Robert Bryce,ISBN:0811703177,Cook&Peary:The Polar Controversy Resolved, by Robert M. Bryce, Cook and Peary

Book Review

See also: "Librarian Proves Cook a Fraud!"

Crook & Peary Envy My Polar Controversy Revived
Part One comments on the Washington Post review Part Two Comments on the New York Times article Part Three A personal perspective

by junior college librarian Robert M. Bryce; Hardcover, 1120 pages
Published by Stackpole Books, Publication date: February 1, 1997
ISBN: 0811703177, Used price: $5 to $15

Pretentiously titled, it is just a "Cook" book!
Review of Crook & Peary Envy
by Rusty Robinson

If you are looking for Robert E. Peary in this book - forget it!
The author hates Peary, adored Cook (???) and wrote out a few (yes- literally only a few) pages about the North Pole Controversy Cook created. Bryce obviously wanted Cook, the felon, to have discovered the Pole (see his remarks in an interview below). Overall a highly biased (pro-Crook) work comprised of diary comments negative to Peary from disgruntled employees, or half mad volunteers with cabin fever during the long Arctic night. Anything Peary and Henson did that was positive, such as reaching the North Pole, or writing their respective books is dismissed by Bryce. Why? Because he tells you they are liars. Why is that? Because he says so. But then isn't Cook the hero? No, says Bryce. Cook was a fraud. Bryce proves it. Then what is the point? Why write the book as everyone already knew Cook was a fraud? Don't ask me...this is a revisionist history agenda only a psychotherapist could fathom.

The book librarian
Bryce was so angry about
he hired a lawyer!

Part One

Washington Post article excerpts

"Revisionist historians... inflated Henson's contribution out of all proportion to what it really was." "... an African American servant named Matthew Henson..."

"When asked why he had taken a "Negro" with him to the North Pole ...Peary answered dismissively: "I did not feel called upon to share the honors that might occur with any other man."

"...Bryce says, "with the booming interest in black history, there are more copies of Henson's book ...in the nation's libraries than there are of Peary's" (...Bryce ran a reference search to make sure.)

"It's difficult for people now to realize how this argument over who discovered the North Pole divided the country. It was sort of like the O.J. Simpson trial" -- an early media event where newspapers took sides and people argued passionately in favor of one side or the other. ... "... I did become fascinated with Cook. . . . I rather wanted him to have found the pole."

By Ken Ringle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 17 1997; Page B01
The Washington Post

Rusty Robinson's commentary on part 1

This is librarian Bryce's first book and hopefully his last. The above excerpts reveal what I believe is the essence of Robert Bryce's tome. He actually checked to find how many copies of the biography of "...the servant named Matthew Henson.." are in the nations libraries. It disturbs me that he is concerned about the abundance of Henson literature. It should concern you, also.

"...Bryce says, "with the booming interest in black history....

What did you say Mr. Bryce?

"Revisionist historians... inflated Henson's
contribution out of all proportion to what it really was..."

And what is librarian Bryce but a revisionist with a personal agenda? Matt Henson wrote his account of the 1909 North Pole expedition in 1912 and his biography was written with him in 1947. Both of these "pre-revisionist history" books document his essential role with Peary. Henson was a truly great man of extraordinary character. Nothing has been inflated about his contribution as co-discoverer of the North Pole. I think that Bryce's characterization of Henson goes too far - I view it as racism. Bryce would have us go back 90 years to the whispered slurs about why Peary took the "Negro" to the Pole.

Henson was honored in his lifetime less than Peary, that is true. But he was awarded a medal from Congress, made a member of the highly esteemed Explorers Club in New York City, posthumously awarded the Hubbard Medal and was reinterred at Arlington National Cemetery. His friends included the most famous names in Arctic exploration. He worked with the Museum of Natural History to create authentic displays of the Eskimos and animals found in Northern Greenland. His biography in 1947 was a sensation. To claim "Revisionist historians... inflated Henson's contribution..." is absolutely incorrect. Henson was "re-discovered" after the civil rights era of the 1950's and 60's. That is true. Matt's 1947 biography was reprinted in 1965 to fill the need for "black history" literature and copycat books appeared (one of which was successfully sued for plagiarism). None of these. however, "...inflated Henson's contribution out of all proportion to what it really was..." Matt's accomplishments need no "inflation" - only protection from this errant librarian turned "author".

Bryce refers to the injustice Cook (his hero, the con artist) created for Peary and Henson – "It was sort of like the O.J. Simpson trial" -- an early media event where newspapers took sides..." Why choose the trial of an African American murderer for this analogy? Because Simpson was in fact guilty but got off? Is he suggesting that Henson and Peary could be compared to murderers found innocent? Using Bryce's metaphor he would have us believe that Nicole Simpson "got what she deserved."

This is one librarian I believe other librarians should purge from their history shelves! I recommend Bryce's "Controversy, Resolved" be located with the books claiming the Holocaust never happened.

