From Sarah S.
For me, one of the most interesting issues in this book was the casting of lots. Casting lots was an old sea tradition, a completely random way to determine who would sacrifice themselves for the good of the crew—which essentially meant that they would allow the rest of the crew to kill them for food. This tradition raised many moral issues. Is it right to do this? Should one member of a group sacrifice him or herself for the benefit of many? What are everyone's thoughts on this issue? (I have some…so yes, Iwill be posting on my own blog-starter. :-) )
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I thought that the casting of lots was strange in the sense of how it was accepted in a survival situation.
The men in Pollard's boat decided to cast lots (obviously), but the men in Chase's didn't have to. Although they ate pieces of Cole's body, they never really thought of the casting of lots. I think it not only had to do with the fact that they had the hardtack left, but because of their mindset. Mentally, the men in Chase's boat seemed much stronger than those in Pollard's. Those men just seemed, for some reason, to be a lot more vulnerable than most of the other men.
What sort of made me feel a bit better about the situation was how the men weren't really happy to cast lots. And how Pollard didn't want his cousin to sacrifice himself. And when his friend was chosen to execute him, he didn't want to do it either. This shows that although th casting of lots was accepted, no one really truly wanted to have to do it.
I warned y'all that I'd be posting on my own blog-starter-thingy, so here goes:
The thought of casting lots, when I originally read it, repulsed me. Why should one person be chosen to sacrifice himself and other be chosen to be the killer? Is that really fair? At first impression, I thought the whole concept vile.
But then I began to think about it. I thought about what the men were going through, and how much this decision must have cost. I thought about why a custom such as this would have been started in the first place. And I began to understand it, if not fully agree.
I personally see both sides. The pro-casting-of-lots argument is as follows: Why should everyone die when one can sacrifice themselves and ensure the survival of the others, if only for a little longer? The fairest way to do that would be by chance, which they did. The same goes for the task of selecting the one who killed the unlucky individual. It seems the fairest way to go about such a task, if the task is deemed necessary.
The con argument is very straightforward and obvious. It isn't right to kill someone in cold blood for your own gain. That could fall under the heading of "murder" and would most definitely fall under the heading of "cannibalism." Even with the additional food supplied by the body, there's no guarantee of survival for the remaining men. So would that person's death be wasted?
As I said in the Navigation blog, we can't judge the men too harshly. They were desperate and did what they felt right. We can't know if, having been in their situation with their resources (physically, mentally, emotionally, and by way of supplies), we would have done the same or different, whether for better or for worse.
Casting lots sort of scared me. I wouldn't want to know that I would randomly be killed and then eaten by relatives and some of my good friends. What I found weird was the crew tried to avoid cannibalism from the people on the islands, but instead they faced cannibalism amongst themsleves. I presonally would rather die than eat a friend of mine first.
I guess we just don't know how we would react in a situation of starvation. And, in the 1800s in Nantucket there must have been many stories of cannibalism and survival by casting lots. Sort of accepted practice. Good thinking here, folks. I like the discussions.
The casting lots raised my attention also. I do not think that it is ok to kill one of your friends or shipmates for food. But, in the condition that the sailors were surviving, I think it was ok. If i was in their position, I probably would have done the same also. They were living in harsh conditions and weather, and they had limited food, drink, and supplies. I know that if i had stayed out at sea for that long, I would have wanted to cast the lots. From my perspective, killing someone for food isnt that good, because you are killing someone that you know for your own pleasure, but i do think that the sailors made the right choice with casting the lots because they were running out of food. They couldnt even bear to stand up and their tounges and lips started to swell up and they werent even able to talk. I think that they made the right choice there.
One thing that i thought of was how consuming their shipmates apparantly didn't even help them in the long run. As it said in the book, their friends' meat didn't help them much because there was no source of fat. That i thought was interesting because although they didn't know it, Owen Coffin sacrificed himself for almost no reason. It explains it on page 118: "By the time Samuel Reed died on January 28, the seven survivors recieved close to three thousand calories' worth of meat....Unfortunately, even though this portion may have been roughly equal to each man's share of a Galapaos tortoise, it lacked the fat that the human body requires to digest meat. No matter how much meat they now had available to them, it was of limited nutritional value without a source of fat."
Every time a man was eaten, i thought of this fact. It really bothered me that the men were resorting to cannibalism even though they weren't getting a whole lot out of it. If it's the only thing that lies between you and certain death, then go ahead, obviously, as the men did. But if i were in the situation (and had the knowledge of this, seemingly unlike the men of the Essex), i would not have casted lots at that time. Maybe a few days later if none of us had yet died, and we were all about to, i may have agreed to it (i'm not sure b/c i've never actually been in the situation).
