Compare and/or contrast the "white pilgrim men" to the "black fellows of the crew". Which do you think are considered more humane and why? On pages 222-223 there is a passage about the black crewmen wanting the enemy for food, do you think cannibalism can be justified?
The white pilgrims and the black cannibals were two different groups aboard Marlow's steamboat. The white pilgrims were greedy workers of the Central Station. They all desired to be appointed to a station so that they could trade for ivory and earn money; however, none of the men actually take any productive steps for achieving their goal. Their attitude towards the natives was that of hatred and disdain. Moreover, they treated them like animals. However, in the manner in which they approach their self-centered agendas, they seem more like the animals. The black cannibals were natives in Africa who were hired as the crew of the steamer. Unlike the white pilgrims, the cannibals were sensible and well-tempered. Marlow even respects their ability to calmly restrain themselves from acting upon the demoralizing treatment by superior white people. In addition, Marlow speaks well of the Cannibals working on his steamboat by stating that even though these men “sill belonged to the beginnings of time,” they never lashed out against the white pilgrims. Because the black crewmen had been traveling for a long time, Marlow understands and even sympathizes with the feelings and impulses that the cannibals possessed. After hearing the headman of the black crewman announce that he would eat the people if he were given them, Marlow stated, “I would no doubt have been properly horrified, had it not occurred to me that he and his chaps must be very hungry: that they must have been growing increasingly hungry for at least this month past. They had been engaged for six months.” They were suffering from starvation, and their bodies ached from hunger. While the black crewmen restrained from killing and eating their enemies, which would have satisfied their actual need for food, the white pilgrims did not restrain from their hunger for ivory and did anything it took to for them to accomplish their goal, which was not a need in life as the black crewman's food was. Do I think that cannibalism is justified? Of course, the killing of innocent men is not justified. However, cannibalism was a means to survive to these black crewmen. It was also a way of life for them. They were not malicious, and they did not viewing killing as a fun way to torture people. First, they saw the enemy people as a threat, and then they saw they as a good source of food. Nevertheless, even with these points in favor of the black crewmen and their thought process, cannibalism is wrong. It is not justifiable. No amount of reasoning can reason away the act of murdering an innocent human being and eating them. Yes, they were hungry, starving even, but that again does not justify eating other human beings and taking their lives.
The "white pilgrim men" are greedy agents of the Central Station. They all want to trade for ivory and earn a commission, but none of them actually takes any effective steps toward achieving this goal. They are obsessed with keeping up a veneer of civilization and proper conduct, and are motivated entirely by self-interest. They hate the natives and treat them like animals, although in their greed and ridiculousness they appear less than human themselves. Cited sparknotes.com That’s inhumane to a society when people are so concerned about themselves and what they get and what others will think etc. It changes how people act toward, around them and it show a lack of respect for others in this world. That’s not healthy because then you get negative reactions from other in return. That can cause more harm then if you were to just give a person a chance get to know them better for them put them before you put yourself. The "Black fellows of the Crew" are understanding and well minded they don’t think of adversity in a bad way, they are more accepted of it and its not a big concern of theirs. They take their situation of facing adversity and learn from it and not to be the same toward others. Which ones are considered more humane well without looking at the cannibalism part of the Black fellow I would think that they are more humane, due to the fact that they are not judgmental or prejudice against others such as the white men? They aren’t self centered and only worried about themselves. Then add in a factor of cannibalism that erases their humanism. We people of today look at that as something horrific, nasty, and something that can never be justified. So in the End I say that their actions towards people are different from the whites and that would make the blacks more Humane. After all the variables are in neither group to myself are Humane. Neither the “white pilgrim” nor the "black crew". So to answer can cannibalism be justified? Regardless the reason that is something that shouldn’t be. Cannibalism is horrible mind boggling and I cant even go into detail that’s something that Just shouldn’t be regardless of the kind of people, their religion, their up bring etc its wrong and very in Humane.
I think that it is almost impossible to compare the 'white pilgrim men' to the 'black fellows of crew' because they are so different. Each of their motives in this story are different, and therefore, the justifications of their actions will be different as well. The 'white pilgrim men' are driven by greed and hunger for riches and ivory, where the 'black fellows of crew' are just looking to survive. I don't think that cannibalism can be justified, but I have never been put in a situation like that. Up until now, the 'cannibals' have proved themselves to be fairly decent people. They put up with the harsh treatment by their superiors without ever lashing out or saying anything harsh. I think that by telling Marlow that they would like to eat the enemy was because they were on the brink of starvation, but also as an indirect way of saying that they respected Marlow and that anyone attacking him (or his ship) was an enemy of theirs as well.
The "white pilgrim men" and the "black fellows of the crew" are quite different. The pilgrims are nothing but greed-driven individuals in search of an appointed station and a commission from ivory. But the cannibals on the steamboat seem to be driven by something else entirely: survival. The pilgrims are hungry, in a metaphorical sense, for money, power and success. However, the cannibals are literally hungry; hungry for food and survival. To me, the cannibals appear to be more humane than the pilgrims. They are calm and well-tempered, which is why it seems a bit ironic that they are referred to as cannibals. But the fact that they do refer to cannibalism as a way of survival is a bit disturbing. Even though I was not in their situation and could not possibly know what it is like to endure the environment and extreme starvation, I can't possibly imagine killing someone and then eating them.