Rusty Robinson

An interesting side note about The Washington Post: In 1989 they headlined a story calling Peary a fraud. An astronomer, Dennis Rawlins, had found "evidence" which was soon found to be nothing but an embarrassing mistake. Isn't this ironic that The Washington Post has already mistakenly condemned Peary once before and now (favorably) reviews this book!

Part Two

New York Times excerpts

"Several years ago, the Frederick A. Cook Society in Hurleyville, N.Y., ... The author was given access to Cook's personal papers and the unrestricted right to publish excerpts from unpublished diaries and papers..."

"Russell W. Gibbons, executive director of the Cook Society, said ...I tend to be a Cook partisan and don't think much of the credibility of Peary."

"Bryce, ...said his long interest in the controversy led him to begin work eight years ago on a Cook biography,...Bryce said he started out hoping to find evidence supporting Cook's claim. The author said he felt Peary, whom he described as aloof, cold and manipulative, and his influential backers, had been unfair to the more personable Cook. "I wanted Dr. Cook to win," he said. "Who would want Peary to win? He was so unlikable."
Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company

Rusty Robinson's commentary on part 2

Oh, my GOD! "...the Frederick A. Cook Society ..." - now I see the connection. Their forefather Cook was known to have faked climbing Mt. McKinley, then he scooped up money on the lecture circuit with his bogus claim of reaching the North Pole, destroyed Peary and Henson's achievement with his lies and later was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for mail fraud. How fitting that the descendants would help author Bryce to discredit Peary 90 years later!

Even Cook Society director Gibbons states "...I tend to be a Cook partisan and don't think much of the credibility of Peary." Author Bryce admits "I wanted Dr. Cook to win...Who would want Peary to win? He was so unlikable." So the criteria applied here includes "likeability" - the author who claims in his book title to have resolved an historical fact bases his decision on personality.

Peary, he says, was "...aloof, cold and manipulative, and ...unfair to the more personable Cook." Is this author serious or seriously insane? Peary went to the North Pole. The little SOB Cook went on a sleigh ride that never came within 400 or 500 miles of the North Pole. Then he goes to Europe claiming he reached the Pole, accepted awards from the people of Copenhagen, sold his bogus story to the New York Herald for $24,000 and generally stole from Peary what Peary and Henson had worked at for 18 years! The New York Times only paid Peary $3,000 for his story. Cook ruined Peary. His lies only ended when it was clear he could not produce the evidence he claimed he was going to share with the world. In fact a captain came forward to admit Cook paid him to make up sextant readings that would look like he had been to the North Pole! Peary had every right to be furious at Cook's "claim jumping" fraud. In the backwoods they simply shot claim jumpers. Cook got away, then came back and began a lifelong campaign against Peary and his backers that is continued to this day (by his descendant's trust fund fueled "Cook Society").

What Fred Cook made clear was that he was not only a fraud, and later a convicted felon, but he as one vicious SOB. His Peary slandering "My Attainment of the Pole" was so inflammatory that even Cook had to delete the margin notes in the following editions. They are noticeably absent from the current reprints as well. He also had to correct, in the second edition, his math bloopers that revealed he didn't know how to take sextant readings.

But author Bryce says "Who would want Peary to win? He was so unlikable." What? Historical facts are unrelated to ones "likeability'! Historical opinion, however, is. Robert Bryce needs to get the two straightened out. Robert E. Peary may have been aloof but he was no fraud like Cook. He discovered the North Pole. Evidence of his claim went "solid gold" when submarines, half a century later, mapped the ocean floor under the Arctic. They confirmed Peary's measurements. Peary reached the Pole.

But author Bryce is not listening. The "Cook Society" seems intent on discrediting Peary since nothing can redeem their ancestor. Bryce should have written his biography of Cook and left the honor of Peary and Henson out of it. I believe he is wrongly revising the history of this long past criminal tragedy. Yes, it was a great ugly wound that Cook's lies created. He destroyed the rewards of the Peary expedition, relegating Henson to a life of obscurity. What should have a national celebration of the polar achievement instead became Cook's criminal nightmare for two continents. Even when exposed he went on lying and fighting. After he complete parole in 1935 he filed lawsuits against publishers who printed the mere fact that Cook's claim was a fake.

"I believe that Bryce has become infected with the toxic personality of the felon Cook. Cook's legacy to history can be likened to an infected wound that he Bryce was in a position to have drained. Instead he has, perhaps, caused a new outbreak of Cook's disease by producing this falsely titled mass of selectively negative research. The "references" used are in some cases only the diary comments of men as disgusting as Eskimo girl molester Dedrick or lunatic Verhoeff, who referred to Henson as 'the nigger'. If you think that is history, you may not have the mental capacity to think for yourself"

This book, in my opinion, is not history. It strikes me as an attempt to change the facts of history with selective research.

V.R.