It was the bone marrow that the men actually needed, and that's what they should have all eaten from the beginning. But seeing as none of the men would have donated a limb before they died, they would have had to wait until after the man had died. Also, if the men had all eaten the marrow and were thus none of the men were that close to death, none would die, which is good, but then they'd start starving again and there would be a little cycle there.
Anyways, so yea...
My thoughts on casting lots is that it is totally disturbing!One person would have to die for the others to survive? How would crews choose who would die? How would they kill him? The question that asks if casting lots is the right thing to do stumped me, though. The person being sacrificed would think that it is unfair for them to die and no one else and that they all should die together. The rest of the crew would think that it is more important for a group of people to live than one person. I think if they were to eat someone, at least wait until they are already dead. I think casting lots is still gross and disturbing though :0!
I think that casting lots is really gross! For me, I am discusted by the idea of eating someone, but the fact that the person is a friend makes it even harder to think about. I think that they are a crew, and that they should stick together.
Casting lots made me think of when we read "The Lottery" last year in english- only because of the whole sacrafice thing, killing someone to help a group of people. Both last year and this year I think that it is a really bad idea.
Another question that this blog made me think of is that maybe there is a point where you are in so much suffering and agony that you want to be the sacrificed one. For me, I do not think that I would ever get to be at that phase where you are in such bad condition that you see no point in living. However, I do think that you could strongly believe something (like that you would never eat another human being or want to be sacrificed) and when you get faced with the problem, you could completely change your mind.
The idea of casting lots definatly freaked me out. I can't imagine being that desperate to survive, have so little food that I would engage in casting lots and seeing who to kill and eat. It just seems so disgusting. Beyond that how does one feell knowing that they are about to die? Sure, it's so the rest of your crew can survive but to give up your life is just so noble. It's all so brutal.
Ooh, I agree with Kate, it does remind me of reading The Lottery last year, and I had pretty much the same reaction with both.
It was quite ironic that they tried to avoid an island that possibly had cannibals but had to resort to cannibalism in the end.
I strongly disagree with the issue of casting lots. Regardless of the situation, I don’t think there is ever a time where it is okay to bring someone else down to help yourself. In my opinion, this doesn’t make a difference if it’s just people spreading rumors, or a matter of life or death.
But, like Sarah, when I began to think more about this and the situation of the men, I started to see the other side (a little bit). I started by thinking of the families of the crew members. When they find out their loved ones have died they will be heart broken. If we could make a few less families heartbroken wouldn’t that be good? If a few men sacrificed themselves for the others, then these people could have a better chance of surviving, and possibly make it home to their families.
When I thought more about this situation, I realized the full extent of the consequences of casting lots. We have the obvious: the guilt of knowing that you killed a crew-mate in cold blood to help yourself. If it was ME, the guilt would never leave. Maybe I'd be able to come to terms with myself, but it would still be extremely hard to deal with.
Another consequence of the decision to cast lots would be the reaction of others. Upon reaching home, what would you say to your friends? Your enemies? Your neighbors? Your family? Or, the hardest, the family of the person selected to die? You would, without a doubt, be shunned by many for your choice. The family of the victim would probably never forgive you. If they were exceptionally kind and understanding, they might, but chances are they wouldn't. That would be a terrible burden to live with.
One random thought that came to me:
In the Torah (for those of us who don't know, it's the Jewish Bible, which is the Christian Old Testament), it says: "Above all, choose life." This is in regards to obeying commandments and such (I think..I haven't been to Hebrew School in a long time =]). But I thought it could apply to many situations that are far more drastic, such as this one. Most people, it seems, live by this. They'll save themselves above all others. This principle, depending on where it's applied, is not necessarily an admirable one. In regards to commandments in the Torah, it's just fine. In regards to survival situations such as that in the book, it loses it some of that "fineness." Thoughts?
the man in pollards boat decided to cast lots. i think that was weird and mean. i wouldn't want to have to kill or eat my friend or crew mate. i guess in thoose situations you have to do things that you don't want to do in oder to survive. i also thought it was weird that pollards boat decided to cast lots and the men in chases did not. i thought it was weird that they stayed away from the canibalism islands but ate there own people. rigt now i dont think i would ever eat a person but you never know what i would do in a situation like theirs.
Post a Comment