Marlow states when he is speaking to the manager on the boat, that the cries from the savages are not anything to be alarmed of. This was a mistake on his part for several reasons. The savages open fire with arrows on the boat and this causes the "white" and "black" on Marlow's boat to prepare to fight back. This act of helping one another shows unity. They were all in a bad situation when they had open fire on them so they joined together Just becasue they are on the boat it does not mean that they cannot be cival. I don't feel that the white people were any better or well behaved than the black men. The cannibal leader of the cannibals tells Marlow that his people want to eat the owners of the voices in the fog. He goes on to tell them that his people are hungry and the only food they had was a rotten hippo meat that was already thrown over board. They also weren't allowed to get off the ship to trade for goods either. I don't think that cannibalism is ok or smiled upon but there are situations that some religions or groups might have to use it for survival. I know some groups use it for their main source of food. My mom has always told me, " to each is own." If thats what they want to do and they have no other resources, so be it. NO,Cannibalism cannot be justified in my beliefs, but this is a story and if they feel the need to do so then by all means.
It was easy to see the difference between the white pilgrim men and the black cannibals. The black crew seemed to be more reasonable then the other crew but I wouldnt consider either one to be more humane than the other. This particular part made me wonder why the black crew seemed to be more reasonable. I thought maybe they were acting "kinder" so they could be treated differently. As time went on, they became angry and showed that anger by telling Marlow that they wanted to eat the other men. I also thought that they should have acted upon this statement. One, to show the pilgrims that they were people too and they should be treated with the same respect. I think that in this case cannibalism could be justified and would be ok. The men of the black crew were deprived of their rights by being able to get off the steamboat to trade for food. The only way that they could survive would be through cannibalism. Although others might disagree but which one is morally right when only given the two options: death because of starvation or having to kill someone for survival?
question: After Kurtz's death Marlow reflects on life stating; "THe most you can hope from it is some knowledge of yourself-that comes too late-a crop of unextinguishable regrets." Do you think Kurtz gained regretful knowledge of himself uttering his last words "The Horror! The Horror!" or did Marlow misunderstand Kurtz even on his death bead?
Personally, I feel that it is ridiculous to even compare the ‘white pilgrim men’ to the ‘black fellows’ aboard Marlow’s steamboat because they are so different. The ‘white pilgrim men’ are nothing but greedy workers of the Central Station that desire an appointed station for purposes of trading ivory and gaining riches. On the other hand, the ‘black fellows of the crew’ are well-tempered individuals that just want to survive. While the ‘white pilgrim men’ desire riches and power, the black cannibals merely want food to feed their aching bodies. With the exception of the ‘black fellows of the crew’ being cannibals, I would have to say that the black cannibals are the more humane individuals. The ‘white pilgrim men’ hated the black fellows and thus treated them like animals. Yet despite how the black cannibals were treated by their white superiors, they never retaliated against them. Actually, Marlow comments that, “even though these men “still belonged to the beginnings of time, they never lashed out against the white pilgrims.” Clearly, the black cannibals are extremely calm and self-contained. Unlike the black cannibals, the ‘white pilgrim men’ lack self-control and civility. They do whatever they desire, even if it means treating others inhumanely. With regards to cannibalism, I do not feel that it can be justified. Obviously, the ‘black fellows of the crew’ weren’t wicked individuals that saw eating other people as enjoyable. Rather, they were just hungry and desired food. Still, cannibalism is wrong! Eating another living person for the sake of starvation isn’t reason enough to kill someone.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows of the crew are crew members on Marlow's steamship. The white pilgrim men, to me, are less humane because they think they are better than the black crew members. The black fellows actually contributed to the commanding of the steamer, while the white pilgrim men simply sat around in the pilot-house or lounged on the deck. It seemed as if the white pilgrim men automatically thought that all the work should be reserved for the black men. For example, when the black helmsman died, the white crew acted as though did not want to touch him, and did not help Marlow dispose of his body. The white crew came across as just wanting to get the riches of the land without the work. For example, when Marlow asked the agent to steer the steamer, he hesitates but steers anyway. As for the cannibalism, I think that it can be justified because Marlow says the black men were given brass wire for money to go on land to buy food. However, the steamship did not stop because the crew wanted to get to Kurtz as soon as possible. The hippo meat they had brought was rotten, and the book does not give any evidence of the white pilgrims sharing their food with them. I believe that cannibalism was the black men's last chance at survival in a world that had become infiltrated with strangers.
The black fellows of the crew are considered more humane because they are simply trying to survive on the ship while the white pilgrims have other plans in mind. They are greedy and selfish and have no concern for the welfare of others. The white pilgrims have let their greed consume them and has allowed them to become probably some people in which they are not. I dont think cannabalism can be justified, however I do think that the black crewman wanted to survive and this may have been their only way to do so. They werent as open to as many opportunities as the white pilgrims were so they had to do probably whatever it took in order to ensure that they ate, even if it meant eating people.
The black fellows of the crew seem more humane then the white pilgrim man. The black fellows are just mearly trying to survie and make ends meat. They want to get throw another day with out dying or being put into jail by the law. It can be seen that the white pilgrim men have an alternete perpuse. They are working for their government and are beening sneaky about their reason for being there. They also judge the black fellows of the crew for their behavior and the way they conduct them selves to survive. The white pilgrim men think that they are more humane and a better class of people and look down on the black fellows of the crew for their behavoir. However, the black fellows of the crew seem like they take care of each other and look out for their own, when the white pilgrim men are only their for themselves and their own personal welbeing. I do not believe the cannibalism is right or okay, it is morally wrong to eat another human being. Yes, they were hungry but it is still wrong and should never have been done.
