Apr 29, 2013 at 1:55 am #1302319
delApr 29, 2013 at 5:28 am #1981490
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
A more balanced and less biased account. Gives a better idea about what was going on in the minds of the Nepalese. The UK Climbing article makes it sound as if it was totally uncalled for and without provocation. I disagree with that.Apr 29, 2013 at 6:28 am #1981507
Celebrities with a grim look, bypass locals on the mountain, in contradiction to instructions (because they're celebrities, dammit!) and then get called out by thugs to a brawl? It's futbol on the hill!May 1, 2013 at 1:32 pm #1982312
The UK article is still most accurate. I never trust "anonymous" tips where there's no reason to be anonymous. Big mountains are big business so it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of any eye witness accounts that are anonymous (guide services have a HUGE monetary incentive to maintain the reputation of sherpas and guides).
Ueli I know has always been gracious towards the hard work of sherpas so it doesn't sound accurate that he would be disrespectful. Since Moro and Steck had actually already established a camp higher than the sherpas, they could have easily asked the sherpas to hold off, but it's a big mountain to share. The sherpas cross their line so the others had to cross it back. No harm no foul usually except this time tempers flared (it's 7K meters afterall).
What the UK article left out is that Moro started swearing at the sherpas. The most plausible situation is there was a misunderstanding between tired climbers in a hypoxic situation, then Moro stepped in and over-reacted which blew the entire issue way out of proportion. Apologies and handshakes were exchanged in short order and everyone has gone about their business.May 1, 2013 at 3:51 pm #1982356
The UK article is one sided.May 1, 2013 at 6:30 pm #1982387
…May 1, 2013 at 8:32 pm #1982409
@attaboybradLocale: San Francisco Bay AreaMay 2, 2013 at 5:14 pm #1982693
Here's Ueli's interview with outside…
By Ueli's account they shamed the Sherpas (swearing, offering to fix lines and then fixing anyway when the sherpas bailed on their task).
I think he puts the issue correctly. No one was at fault at the initial confrontation. A misunderstanding on a crowded mountain face is normal. The issue was the response: 100 sherpas threatening, harassing, and violently attacking 3 climbers (even if they were disrespectful) is not appropriate behavior in any professional sense. And yes, these are professionals by any definition.May 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm #1982712
Screw the sherpas fixing rope, i wanna climb. Dont you know who i am?May 2, 2013 at 9:35 pm #1982756
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
I guarantee you that in the next decade, the westerners will be traveling with their own western bodyguards and packing more than an ice axe.
This is just the attitude that is causing all the growing anger among the Nepali. Nepal does not belong to, nor do the Nepali have any obligation to cater to, western people. It is THEIR land! When in their country you respect the people there and go by their rules and customs. It is NOT the other way around! Everest does NOT belong to western climbers, and Nepal does not have ANY obligation to let anyone climb it! And you do NOT go there with the attitude that it is all right to pack a damn thing other than your ice axe, including the feeling that you should be able to! You don't like how they do things or that they want you to follow the rules on their mountains? Then leave. You are a GUEST there! Leave your superiority and machismo and homegrown self-righteousness at home. Climbing mountains and realizing some selfish dream are utterly without importance when it comes to the lives and dignity of the people who live there.
There is a reason the Nepali got so murderously angry. And Steck trampled all over it, believing himself to be beyond having to follow what "mere mortals" must follow.
And did we hear one direct comment from a single Sherpa? No. The whole story is totally fabricated from a western point of view. We never hear what the Sherpas have to say.
Man, comments like that above really tick me off. At least most of the reactions I've seen on articles such as those on Outside Magazine's interview with Steck have more common sense and support for the Sherpa. Most of the reports I've seen are one-sided as hell.May 2, 2013 at 9:56 pm #1982760
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
+1May 3, 2013 at 8:31 am #1982840
Miguel, thank you for saying exactly what I've tried to write for the last few days and wasn't able to put it into a concise format, my thoughts exactly.May 3, 2013 at 9:28 am #1982865
Yes, Miguel said what needed to be said.
