Image via WikipediaWhat are the facts and truth in relation to the decision not to scatter Sir Edmund Hillary's remaining ashes on Mount Everest?
I wrote the following post about a week ago here and on a couple of my other blogsites:
"Sir Ed's ashes to be scattered on Mount Everest this week...
The ashes of 1953 Mount Everest conqueror, Sir Edmund Hillary, affectionally known as Sir Ed, will be scattered on the mountain this week by Nepalese mountaineer Apa Sherpa.
Most of Sir Ed's ashes were scattered in the sea off Auckland, New Zealand in 2008, but he wanted some returned to the mountain he climbed in the country he loved.
Fifty year old Apa, plans to place the ashes on the summit of Mount Everest when he attempts to personally conquer the peak for a record twentieth time this coming week. Sir Ed's son, Peter, also a former mountaineer, fully supports the bid by Apa Sherpa. Sir Ed is held in the highest esteem by the Nepalese people."
But however I read in the local Wellington newspaper, the Dominion Post this morning that all bets are off:
AngTenzing Sherpa, chief of Sherpa citizens group Khumbu Civil Society, has announced that the scattering of ashes on the mountain, considered a god by their Sherpa culture, was against their culture and tradition. Really?
How could a man who regularly visited and lived in Nepal off and on for decades, not know the traditions of the Sherpa culture and traditions? Why would he make a request in his will for some of his ashes to be scattered on the mountain? How could Apa Sherpa, who has climbed Mount Everest a record 19 times also be ignoranr of Sherpa culture and traditions?
The remaining ashes of Sir Ed's body will be kept at a memorial at the first school Sir Ed opened in Khumjung in Nepal.
How could such an incredible error of judgement be made, or are there political forces and intrigue at work in this remote and politically volatile country? It would be extremely sad if there were? Read one of the related articles linked below.
Acknowledgements: Down by the HuttRiver
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f534eec3-54d1-4d99-8b78-2a1f4782b865)
2 comments:
Yeah, something is off about that too.
One simple explanation is that the people who protested make up a very religious minority. Their views are more extreme than most people's, but they are very vocal in their protests. On the other hand, I have a feeling that Apa and the people Hillary hung out with are religious, but less religious than average in that area.
I can definitely see something analogous happening in the US with a very religious group that is small but very vocal.
Another, less simple, explanation is that there is some personal animosity between Hillary's colleagues and this group of people, or between Apa and this group, and they want to sabotage the publicity the act would receive.
Pettiness is universal.
I agree. Thanks for your constructive imput. Please visit again.
Peter
Post a Comment