In terms of comparison, I feel that the white pilgrim men and the native cannibals were completly different in many ways. They were too different to compared, they both had different reasons for this voyage. In terms of contrasting the two different groups, the white pilgrim men only wanted to make profits from the voyage by trading ivory. The white pilgrim men made little efforts to complete this objective. The white pilgrim men were cruel and ruthless to the natives, the hated them simply because they felt that the natives were subordinate to them. The natives who were the crew of the ship, gained Marlow's respect due to their ability of adaptations of their harsh conditions and hardships. In answering the question of which group ( the white pilgrim men or the native cannibals) are more humane can be argued on many points. I am not sure about which one is more humane. The obvious answer is the white pilgrim men because of there insensitve ways, but the native cannibals did an inhumane act of cannibalism. But in terms of the natives harships, I believe that their act of cannibalism can be justified simply to the human instinct of survival. So I believe that the white pilgrim men were less humane than the natives, and the natives' act of cannibalism can be justified do to need to survive to live.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows of the crew were two completely different from each other groups. The white pilgrim men had no respect towards anyone, they were too greedy workers of the Central Station. Thinking only about themselves and treating the natives from Africa not fairly, like they are not human beings. The white pilgrim men even apply as "enemy" and "criminals" to the natives. The did not have any huminity in themselves at all. They trade for ivory and their main goal was to gain a substancial profit by collecting all the ivory in Africa. They were shooting at innocent natives, and Marlow realized that in Europe the way of thinking is completely different than the way of thinking in Africa. However, the black fellows of the crew, were people with a way better attitude, hard workers, not greedy and cruel at all compared with the white pilgrim men. Marlow treated the black fellows good, because he knew what they are going through. Marlow knew how hard was the life for all of them and respected them and their actions as normal equal people. I do not think that canabalism should be justified, it is understandable that the life at that time was tough and people could hardly survive. But as a human being, I believe that we have to respect each others life and survive by defferent ways, like having a real food, not eating other people and making them suffer.
Of course it is obvious to see that the two crews are completely different. The matter at hand is the idea of cannibalism. I don't think that the black crew is inhumane because they are not brute savages that just attack anything and everything. If that was the case, they could have just ate the white pilgrims. They are simply doing it as a means for survival. I know that it horrified the white pilgrims to discover what the black crew wanted to do with the enemy but that is just the way it is. In actuality, if someone really wanted to find another source of inhumanity, they could look within the white pilgrim men because they have a generous amount of greed flowing through their veins. These two attributes doesn't make any of the two less humane, but it is definitely something that should be fixed. The justification of the cannibalism has been granted by me because I completely understand why they do what they do. The black crew also has a very humane characteristic of respect and loyalty and that helps justify the situation.
The comparison between the "white pilgrim men" and the "black fellows of the crew" is not much of a comparison at all. It is obvious that they are both searching for different things. The white men are greedy and doing anything they can for the Central Station, whereas the black fellows are only searching for survival. Although in searching for survival they only find it through killing and eating other people they are the more humane ones. The white men are only there to get money and power for the government in a mysterious way. If the black men had any other option for food and survival then they wouldn't be killing and eating the enemy therefor, cannabilism can't be justified. Atleast the black men are doing things for the good of their group and not just individual needs as the white men are. Eventually they had to do what they had to do to survive.
It is clear that the white pilgrim men and the black fellows are totally different. The white men were striving to obtain ivory and other forms of wealth, whereas the black fellows were just trying to survive to live another day. The white men were not very humane just because they saw these black men starving, but did not allow them to trade their goods for food. The black fellows seem more humane because of the fact that they were starving to death, but they did not turn against and attack the white pilgrim men. It stated in the story, "It takes a man all his inborn strength to fight hunger properly." So is cannibalism justifiable? In the mind of a well nourished man, it can never be justified. However, in the mind of a starving man with access to very few food resources, it is perfectly justifiable.
This section of the story shows some very obvious differences between the “whites” and “blacks.” In some cases, the story shows the whites as being more aggressive, stubborn, and in some ways more competitive than the black. The whites, in a lot of cases seem to react on impulse, while the blacks are more mild tempered and self-controlled. Although this is the case, there is also another side to the story. These adjectives of the different groups may be true when it comes to the individual group itself, but when brought together, goals can be accomplished. The main goal of trading ivory may not be getting achieved as quickly as some may like, but the goal of surviving attacks was accomplished in a very efficient way. The two groups, in all their differences, came together to overcome an obstacle. So, when separated into the two groups, they do appear to be very different, but in their differences, when brought together, death can be overcome. On the topic of cannibalism, it in its entirety is wrong. Everything about it is wrong. Our generation, and many generations before us have seen cannibalism as being wrong. In some countries, religions, and cultures cannibalism is a sociably accepted act, but in the case of the United States, this is not so. In the case of book, I would think that cannibalism would be frowned upon as well, but not something that would not have crossed the minds of many of the men participating in the trade of ivory. I think that in their cases, to kill someone, whether friend or foe, just for fun or for food is wrong, but if men were dying of disease and starvation cannibalism, I would think, would be more accepted. Why let good bodies go to waste? The only problem with this concept would be the fear of contaminated meat, especially if the person had had a disease. Overall, when I think of cannibalism, I am personally disgusted, but I think that this would be a pretty common thought among many of the men within the story; only one man was brave enough to speak his thoughts.
