The reading regarding the Postcolonialism in the Culture of Ascent felt very much like a refresher of material that has been discussed weeks prior but also had interesting facts that I had not been aware of. It has been heavily discussed in class and from every angle the reasoning behind commercialism within mountaineering, but what I really enjoyed within the article was the shift from a personal or “sublime” experience that mountaineers experienced in the Golden Age and a shift toward a more generic and common experience so long as you could afford the experience. The shift was found not only in approach to mountaineering, but also in the books written as the experience in the Golden Age was more internal and a personal experience that one could not share with another person, whereas now an experience is less pure and romantic; technology also allows a person to share their experiences in a lens that can be interpreted in many ways.

The experience was less about a team or “brotherhood” of the rope and now geared more toward a “blind, ambitious “me-firstism” (Slemon, 61) attitude. Mountaineering businesses could now sell an interested tourist a variety of routes up Everest, ascents were attempted specifically for a book deal and it felt that the respect of Everest was slipping away the more the world bought into the idea of an easy accessible Everest that was free of past dangers that the first mountaineers had encountered. The lack of respect that commercialization had brought to Everest was shocking to read, especially regarding the party of climbers who had partied too long on the mountain and as a result, some of them died and had experienced frost bite that required amputation. I just found that particular party very unaware of their surroundings and had they educated themselves a bit on the history of Everest and the lives it had claimed, perhaps they’d of saved a few noses, lives, and fingers.

Technology changes and the way human beings interpret experiences also changes based on their geographical location and their societal changes as well, but I feel that humans are becoming very ignorant to mother nature and the past accomplishments of the climbers who have come before them and established the routes that are now being sold for $65,000 a pop. As it mentions in the article, can Everest be owned? And if so, by who? I don’t think that one country, person or party can lay claim to something that is so much more than a climb. An experience can be owned and that experience can yield profit, but I feel that the mountain itself is so much more than a dollar amount. But as discussed in class and is written about within the reading, Everest has always been viewed at by Europeans as something that was theirs, regardless of where it was within the world, the customs and traditions of Everest within Tibetan and Nepalese culture and was never truly viewed as something that had a previous owner. This feeling of owning a mountain is very similar to the perspective of European colonization throughout history, land or people were viewed at as property of England and therefor, did not need a reasoning behind the motive. While this reading discusses points that have been discussed, I guess as a history major it is safe to say that history does repeat itself.