Before you give credit to Robert Peary, you should get all the facts. Look up Matthew Alexander Henson or you can follow this link: Matthew Henson - Wikipedia
it’s about time we got the REAL STRAIGHT TALK!!!
First of all, the column’s name is "Straight Dope not “Straight Talk”
Second of all, it’s helpful to include a reference to the article in question, so everyone knows which article you are responding to. This is as easy as cutting and pasting a link from your browser’s address bar:Who was the first to reach the north pole?
Third of all, Henson was part of Peary’s expedition, so he got no closer to the Pole than Peary. If Peary was off, a view Cecil’s article endorses, then so was Henson.
Fourthly, while endemic racism obviously denied Henson recognition he was due if he was the first man at the North Pole, he did not lead the expedition. Peary did. There’s a big difference there.
OTOH, welcome to The Straight Dope, jtsauburn. Regardless our name, we still appreciate straight talk.
And weren’t they driving dogsleds? I’ll go out on a limb and claim that a dog made it there first. I always liked dogs more than people.
By that reasoning, then probably a polar bear (or several of them, over the years) probably beat those dogs to the North Pole.
And while we’re on the subject…
There’s also the matter of the tent. Amundsen’s expedition left behind a tent at the South Pole, topped with a Norwegian flag and containing a letter to Norway’s King Haakon with a note asking Scott to take it back to civilization - in case the Scott expedition made it to safety while his own did not. Scott’s expedition found the tent; Scott wrote about it in his diary. This means that we know Amundsen and Scott both found the same place, at least close enough for Scott and his men to see the dark tent against the white ice and snow. Two different groups of men, using two different methods of navigation, would not have made the same errors and found the same wrong spot. Therefore the first two expeditions to successfully reach the South Pole have strong proof of being in the right general area.
No such proof exists for any “first” expedition to the North Pole; even if Peary had left something there, it would have drifted quite a distance before the next expedition got to the Pole. So we’re mostly left with the word of a group of six men, of whom only one was a navigator.
paperbackwriter said:
While true, the statement typically is not “who was the first person to lead an expedition to reach the North Pole”, but “who was the first person to reach the North Pole”. By that phrasing, if the Peary expedition reached the Pole then it is likely that Henson actually beat him there. Of course, that also overlooks the role of the Inuit and whether any of them were there first.
My vote is for Umgawa, the Inuit. But nobody knows about him.
Tarzan knows him…
A similar confusion abounds regarding the voyage of Magellan, often crediting “Magellan’s voyage” as the first to circumnavigate the globe. However, Magellan himself didn’t actually survive the circumnavigation, and almost no credit is paid to the men who did.
Santa of course!
As far as I know, Magellan’s voyage just sat on its throne in the world of philosophical abstractions and didn’t circumnavigate anything (except, perhaps, this sentence).
The first “land” expedition to reach the Pole was likely the Plaisted exped of 1968, followed closely by the foot (!) British Trans-Arctic Expedition of 1969.
There were 4 Innuit who traveled with Peary, their names are Ootah, Seeglo, Egigingwah, and Ooqueah.
There are great doubts that Peary reached the Pole (or got within 5 miles, which is accepable given his instruments) in 1909.
The first person to circumnavigate the globe sailed with Magellan, and was called Enrique. He was the first because he had a head start on the rest of the expedition: he was born in the East Indies, and had been taken to Europe, so he had circumnavigated the globe when he got back to the East Indies, while the rest still had a long way to go.
Enrique was born in Sumatra, Malaysia. He traveled from there to Portugal through the Indian Ocean and up the Atlantic. On the circumnavigation voyage, he traveled west across the Atlantic and then Pacific and reached Indonesia. That is pretty close.
However, Magellan was killed in the Phillippines, on the island of Mactan. Afterwards, Enrique was supposed to be freed from slavery, but Megellan’s crew did not comply. There was a fight on Cebu which killed several of Megellan’s crew. It is unclear whether this was a plot to free Enrique, or whether he died in the fight. Either way, the record of Enrique ends in the Phillippines, short of the goal of reaching Malaysia.
Ergo, Enrique came close, but does not fit the bill of having circumnavigated the globe.
I just finished reading an article in Smithsonian magazine that is much more sympathetic to Cook’s claim than Cecil was in his column.
The author explains in detail the reason Cook left behind his observations and equipment _ something Cecil scoffed at. He also says Cook’s description of the pole and drift of the ice matches real conditions.
I don’t know enough about the topic to have a strong opinion, but it sounds like Cook’s claim shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.