The Pilgrims and the Fellows of the crew both have needs, whether food or money. They are taking the actions, that they see necessary to attain what they need, by any means. Neither the crew nor the pilgrims are humane, but to themselves their actions are justified. The pilgrims, I'm assuming, are slaughtering animals for the ivory. This is their job, this is how they make a living and support their families. I think that being ruthless is what it takes. If they aren't bringing the money in, I'm sure another group would be glad to take their share. Taking the lives of one animal to meet the needs of another. This is very much like the crews. With so many other food sources, why should they eat another human being? Would eating a bird, or fish be considered just as inhumane? Or is there a line between who or what you should kill and why? How could you dictate that a group's way of survival is wrong just because you don't see it as acceptable. I don't think you could judge what is right or wrong without knowing what their culture sees as right, or wrong. Personally, I think that eating people is wrong and crazy. But each their own.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows are so different, but yet similar, bonded together by the sea. Both parties are subjected to this life of solitude on the sea which torments them. It is obvious that the white men are purely driven by greed and advancement of power, and they cast morals to the side. It was obvious they viewed the "black fellows" as savages, and were carefree as to whether they lived, died, or had adequate food for that matter. Cannibalism was definitely justified, essential to their survival, being the crew threw their rotting meat overboard. Marlow even stated, "It takes a man all his inborn strength to fight hunger properly. It's really easier to face bereavement, dishonor, and the perdition of one's soul-than this kind of prolonged hunger. Sad, but true." Reasons for their hunger were either no villages for them to acquire food, too harsh of conditions, or because of the view of profit in the distance superseded any priority.
In my opinion, I believe that "the white pilgrim men" and the "black fellows of the crew" were too different to compare. The white pilgrim men were greedy and insensitive with one thing on their mind..."money" by trading ivory. The blck fellows weren't greedy and remained focused on their job and when faced with adversity they learned from it and moved on. When it comes down to which group of people were more humane, I would probably have to say that the black fellows were more humane than the white pilgrim men because they are more understanding and well minded than the greedy white pilgrim men. Although the black fellows had to turn to cannibalism for survival didn't make them inhumane. They were only doing what they had to do to survive (humane instinct) which took eating the enemy.
The "white pilgrim men" and the "black fellos of the crew" really were very different in their motives and actions. I believe that in many ways the black fellows were more humane than the pilgrims. The pilgrims were just concerned with wealth of ivory and were extremely greedy.The black men, on the other hand, were cannibals, and I think that gave them a bad name. The white pilgrim men were more violent and inhumane than the black cannibals. When the steamer was being attacked by the natives, the white pilgrims were the first ones to open fire and were ruthless in killing them. The black cannibals did not try to attack them or harm them like the white pilgrims. The black cannibals, I think, proved to be decent human beings that were not always given a fair chance.The pilgrims just seemed a bit heartless to me. On the pages in the story where the black crewmen want to eat the enemies as food, I think that this could be justified. They had not eaten in atleast the past month,and were becoming desperate for food. However, I think that the fact that the black cannibals did not attack the pilgrims or the crew, shows the black cannibals' respect for others. I know cannibalism is highly frowned upon, but some people will do whatever it takes to survive.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows of the crew are two different groups of people. in my opinion the white pilgrims are worse than the cannibals. they do whatever they want to in order to make a profit or get ivory they are powered by greed. on the other hand the black crew is just trying to survive. the black crew controls thier temper as well as their hunger even though they are being mistreated by the white pilgrims. even though they are mistreated, it seems as if they dont hold grudges against the white people. a good example of that is when they are under fire, the black crew could have turned on the white pilgrims but instead they helped fight back. even after being called savages and being looked upon with disgust, that did not stop them from helping the white pilgrims fight when they were under attack. i feel that the black crew is more humane. i think cannibalism can be justified in certain circumstances. im not trying to say that if i get really hungry i am going to eat a person but in the defense of the black crew men, they were starving. the only food they had to eat was some rotten hippo meat, and they were not allowed to go and trade for goods. in some cultures cannibalism is okay. i think that here in America it is frowned upon because we arent accustomed to it. there are probably many places all over the world were canniblaism is ok. i personally think that cannibalism is gross and the thought of eating another person is just.... YUK!! But i also grew up in america. if i were to grow up in a culture that practiced cannibalism i would probably have some good reasons to justify it.
The "black fellows of the crew" and the "white pilgrim men" were completely different and had different goals on the journey up river. The white pilgrims were looking to trade ivory, and the black cannibals were workers on the ship. The white pilgrims were greedy for money and power, and all the black cannibals wanted was some humans to eat because their rotten hippo was thrown overboard by the white pilgrims. The black cannibals were calm and very well-tempered. Being cannibals, you would expect them to behave differently towards the white pilgrims who treat them badly. I would not consider either of them more humane. The white pilgrims are greedy and show hatred towards the black cannibals because they believe themselves to be more civilized. On the other hand, I do not believe the black cannibals are more humane because they eat humans. I believe cannibalism can be justified in the case of survival or death. Though, I believe if the cannibals have a choice of hippo over human, they should definitely eat the hippo.
