I have a dvd on my shelves called ‘McLintock’. It’s a sixties John Wayne comedic western, and despite being hugely sexist (very loosely based on ‘the Taming of the Shrew’) it is a favourite of my wife and daughters.
The point that is interesting to me in this movie is a speech written, or dictated by the fictional chief of the Comanche, (played by Australian Michael Pate) and spoken by the Duke at a hearing concerned with moving the tribe to Fort Sills. In part, he says:
“It is the Comanche law that no chief ever eats, until he sees that the pots are full of meat in the lodges of widows and orphans.”
In the movie, the chief’s name is Puma, not Quanah, and I have not been able to verify whether this is the true custom or not.
I would suggest this is a remarkably ‘human’ law. Predatory animals, like the great cats, can make instinctive calculations concerning economics. For instance, they will only chase their prey so far. They instinctively know that to expend too many calories on a lost cause (or on prey with too few calories) will weaken them too much for the next chase.
Equally, while a mother will defend her cubs fiercely and courageously, if pushed to the limit she will save herself; she has a better chance of surviving to have other cubs, than young cubs have of reaching breeding age.
Loading ...This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Interesting conundrum.
I think answer is to be found according to the urgency of the circumstances.
For example, if in a plane and due to problems oxygen masks are required, we are advised to place the mask on ourselves first then help others like children or other people requiring assistance. This makes good sense in the immediacy of an emergency.
In the case of a community as you described from the movie; the overall survival of the tribe is more important. The chief has greater access to hunting than widows and orphans, therefore, I would feed the widows and orphans first, knowing that my hunger is more temporary than theirs.
Speaking of wisdom in unlikely places, in “High Sierra” another western made in 1941, starring Humphrey Bogart, part of the plot involves panning for gold dust in the High Sierra mountains. To do this the prospectors divert a stream and carve into the mountain-side, after they have found as much gold as they can, the elderly prospector who has lead Bogart to this location insists that they repair the damage done to the environment, saying something along the lines of “we have taken from mother nature and now we must put back.” I can’t remember the line exactly and it was not a necessary part of the narrative, however, it was one of those comments that remain in one’s mind. We have always known that we impact on the natural environment, it is nothing new. I hope you forgive my digression from your topic.
Cheers
Fractelle, I really don’t give a rats about digressions. I enjoy conversing with like minded people. This is not to suggest I expect you and I to agree on everything, but simply an acknowledgement that you appear to be of the side that sees the larger picture, and not judge every issue on how it relates to you personally.
I’m sure you would recognise some of the posters on OLO I am referring to. It was actually some of those individuals I was interested to ‘lure in’ to this debate, but thanks for your contrib.
Yep, very much a Herbert fan (Frank and Brian, is it?) The story goes on.
Don’t read as much as I used to (I’m finding discussions like this much more interesting), but the best sci fi I have read recently would be Peter Hamilton, ‘Night Dawn trilogy’. I’ve just reserved 2 books from his latest, Commonwealth saga; ever noticed if you reserve 2 books, the second one invariably comes in first?
Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean the world isn’t out to get me.
Thanks for this, I’ll be back lol!