Part Three

Why write a book about Cook?
by Rusty Robinson

Peary and Henson are legendary explorers, men of determination who reached the North Pole with a huge assault team of skilled individuals who broke trails, made base camps and left provisions ahead for the elite team which only had to dash the last 150 miles. Peary with Henson spent 15 years in the Arctic to gain the knowledge and skill needed to reach the North Pole. On the other hand, Cook was a rogue con artist who made a fortune selling his bogus story to the press and giving lectures. When Peary came back from his successful 1909 Arctic expedition he was shocked to learn that Cook went to Europe, claimed to have reached the Pole and the press on two continents believed him. "Polar Controversy" reopens these old wounds; to what good purpose? Cook was ultimately exposed and fled from the public's presence. Discredited as an explorer his next scam was mail fraud which landed him in Federal Prison for many years. So much for Cook.

It was proven in 1909 that Cook was a fraud; this is NOT a controversy. Why write a book about it today? Well, I can believe that the descendants of Cook may want to discredit Peary....Hmmm.... And perhaps the reason may be the same today, with some individuals, as it was in 1909 - racism. Peary did not take a white man to the North Pole! He took Eskimos and a Negro to the North Pole! Vicious rumors of the day were that the "dumb Negro" and (dumber) Eskimos didn't know where Peary took them and would say whatever Peary told them to say. Is this the sort of muck anyone today needs to stir up?

Historical fact is that an African-American with 4 Inuit team members reached the Pole and waited for Peary to arrive 45 minutes later by dog sled. Yes, that is exactly how it happened - the first man at the Pole was Matt Henson, a black man. Peary was not pleased! Matt was to have stopped short of the Pole but he didn't. We can smile today, and give a wink for Matt's "mistake" but the public never forgave Peary for "taking a Negro to the North Pole".

Today Matt Henson is a legend; his Inuit descendents live on in Greenland, a Naval ship proudly bears his name, his body rests at Arlington National Cemetery, he is the subject of many books and 2 movies are planned. Henson and Peary were commemorated on a US Postage stamp, they received this country's highest award - The Medal Of Honor. Author Bryce seems pleased with himself for inventing this "controversy" to discredit them.

Henson-Peary in 1909 absolutely reached 90 degrees North Latitude. Everyone involved with the expedition, the National Geographical Society and other explorers knew this. But skeptics, much like Polar Controversy's author, have made headlines and book sales with "controversy theories". It is a sickness, perhaps, like conspiracy theories? Any doubt about Peary's expedition was put to rest with the January, 1990 National Geographic (P.44). If you have any serious interest in this matter read their article. The revelation is that Peary took depth records of the ocean floor and he took photographs at the Pole. In 1909 these were not extraordinary. But then a techniques was developed during the cold-war spy era to determine geographic latitude from a photograph if it has shadows, a visible horizon and the camera's focal length is known. Experts have examined Peary's photos from several expeditions and verified his position. His North Pole photos are within 5 miles of the Pole!

Peary's ocean depth records? At the pole he could not reach bottom with his 9,000 foot reel of wire. Submarines mapped the Arctic trench depth 50 years later. Guess what? At the Pole the ocean floor is deeper than 9,000 ft! On the way there Peary's records accurately trace the various shelves under the sea. So why is author Bryce doubting Peary? Cook we can understand - he had no witnesses, no expedition crew, no ocean floor depth records and his faked sextant readings were made for him by a sea captain he paid off.

A person can not sit in a library reading old letters and press clippings to disprove an event which occurred almost a century ago. That kind of arrogance is similar to that which Aristotle inflicted upon Western culture. Aristotle knew, for instance, that a heavy object fell faster than a lighter one. Why? Certainly not from any empirical evidence - but because he asserted that anything could be understood by using reason alone. Why? Because he said so! It was almost 2,000 years later that Galileo did a few experiments which disproved the "obvious" truth of heavy objects falling faster. Aristotle was absolutely wrong. So much for Aristotle. The author of this muckraking tomb, Polar Controversy, is likewise putting to the task only his personal logic to solve a controversy which he has created. Like Aristotle, he believes he can succeed by using his reason alone.

Bryce's errors in research were of no interest to real experts in the polar fraternity for several years. As a Peary descendant puts it "People who have nothing better to do with their time produce this rubbish, while those of us who know it is garbage have better things to do with our time." But after a certain point those who "know better" began to speak up to at least keep the media from being completely seduced with revisionist history. Read the Davies review to grasp just how far out of bounds Bryce went.

The Dewey Decimal System needs a new category to contain conspiracy theories, revisionist history on this magnitude, Atlantis myths and those hate monger pamphlets which prove the holocaust never happened. In the mean time winter is coming and Bryce's attempt to rewrite history should keep you warm as you incinerate it in your fireplace. In fact, with the number of volumes being discarded from libraries, plus the ones almost given away on ebay this could be less expensive than firewood.

Rusty Robinson