It is clear to see that the white pilgrims were motivated strictly by their greed for ivory and the money they could make from it. Each one seem to have only one concern, that was their individual self preservation. Because of their English decent and common knowledge that was so foreign to the blacks, the white pilgrims naturally looked down on the blacks. The blacks on the other hand were quite different, in that they had more of a concern for the overall welfare of each other. Though they were in a strange place far from their homes, they were able to keep each other calm when everyone heard the scream in the dense fog. i wouldnt say that one is more or less human that the other because they each show really inhuman qualities. The white pilgrims show it with their very poor treatment of the black crew. The fact that they provided no food for them or stopped to let me buy food was severely inhuman. Then the blacks show it quite clearly when they asked marlow if they could eat some of the native people along the shore. I would like to say that i can understand (though i've experienced true hunger) what its like to be hungry to the point that you could eat just about anything, but i can say without a doubt that i would never eat another human being. So i would say that this is very inhuman.
Greedy eaters dig their graves with their teeth. -French proverb. If you compare and contrast the white pilgrims and the black fellows. The white pilgrims wanted to get their share of ivory at anycost. Even at the expence of others lives.The black fellows on the other had have been giving wire as payment and had their food toss over board, because it was rotten.I would have to hold the black fellows higher because they made the best out of their situation. They havent eaten real food for months. Not to mention they haven had the chance to trade or get food. SO when they have a chance such as eating the enemy. I think its justified.
There was a big difference between the White pilgrims and the africans on the ship. The pilgrims were just a bunch of greedy men with no self control. The africans, even though they are referred to as "savages" and "cannibals" seem to be the most humane people on the ship. They could have easily taken over the ship, escaped or even eaten the other passengers. Even though they were starving they remained loyal and worked diligently. On pages 222-223 when the black crewmen asked to eat the man on the bank, I think he was not serious just expressing the fact that he was very hungry. I think that cannibalism is totally justified when survival is at stake. It is a totally logical act as long as you aren't the person being cannibalized.
30 comments:
Compare and/or contrast the "white pilgrim men" to the "black fellows of the crew". Which do you think are considered more humane and why? On pages 222-223 there is a passage about the black crewmen wanting the enemy for food, do you think cannibalism can be justified?
The white pilgrims and the black cannibals were two different groups aboard Marlow's steamboat. The white pilgrims were greedy workers of the Central Station. They all desired to be appointed to a station so that they could trade for ivory and earn money; however, none of the men actually take any productive steps for achieving their goal. Their attitude towards the natives was that of hatred and disdain. Moreover, they treated them like animals. However, in the manner in which they approach their self-centered agendas, they seem more like the animals. The black cannibals were natives in Africa who were hired as the crew of the steamer. Unlike the white pilgrims, the cannibals were sensible and well-tempered. Marlow even respects their ability to calmly restrain themselves from acting upon the demoralizing treatment by superior white people. In addition, Marlow speaks well of the Cannibals working on his steamboat by stating that even though these men “sill belonged to the beginnings of time,” they never lashed out against the white pilgrims. Because the black crewmen had been traveling for a long time, Marlow understands and even sympathizes with the feelings and impulses that the cannibals possessed. After hearing the headman of the black crewman announce that he would eat the people if he were given them, Marlow stated, “I would no doubt have been properly horrified, had it not occurred to me that he and his chaps must be very hungry: that they must have been growing increasingly hungry for at least this month past. They had been engaged for six months.” They were suffering from starvation, and their bodies ached from hunger. While the black crewmen restrained from killing and eating their enemies, which would have satisfied their actual need for food, the white pilgrims did not restrain from their hunger for ivory and did anything it took to for them to accomplish their goal, which was not a need in life as the black crewman's food was.
Do I think that cannibalism is justified? Of course, the killing of innocent men is not justified. However, cannibalism was a means to survive to these black crewmen. It was also a way of life for them. They were not malicious, and they did not viewing killing as a fun way to torture people. First, they saw the enemy people as a threat, and then they saw they as a good source of food. Nevertheless, even with these points in favor of the black crewmen and their thought process, cannibalism is wrong. It is not justifiable. No amount of reasoning can reason away the act of murdering an innocent human being and eating them. Yes, they were hungry, starving even, but that again does not justify eating other human beings and taking their lives.
The "white pilgrim men" are greedy agents of the Central Station. They all want to trade for ivory and earn a commission, but none of them actually takes any effective steps toward achieving this goal. They are obsessed with keeping up a veneer of civilization and proper conduct, and are motivated entirely by self-interest. They hate the natives and treat them like animals, although in their greed and ridiculousness they appear less than human themselves.
Cited sparknotes.com
That’s inhumane to a society when people are so concerned about themselves and what they get and what others will think etc. It changes how people act toward, around them and it show a lack of respect for others in this world. That’s not healthy because then you get negative reactions from other in return. That can cause more harm then if you were to just give a person a chance get to know them better for them put them before you put yourself.
The "Black fellows of the Crew" are understanding and well minded they don’t think of adversity in a bad way, they are more accepted of it and its not a big concern of theirs. They take their situation of facing adversity and learn from it and not to be the same toward others.
