Ueli Steck tossed off Everest

I see a lot of people spewing a bunch of bs here…

surprised no one has linked this one yet:
http://www.explorersweb.com/everest_k2/news.php?id=21469

A few significant items of note:
1) The location was on 35-degree ice (not steep at all)
2) The lead sherpa was ascending and already fixed rope (fixed by Denis and his partner) – he was not actually in the act of fixing a rope himself
3) No sherpa came forward saying he was hit by ice
4) Garret Madison is a professional guide with a SIGNIFICANT financial interest in maintaining good relationships with Sherpas
5) The climbers were traversing below the leader, at the belay station, not above

According to the NPR interview, also: the climbers were never told to NOT climb that day, they were only told to not clip into the ropes.

Misunderstandings, pride and ego amongst a few Sherpas, and mob mentality is what seems to have created this problem. Sherpas are humans just like everyone else. Some are egotistical, prideful, and have temper problems, some are peaceful, respectful and serene. The insane amount of money floating around on Everest pretty much guarantees that the bad ones will be there, and aren't going anywhere. Everest is a shit-show. Pure and simple.

I think Brian has some good points.

I'm not sure what to think of this except "its a mess."

Its perfectly possible Steck and his friends were too focused on their goals and that clouded their judgement. It would not be the first time an athlete pursued a goal to the detriment of everything else (I'm reminded of Lance Armstrong and other doping scandals in various sports).

Its also perfectly possible the Sherpa on the rope threw a temper tantrum when someone damaged his pride and got 99 of his buddies to believe he was the one wronged.

Honestly I don't know what happened. What I don't like is the assumption that the Europeans were guilty because "Europeans are arrogant and Sherpas are mellow." Honestly how is that different then judging someone based on his skin color? If someone posted here and said "OJ Simpson was guilty because he was black" everyone would be justifiably outraged. How is it different to say someone is guilty (without knowing the facts) just because he's European? How does that justify a lynch mob.

Conflict about money.

People making it by taking others to the top

And people making it by making a name for themselves.

Both think they are more important than the other.

Timing is everything up there.

Minor delays can cost you your only opportunity for something for days, or even weeks. No one wants to hold up, costing opportunity and resources.

Such is why they ignore and walk past dying people.

Update:

http://www.uelisteck.ch/en/news/news/361-wichtige-mitteilung.html

Luke:
"Honestly I don't know what happened. What I don't like is the assumption that the Europeans were guilty because "Europeans are arrogant and Sherpas are mellow." Honestly how is that different then judging someone based on his skin color? If someone posted here and said "OJ Simpson was guilty because he was black" everyone would be justifiably outraged. How is it different to say someone is guilty (without knowing the facts) just because he's European? How does that justify a lynch mob."

+1 here.

Because the racial example is making a direct association between skin color and behavior, the skin color being the only contributing factor which at least is scientifically unsupported and at most, ignorant and prejudice.

The sherpa example is basically giving a group of people the benefit of the doubt because of past observations, knowledge of their culture, prior experiences, and basic understanding of the value system a group of people hold and attain.

Doesnt mean the sherpa cant be wrong, but long years of interaction and experiences have given the sherpas the benefit of the doubt to many, right or wrong.

If i say bill stole my watch because he is black, there is no scientific or logical evidence to make this association.

If i say i think bill didnt steal $20 out of my wallet, even though others are accusing him, because in the past, he has asked to borrow money and always returned it, has displayed a consistent set of moral principles since i have known him, and has turned in lost items in the past on buses and trains with money intact…. I am giving giving him the benefit of the doubt based on prior experiences and a handful of observational evidence.

Theres a big difference… But in the last example, it still doesnt mean bill didnt steal my money. It just means i highly doubt it based on experience and his reputation

Fitz travels,

I'm a little confused at what you are trying to say. Is this racism or isn't it? Who are you justifying?

My interpretation from what I have read in your post is that you aren't giving the sherpas the benefit of the doubt because of their ethnicity, you are giving them the benefit of the doubt because of your personal relationship with the sherpas. I would be surprised if you or anyone on bpl has an intimate personal relationship with the sherpas involved so this can't be true. This leaves the explanation that you are giving them the benefit of the doubt because of their ethnicity. It seems then that you are saying that it is indeed racism, but that this racism is ok because it gives the sherpas the benefit of the doubt and that it is different than accusing them because of their ethnicity in which case this racism would be wrong.

To me, it seems your post is trying to justify racism. I also want say that I'm not calling you racist, because I don't really know you or your values. I am simply asking for clarification and saying that this is my interpretation of your message as it stands.

" I would be surprised if you or anyone on bpl has an intimate personal relationship with the sherpas involved so this can't be true"

I agree with this.
The behaviour of one or more individuals does not transfer to a group or ethnicity, be it positive or negative.

"
My interpretation from what I have read in your post is that you aren't giving the sherpas the benefit of the doubt because of their ethnicity, you are giving them the benefit of the doubt because of your personal relationship with the sherpas"

I never stated that i have any personal relationship with the sherpas.

"
I would be surprised if you or anyone on bpl has an intimate personal relationship with the sherpas involved so this can't be true. "

Actually, i gave many reasons why people give the sherpas the benefit of the doubt. So, i assert it still couldmbe true even if one prerequisite is not met. Ive never had a personal relationship with an Amish person… Doesnt mean i dont have a genral idea of their notion of non violence interaction based on overwhelming testimony and experiences from others.

"This leaves the explanation that you are giving them the benefit of the doubt because of their ethnicity."
.

let me point out something… I … Never … Mentioned …. The sherpas ethnicity or skin color. Not once in any of my assertions. So, i am at a loss trying to figure out how you could interpret something as being based on ethnicity, when i never mentioned it to begin with. You did though. Seems like your more focused on it then i am.