another +1May 3, 2013 at 9:45 am #1982869
@hikinggrannyLocale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge
Bravo, Miguel, another + here!!!May 3, 2013 at 10:05 am #1982872
@azajacLocale: South West
I agree with Miguel's sentiment and that you need to respect local culture and customs, but I still don't think the action of the sherpas is defendable. I know we haven't heard from the sherpas, but violent mobs and murder threats were not the appropriate response. NPR is usually a pretty good resource and provided an interesting interview with Jon Griffith.May 3, 2013 at 10:36 am #1982878
I agree entirely with Miguel.May 3, 2013 at 11:45 am #1982894
Andrew, I will defend the Sherpas actions (not being there I can only assume what happened); I have been on a mountain in a very similar situation with arrogant/boneheaded/don't show up to meetings/ignorant of others, climbers repelling above me on a shale filled slope and instead of ice falling it was a large rock avalanche that came down, putting my team in fatal danger. We were ascending first (long before they arrived).
I wasn't in a "murderous mindset" (I don't think the Sherpas were either) but I was in a mood to "physically" knock some sense into them. Even though this happened many years ago I still get mad when thinking about it and I am a very passive person!This kind of thing plays out every weekend at bars all over the world.
Some non-local, thinking they are too cool, starts throwing crap at the locals (physical and verbal), like ice chunks and ignoring protocol.
The locals then decide to throw it back (rocks/pebbles at the tent they were hiding in, must have been pebbles or the tent would have been shredded, no news that happened).
Of course the non-locals don't like it when people stand up for themselves (pebble throwing at their tent) and they decided to come out of the tent and make a stand.
Instead of peacefully apologizing and diffusion the situation; their arrogance/machismo steps up another notch and they verbally demean the locals, their culture and deity.
So of course the locals defend their honor in their customary way and the non-locals go away spanked and crying.
The only time this makes the news is when the non-local is super cool (in their mind) and the media can sell more advertising from it (NPR included- I heard their report first, and yes I thought it to be bias also).
The above analogy is how I explained the situation to my daughter 3 days ago when it first came out. The "rich" kids got a whooping and went home crying to their mommy.
Edited- BTW, I'm all for "alpine" style and I myself venture into most activities without a guide. But there are protocols/customs/courtesies that go along with any activity wither it be climbing, skiing back-country, running a river or even fly fishing. If the local group invites all to a meeting and everyone agrees that the area is to be closed so some safety lines or what ever be installed. Then everyone, even those not using the safety lines, need to follow the groups decision, that is how we all get along and if you want to be a rogue and think you are above the group, the group (the or mob) will remind you we are all in this together, and remind you in the groups customary way (you are on their turf) .May 3, 2013 at 12:02 pm #1982902
deletedMay 3, 2013 at 3:51 pm #1982978
It seems my sarcasm wasnt made clear enough by me in my post above. After reading the article, full of rationilizations, justifications, and concealment of pertinent facts until they were forced out, basically Ueli's attitude was "screw the sherpas, i wanna climb."
Sorry for the misunderstanding and i will do better in the future of expressing my sarcasm more carefullyMay 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm #1983764
@eagleriverdeeLocale: Eagle River, Alaska
I read all the links posted here and have to say that I have no idea what happened because there's not a lot of commonality between the different versions of the story.
What a mess.May 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm #1983802
I favor the sherpa version.May 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm #1983821
John, where did you find a Sherpa version?
As far as I can tell there haven't been any official releases representing the Sherpa viewpoint. The closest thing I've found is the piece written by Garrett Madison who didn't actually witness the events, and the veracity of some of his basic claims has been questioned by a number of sources, including members of the climbing team.
I definitely disagree with a number of choices the climbing team made, but violence is not a justifiable response regardless of which version of events is accepted.
-DavidMay 6, 2013 at 3:37 pm #1983851
I bet he will think twice before he pulls a cross over manuever above Sherpas fixing rope.
Violence might technically not be a justifiable response, but sometimes, its an effective one.May 6, 2013 at 4:27 pm #1983868
@ouzelLocale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
"I favor the sherpa version."
+1 The Sherpa people are a very melllow people, and it would take a lot to provoke them to the response described in the articles. It must have been a pretty egregious violation of acceptable mountaineering behavior to get them that pi$$ed.May 6, 2013 at 4:56 pm #1983877
Tom, thank you for saying in one sentence what I tried to say in 3 long posts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.