Which ones are considered more humane well without looking at the cannibalism part of the Black fellow I would think that they are more humane, due to the fact that they are not judgmental or prejudice against others such as the white men? They aren’t self centered and only worried about themselves. Then add in a factor of cannibalism that erases their humanism. We people of today look at that as something horrific, nasty, and something that can never be justified. So in the End I say that their actions towards people are different from the whites and that would make the blacks more Humane. After all the variables are in neither group to myself are Humane. Neither the “white pilgrim” nor the "black crew". So to answer can cannibalism be justified? Regardless the reason that is something that shouldn’t be. Cannibalism is horrible mind boggling and I cant even go into detail that’s something that Just shouldn’t be regardless of the kind of people, their religion, their up bring etc its wrong and very in Humane.
I think that it is almost impossible to compare the 'white pilgrim men' to the 'black fellows of crew' because they are so different. Each of their motives in this story are different, and therefore, the justifications of their actions will be different as well. The 'white pilgrim men' are driven by greed and hunger for riches and ivory, where the 'black fellows of crew' are just looking to survive. I don't think that cannibalism can be justified, but I have never been put in a situation like that. Up until now, the 'cannibals' have proved themselves to be fairly decent people. They put up with the harsh treatment by their superiors without ever lashing out or saying anything harsh. I think that by telling Marlow that they would like to eat the enemy was because they were on the brink of starvation, but also as an indirect way of saying that they respected Marlow and that anyone attacking him (or his ship) was an enemy of theirs as well.
The "white pilgrim men" and the "black fellows of the crew" are quite different. The pilgrims are nothing but greed-driven individuals in search of an appointed station and a commission from ivory. But the cannibals on the steamboat seem to be driven by something else entirely: survival. The pilgrims are hungry, in a metaphorical sense, for money, power and success. However, the cannibals are literally hungry; hungry for food and survival. To me, the cannibals appear to be more humane than the pilgrims. They are calm and well-tempered, which is why it seems a bit ironic that they are referred to as cannibals. But the fact that they do refer to cannibalism as a way of survival is a bit disturbing. Even though I was not in their situation and could not possibly know what it is like to endure the environment and extreme starvation, I can't possibly imagine killing someone and then eating them.
Marlow states when he is speaking to the manager on the boat, that the cries from the savages are not anything to be alarmed of. This was a mistake on his part for several reasons. The savages open fire with arrows on the boat and this causes the "white" and "black" on Marlow's boat to prepare to fight back. This act of helping one another shows unity. They were all in a bad situation when they had open fire on them so they joined together Just becasue they are on the boat it does not mean that they cannot be cival. I don't feel that the white people were any better or well behaved than the black men. The cannibal leader of the cannibals tells Marlow that his people want to eat the owners of the voices in the fog. He goes on to tell them that his people are hungry and the only food they had was a rotten hippo meat that was already thrown over board. They also weren't allowed to get off the ship to trade for goods either. I don't think that cannibalism is ok or smiled upon but there are situations that some religions or groups might have to use it for survival. I know some groups use it for their main source of food. My mom has always told me, " to each is own." If thats what they want to do and they have no other resources, so be it. NO,Cannibalism cannot be justified in my beliefs, but this is a story and if they feel the need to do so then by all means.
It was easy to see the difference between the white pilgrim men and the black cannibals. The black crew seemed to be more reasonable then the other crew but I wouldnt consider either one to be more humane than the other. This particular part made me wonder why the black crew seemed to be more reasonable. I thought maybe they were acting "kinder" so they could be treated differently. As time went on, they became angry and showed that anger by telling Marlow that they wanted to eat the other men. I also thought that they should have acted upon this statement. One, to show the pilgrims that they were people too and they should be treated with the same respect. I think that in this case cannibalism could be justified and would be ok. The men of the black crew were deprived of their rights by being able to get off the steamboat to trade for food. The only way that they could survive would be through cannibalism. Although others might disagree but which one is morally right when only given the two options: death because of starvation or having to kill someone for survival?
question: After Kurtz's death Marlow reflects on life stating; "THe most you can hope from it is some knowledge of yourself-that comes too late-a crop of unextinguishable regrets." Do you think Kurtz gained regretful knowledge of himself uttering his last words "The Horror! The Horror!" or did Marlow misunderstand Kurtz even on his death bead?
Personally, I feel that it is ridiculous to even compare the ‘white pilgrim men’ to the ‘black fellows’ aboard Marlow’s steamboat because they are so different. The ‘white pilgrim men’ are nothing but greedy workers of the Central Station that desire an appointed station for purposes of trading ivory and gaining riches. On the other hand, the ‘black fellows of the crew’ are well-tempered individuals that just want to survive. While the ‘white pilgrim men’ desire riches and power, the black cannibals merely want food to feed their aching bodies. With the exception of the ‘black fellows of the crew’ being cannibals, I would have to say that the black cannibals are the more humane individuals. The ‘white pilgrim men’ hated the black fellows and thus treated them like animals. Yet despite how the black cannibals were treated by their white superiors, they never retaliated against them. Actually, Marlow comments that, “even though these men “still belonged to the beginnings of time, they never lashed out against the white pilgrims.” Clearly, the black cannibals are extremely calm and self-contained. Unlike the black cannibals, the ‘white pilgrim men’ lack self-control and civility. They do whatever they desire, even if it means treating others inhumanely. With regards to cannibalism, I do not feel that it can be justified. Obviously, the ‘black fellows of the crew’ weren’t wicked individuals that saw eating other people as enjoyable. Rather, they were just hungry and desired food. Still, cannibalism is wrong! Eating another living person for the sake of starvation isn’t reason enough to kill someone.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows of the crew are crew members on Marlow's steamship. The white pilgrim men, to me, are less humane because they think they are better than the black crew members. The black fellows actually contributed to the commanding of the steamer, while the white pilgrim men simply sat around in the pilot-house or lounged on the deck. It seemed as if the white pilgrim men automatically thought that all the work should be reserved for the black men. For example, when the black helmsman died, the white crew acted as though did not want to touch him, and did not help Marlow dispose of his body. The white crew came across as just wanting to get the riches of the land without the work. For example, when Marlow asked the agent to steer the steamer, he hesitates but steers anyway.
