic leader but incompetent and depressive. His alleged bullying manner and rigid segregation of officers and men brought some members of the Terra Nova expedition close to mutiny. He falsified his diary of the earlier Discovery expedition. He was jealous of Shackleton and took every opportunity to disparage him. He forced Oates to walk out to his death. His wife was an adulteress and bisexual. None of these criticisms are proven.
Huntford also decided to overlook the importance which Scott attached to scientific research on his expeditions, commenting quite unfairly that the rocks and fossils which Wilson and Bowers were collecting in the final weeks were ‘a pathetic little gesture to salvage something from defeat at the Pole’.
Huntford misses the point. Scott is so empathetic because he was human, and he wore his frailties on his sleeve. Nevertheless, he was heroic and his very human flaws make him more so. As one reviewer said “Huntford appears to worship a particular narrow view of masculinity and ‘proper’ male behaviour……. whereas those who reveal themselves to be too insecure, melancholic or sentimental are reviled”.
The Geographic Journal noted that Huntford’s book is “in keeping with the modern trend of debunking everything which previous generations found of value….deliberately blind to any possible failings in Amundsen” and “the full force of his vitriolic pen falls upon Scott as though he were pursuing a vendetta.” Ranulph Fiennes also noted that Huntford has no experience in the South Pole and displayed a serious misunderstanding of Scott and his objectives and that his book was “immensely inaccurate”. Fiennes also accused Huntford of lying about his background and education.
Huntford is a cunt for the vitriol in his attack on Scott. It all part of the trend of denigrating British heroes from Nelson to Churchill. When will it end?
An iceberg of cuntishness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Huntford
Nominated by: MMCM
