I just read a fascinating book by the Naval historian and author, Joan Druett called "The Island of the Lost: Shipwrecked at the Edge of the World" (if you read my most recent post, "Taming the Chaos", you shouldn't be surprised at my reading choice). The story takes place in a group of islands in the South Pacific (nearly 300 miles south of New Zealand), known as the Auckland Islands around the time of the U.S. Civil War. The book is fascinating, at least to me, because it tells two completely different stories that happened, rather coincidentally, at roughly the same time - the shipwreck of the schooner Grafton and its crew of five men on January 3, 1864 and the shipwreck of the much larger (1100 tons) sailing ship, Invercauld and its crew of 25 men on May 11, 1864. The two ships wrecked at opposite ends of the island, the two crews never interacted (and really had no idea that they were both on the same island), and while *SPOILER ALERT* both crews were eventually rescued, how well they fared were very different. In fact, the way that the two captains and their crews handled this series of rather unfortunate events couldn't have been more different. As Florence Williams writes in her New York Times book review, "Their divergent experiences provide a riveting study of the extremes of human nature and the effects of good (and bad) leadership."
The Grafton castaways were led by their captain, Thomas Musgrave, whose example of leadership in the face of crisis parallels that of the famous Antarctica explorer Ernest Shackleton. While Musgrave's leadership undoubtedly influenced the eventual outcome (all five members of the Grafton crew survived and returned home), the resilience of the individual crew members (a French gold miner and the first mate, Francois Raynal, a Portugese cook, a Norwegian, and a young Englishman) were just as critical. They salvaged virtually every useful part of their ship, and at one point actually flipped the 56 ton ship over on its side to see if they could repair it and sail home themselves! They built a rather sturdy cabin (which still stood several years after their rescue) for shelter using materials from the ship, as well as the limited natural resources on the island itself. The five men survived largely by eating seal meat (they were able to use some of the ship's provisions, but they had only planned to be at sea for at most two months, so the provisions were limited), but made several attempts to actually grow their own food (using pumpkin seeds and potatoes left over from the ship's stores). They carved a number of items out of the local wood, including a set of playing cards, a chess set, and dominoes. If you've ever watched the 1960's American sitcom, Gilligan's Island, you have a pretty good idea about how resilient and resourceful these five men really were during their 18 month stay on the island. Raynal was particularly resourceful - with the aid of the others, he constructed a forge and started manufacturing nails and other tools that they needed to convert their small dinghy into a seaworthy vessel that they could use to sail home.
One particular episode particularly stood out to me. At one point, relatively early in their stay, the five men started to argue about who was in charge. The three sailors felt like they should have a greater say in what happened to them and somewhat resented how they were being treated by Captain Musgrave, in particular. There are a variety of leadership styles, and one could certainly argue that a more authoritarian, "command and control" type of leadership is preferred in a time of crisis. However, Musgrave acknowledged both the others' concerns, as well as their need to have input into some of the decisions that were being made. They held an election for who would be in charge, and rather unsurprisingly, Captain Musgrave was unanimously elected as the leader of the group. Recognizing that harmony among the five men was critical to their survival, Musgrave initiated a nightly series of "classes." They taught each other their individual languages (Portugese, French, and Norwegian), and both Musgrave and Raynal taught the other three men to read and write.
As I mentioned above, the experience of the Invercauld castaways was vastly different. If the Grafton shipwreck was more like Gilligan's Island or Robinson Crusoe, the Invercauld shipwreck was more like Lord of the Flies. The ship struck a reef during a storm and sank immediately. Nineteen of the 25 crew members made it safely (barely - most had to kick off their shoes to keep from drowning) to shore, and the others drowned. The survivors spent the night on the shore and at daybreak tried to salvage what they could from the ship's wreckage. They found some provisions, lit a fire with the only dry matches that they could find, and stripped the clothes and boots from the six men who had drowned when their bodies washed ashore. They exhausted what little food they had salvaged and spent four days with virtually no further attempts to seek shelter or find food. Unfortunately, their refuge was at the base of a 2,000 foot cliff. After four days, three men climbed the cliffs to find food, and soon thereafter everyone except one dying sailor and his caretaker climbed the cliffs to seek better shelter. The weather was very cold, and many of the sailors suffered from frostbite. They were able to find some food (they killed a wild pig), but more or less went the next three weeks without any additional food. One by one, their numbers dwindled as some of the men died from starvation and exposure. They eventually found an abandoned village the ruins of a long abandoned whaling settlement, but the lack of food and adequate shelter caused several more deaths. The three remaining crew, including the captain and first mate, survived on shellfish and roots. After nearly a year, they were eventually rescued by a ship that had stopped at the island for repairs.
The differences between the two castaway groups is stark. Where the men of the Grafton did everything possible to survive for the long haul, eventually saving themselves by converting a dinghy into a seaworthy sailboat (Musgrave and two others sailed to another island and found a ship to bring the remaining two castaways home), the men of the Invercauld seemed to accept their fate without trying to save themselves. The differences in leadership between Musgrave and the Invercauld's captain, George Dalgarno, is even more stark. Whereas Musgrave took full responsibility for the health and welfare of his crew (even returning with the ship to rescue the last two castaways), Dalgarno was nonexistent as a leader. As Joan Druett writes, "Instead of demonstrating leadership, Captain Dalgarno seemed too paralyzed to order a search for shelter and food." He did little to care for his men, nor did he take charge of the situation. In other words, he failed to lead. As a result, the men of the Invercauld fell into madness, anarchy, and despair - some of the castaways even resorted to cannibalism.
As the explorer, Sir Raymond Priestly, once said, "For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton." I would add, "Or pray for Musgrave."
No comments:
Post a Comment