As for the cannibalism, I think that it can be justified because Marlow says the black men were given brass wire for money to go on land to buy food. However, the steamship did not stop because the crew wanted to get to Kurtz as soon as possible. The hippo meat they had brought was rotten, and the book does not give any evidence of the white pilgrims sharing their food with them. I believe that cannibalism was the black men's last chance at survival in a world that had become infiltrated with strangers.
The black fellows of the crew are considered more humane because they are simply trying to survive on the ship while the white pilgrims have other plans in mind. They are greedy and selfish and have no concern for the welfare of others. The white pilgrims have let their greed consume them and has allowed them to become probably some people in which they are not.
I dont think cannabalism can be justified, however I do think that the black crewman wanted to survive and this may have been their only way to do so. They werent as open to as many opportunities as the white pilgrims were so they had to do probably whatever it took in order to ensure that they ate, even if it meant eating people.
The black fellows of the crew seem more humane then the white pilgrim man. The black fellows are just mearly trying to survie and make ends meat. They want to get throw another day with out dying or being put into jail by the law. It can be seen that the white pilgrim men have an alternete perpuse. They are working for their government and are beening sneaky about their reason for being there. They also judge the black fellows of the crew for their behavior and the way they conduct them selves to survive. The white pilgrim men think that they are more humane and a better class of people and look down on the black fellows of the crew for their behavoir. However, the black fellows of the crew seem like they take care of each other and look out for their own, when the white pilgrim men are only their for themselves and their own personal welbeing. I do not believe the cannibalism is right or okay, it is morally wrong to eat another human being. Yes, they were hungry but it is still wrong and should never have been done.
In terms of comparison, I feel that the white pilgrim men and the native cannibals were completly different in many ways. They were too different to compared, they both had different reasons for this voyage. In terms of contrasting the two different groups, the white pilgrim men only wanted to make profits from the voyage by trading ivory. The white pilgrim men made little efforts to complete this objective. The white pilgrim men were cruel and ruthless to the natives, the hated them simply because they felt that the natives were subordinate to them. The natives who were the crew of the ship, gained Marlow's respect due to their ability of adaptations of their harsh conditions and hardships. In answering the question of which group ( the white pilgrim men or the native cannibals) are more humane can be argued on many points. I am not sure about which one is more humane. The obvious answer is the white pilgrim men because of there insensitve ways, but the native cannibals did an inhumane act of cannibalism. But in terms of the natives harships, I believe that their act of cannibalism can be justified simply to the human instinct of survival. So I believe that the white pilgrim men were less humane than the natives, and the natives' act of cannibalism can be justified do to need to survive to live.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows of the crew were two completely different from each other groups. The white pilgrim men had no respect towards anyone, they were too greedy workers of the Central Station. Thinking only about themselves and treating the natives from Africa not fairly, like they are not human beings. The white pilgrim men even apply as "enemy" and "criminals" to the natives. The did not have any huminity in themselves at all. They trade for ivory and their main goal was to gain a substancial profit by collecting all the ivory in Africa. They were shooting at innocent natives, and Marlow realized that in Europe the way of thinking is completely different than the way of thinking in Africa. However, the black fellows of the crew, were people with a way better attitude, hard workers, not greedy and cruel at all compared with the white pilgrim men. Marlow treated the black fellows good, because he knew what they are going through. Marlow knew how hard was the life for all of them and respected them and their actions as normal equal people. I do not think that canabalism should be justified, it is understandable that the life at that time was tough and people could hardly survive. But as a human being, I believe that we have to respect each others life and survive by defferent ways, like having a real food, not eating other people and making them suffer.
Of course it is obvious to see that the two crews are completely different. The matter at hand is the idea of cannibalism. I don't think that the black crew is inhumane because they are not brute savages that just attack anything and everything. If that was the case, they could have just ate the white pilgrims. They are simply doing it as a means for survival. I know that it horrified the white pilgrims to discover what the black crew wanted to do with the enemy but that is just the way it is. In actuality, if someone really wanted to find another source of inhumanity, they could look within the white pilgrim men because they have a generous amount of greed flowing through their veins. These two attributes doesn't make any of the two less humane, but it is definitely something that should be fixed. The justification of the cannibalism has been granted by me because I completely understand why they do what they do. The black crew also has a very humane characteristic of respect and loyalty and that helps justify the situation.
