Imperial Ascent shows the development of mountaineering – where in the mind of climbers it has come from and where modern mountaineering is going.  And this is how Bayers sets up his book.  I found it hard in the beginning of the book to make the connection of imperialism and masculinity, until the section on Krakauer.  Through Frederick Cook, the connection between war and mountaineering is clear.  He makes connections about climbing Mount McKinley and calling it one of the severest battle-grounds of nature and in the firing line of the clouds (35).  Then the connection between war and masculinity is made, as war was the proving ground for men.  But the transition of being in war and becoming a mountaineering shifts to an individual battle.  The first mountaineers were climbing for their country, as they still are in some ways today, but not as much compared to the age of imperialism.

In The Epic, Younghusband writes climbing Everest was a way for British citizens to cope with the devastation of the War (82).  For the British, summiting Everest would have been a huge stepping stone as an imperial power.  Their stamp of the first ascent on Everest would show dominance throughout the world and as a winning success for all the expeditions made to Everest in the past.  It would be their possession, and I wonder other than being the tallest mountain in the world, why Everest was thought as unclaimed when it was already in the possession of Nepal and Tibet.  Just how the American West seemed unclaimed to whites even though Native Americans were living and using the land.  But with this accomplishment of the first ascent would come heroism, and during the time a hero was a masculine figure.  Bayers addresses Younghusband feminizing Everest; her, bringing out the greatness in man.  Another connection could be made of how soldiers fought for their “mother” country.  As this was their duty in the same way they fought to the summit feeling some fulfilment and gained patriotism for their country.  Though these hero’s, depended greatly on Sherpas, yaks, and the rest of their team.  What I did not know until reading this book is that the first ascent was an accomplishment defined under the United Nations, showing the mountain belongs to all.

In Krakauer’s section he talks about the idea of buying masculinity.  Now Bayer shifts from talking about the imperial age of mountaineering to the future of mountaineering.  Buying a guided tour is changing the team accomplishment to an individual accomplishment.  It is disconnecting the team; there is not the same connection between a guide and his/her clients as there is with climbing partners.  Bayer and Krakauer mention that the meaning of climbing Everest has changed.  They also seem to be touching on the bigger picture of the modern age of mountaineering and how it is becoming an individual sport with guided tours fueled by the upper class.  I am not a mountaineer by any means, but I do love climbing, and the whole concept of climbing Everest seems odd to me especially comparing narratives during the early 1900’s and now.  Even the feeling of being guided, being a guide, and paying to climb a natural mountain seems odd.  It is certainly not as meaningful and satisfying as teaching or mentoring.