"It seems then that you are saying that it is indeed racism, but that this racism is ok because it gives the sherpas the benefit of the doubt and that it is different than accusing them because of their ethnicity in which case this racism would be wrong."

Strawman argument. Never mentioned the sherpas ethnicity.

And by the way, the word racism is way overused … Inappropriately. I suggest people look up the definitions of racism, prejudice, and bigot and learn not only the differences between them, but their true meaning to begin with.

Andrew.. No offence taken… Hopefully none was given

No offence taken, people seem to get easily offended over the internet so I was glad and appreciative to see a thought-out and reasoned response. In rereading, I think my reaction may have come from your example. In your example you showed how you would give someone the benefit of the doubt because of your close relationship with that person. Applying that example to sherpas seems difficult because I doubted many people have that sort of relationship with them. I was also agreeing with Kat P's response to Luke in which she said that treating the sherpas in question as the stereotype that we have of sherpas is wrong (some might call it racist, biased, prejudiced, or whatever). It is not only wrong in that it is not good to group people based on stereotype, but also because that stereotype may just be inaccurate. However, it still seems that you are advocating this stereotyping from your example. I also realized you didn't use the word ethnicity, but you do mention culture and value system which are a very large part of ethnicity. So you don't use 'ethnicity' outright, but you do use the definition of ethnicity.

I am using this definition from oxford dictionary's website for ethnicity:
Ethnicity: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

This is all so confusing. In America, the team with the most money would be declared right and just, and the inferior group would be held responsible for assaulting honorable members of society.

I just don't get foreign cultures, don't they have money ?

–G.B.–

Stereotyping is the act of applying knowledge or assumptions about a group to an individual. It is not making generalizations about the behavior of a group.

What Fitz is doing is merely looking at a group's reputation and using that to determine who he initially trusts more. He isn't saying that those involved in the dispute behaved one way or another based upon how the Sherpas generally behave. He is simply giving them the preference until more specific evidence comes out as to the behavior of the individuals involved. Once more reliable, or at least multivalent, testimony is available, then the actions of the individuals can be differentiated (or not) from the general trends of the group.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sherpas aren't as angelic as they're being portrayed on this forum. They are an ethnicity that has dominated the mountain guiding industry in Nepal through ethnic discrimination effected through organized labor. Sure most of them are decent people but then again the sherpas have in the past gone on strike when "forced" to work with other non-sherpa ethnicities.

Remember Nepal has virtually no role in global industry aside from tourism and mountain guiding. Sherpas are the wealthiest individuals in the nation. They hold an effective monopoly on the industry. Even Tenzig Norgay wasn't ethnically a "sherpa" and wasn't accepted as a legitimate guide until he summited Everest.

In the west we like to confuse a profession with an ethnicity. It's like calling anyone who works in a casino an "indian."

People are people. Threatened livelihoods raise tempers. This also applies to the western climbers who have reputation based corporate sponsors that they have made promises to. There's also a cultural clash of climbing mountains. In the west we have "alpine" style where every climber supports themself and moves quickly and efficiently up the mountain. It's very individualistic, even in a small team. It is analogous to HYOH. On big mountains where porters and guides are employed the prevailing mentality is that the wealthy must pay the locals to accomplish their trip. This isn't mere subservience of the local people though, they depend on this income for living. Alpine style climbers feel terrible about requiring another individual to risk their life on a mountain simply to make their climb easier. Porters feel terrible about losing lost wages and potentially being shown as superfluous (latter not likely as people continue to have more money than dedication to outdoor sports). The two mindsets are inherently at odds with each other, even if respect, and clashes/flareups are inevitable. The response though is what matters. Simone Moro was being inflammatory by all accounts and the Sherpas got caught up in heat of the moment and blew the entire situation out of proportion.

It should also be noted that there were Sherpas fighting off the belligerent crowd on behalf of the western climbers (just like Mexicans fought on both sides at the Alamo).

Again from all the accounts it looks like there was a mild altercation up high that (pardon the pun) snowballed as people descended the mountain due to the momentum of too many egos.

"Again from all the accounts it looks like there was a mild altercation up high that (pardon the pun) snowballed as people descended the mountain due to the momentum of too many egos."

+1. This is probably the most cogent way of looking at the situation from all the reports that I've read.

Earlier I said this

"Honestly I don't know what happened. What I don't like is the assumption that the Europeans were guilty because "Europeans are arrogant and Sherpas are mellow." Honestly how is that different then judging someone based on his skin color? If someone posted here and said "OJ Simpson was guilty because he was black" everyone would be justifiably outraged. How is it different to say someone is guilty (without knowing the facts) just because he's European? How does that justify a lynch mob."

Just to clarify I was NOT saying that anyone who thinks the European were at fault is necessarily on the level of a Klansmen. Just wanted to clear that up. But the logic of judging someone with little real info based on who they are is similar.

Its fair to say Sherpas are not known as particularly violent people. So it would be fair to ask what happened to get them so riled. On the other hand the Swiss are not known for inciting riots either so its fair to give them the same benefit of the doubt.

By the way most of these Sherpas work for commercial western guides right? Why couldn't they use there clout as the paycheck writers to make everyone calm down? Was it that out of control or did they not care if an independent team got roughed up?

Typical news story, and we just suck it up and debate it ad naseum.

Does it really matter? Does it impact our lives directly?

I think the unanswered question (in my mind), "did Bill have sex with Monica is vastly more important."

:)

"I think the unanswered question (in my mind), "did Bill have sex with Monica is vastly more important.""

Judging from DNA analysis of certains substances on "the dress", that boils down to how you define sex. ;o)