The comparison between the "white pilgrim men" and the "black fellows of the crew" is not much of a comparison at all. It is obvious that they are both searching for different things. The white men are greedy and doing anything they can for the Central Station, whereas the black fellows are only searching for survival. Although in searching for survival they only find it through killing and eating other people they are the more humane ones. The white men are only there to get money and power for the government in a mysterious way. If the black men had any other option for food and survival then they wouldn't be killing and eating the enemy therefor, cannabilism can't be justified. Atleast the black men are doing things for the good of their group and not just individual needs as the white men are. Eventually they had to do what they had to do to survive.
It is clear that the white pilgrim men and the black fellows are totally different. The white men were striving to obtain ivory and other forms of wealth, whereas the black fellows were just trying to survive to live another day. The white men were not very humane just because they saw these black men starving, but did not allow them to trade their goods for food. The black fellows seem more humane because of the fact that they were starving to death, but they did not turn against and attack the white pilgrim men. It stated in the story, "It takes a man all his inborn strength to fight hunger properly." So is cannibalism justifiable? In the mind of a well nourished man, it can never be justified. However, in the mind of a starving man with access to very few food resources, it is perfectly justifiable.
This section of the story shows some very obvious differences between the “whites” and “blacks.” In some cases, the story shows the whites as being more aggressive, stubborn, and in some ways more competitive than the black. The whites, in a lot of cases seem to react on impulse, while the blacks are more mild tempered and self-controlled. Although this is the case, there is also another side to the story. These adjectives of the different groups may be true when it comes to the individual group itself, but when brought together, goals can be accomplished. The main goal of trading ivory may not be getting achieved as quickly as some may like, but the goal of surviving attacks was accomplished in a very efficient way. The two groups, in all their differences, came together to overcome an obstacle. So, when separated into the two groups, they do appear to be very different, but in their differences, when brought together, death can be overcome.
On the topic of cannibalism, it in its entirety is wrong. Everything about it is wrong. Our generation, and many generations before us have seen cannibalism as being wrong. In some countries, religions, and cultures cannibalism is a sociably accepted act, but in the case of the United States, this is not so. In the case of book, I would think that cannibalism would be frowned upon as well, but not something that would not have crossed the minds of many of the men participating in the trade of ivory. I think that in their cases, to kill someone, whether friend or foe, just for fun or for food is wrong, but if men were dying of disease and starvation cannibalism, I would think, would be more accepted. Why let good bodies go to waste? The only problem with this concept would be the fear of contaminated meat, especially if the person had had a disease. Overall, when I think of cannibalism, I am personally disgusted, but I think that this would be a pretty common thought among many of the men within the story; only one man was brave enough to speak his thoughts.
The Pilgrims and the Fellows of the crew both have needs, whether food or money. They are taking the actions, that they see necessary to attain what they need, by any means. Neither the crew nor the pilgrims are humane, but to themselves their actions are justified. The pilgrims, I'm assuming, are slaughtering animals for the ivory. This is their job, this is how they make a living and support their families. I think that being ruthless is what it takes. If they aren't bringing the money in, I'm sure another group would be glad to take their share. Taking the lives of one animal to meet the needs of another. This is very much like the crews. With so many other food sources, why should they eat another human being? Would eating a bird, or fish be considered just as inhumane? Or is there a line between who or what you should kill and why? How could you dictate that a group's way of survival is wrong just because you don't see it as acceptable. I don't think you could judge what is right or wrong without knowing what their culture sees as right, or wrong. Personally, I think that eating people is wrong and crazy. But each their own.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows are so different, but yet similar, bonded together by the sea. Both parties are subjected to this life of solitude on the sea which torments them. It is obvious that the white men are purely driven by greed and advancement of power, and they cast morals to the side. It was obvious they viewed the "black fellows" as savages, and were carefree as to whether they lived, died, or had adequate food for that matter. Cannibalism was definitely justified, essential to their survival, being the crew threw their rotting meat overboard. Marlow even stated, "It takes a man all his inborn strength to fight hunger properly. It's really easier to face bereavement, dishonor, and the perdition of one's soul-than this kind of prolonged hunger. Sad, but true." Reasons for their hunger were either no villages for them to acquire food, too harsh of conditions, or because of the view of profit in the distance superseded any priority.
In my opinion, I believe that "the white pilgrim men" and the "black fellows of the crew" were too different to compare. The white pilgrim men were greedy and insensitive with one thing on their mind..."money" by trading ivory. The blck fellows weren't greedy and remained focused on their job and when faced with adversity they learned from it and moved on. When it comes down to which group of people were more humane, I would probably have to say that the black fellows were more humane than the white pilgrim men because they are more understanding and well minded than the greedy white pilgrim men. Although the black fellows had to turn to cannibalism for survival didn't make them inhumane. They were only doing what they had to do to survive (humane instinct) which took eating the enemy.
The "white pilgrim men" and the "black fellos of the crew" really were very different in their motives and actions. I believe that in many ways the black fellows were more humane than the pilgrims. The pilgrims were just concerned with wealth of ivory and were extremely greedy.The black men, on the other hand, were cannibals, and I think that gave them a bad name. The white pilgrim men were more violent and inhumane than the black cannibals. When the steamer was being attacked by the natives, the white pilgrims were the first ones to open fire and were ruthless in killing them. The black cannibals did not try to attack them or harm them like the white pilgrims. The black cannibals, I think, proved to be decent human beings that were not always given a fair chance.The pilgrims just seemed a bit heartless to me.
On the pages in the story where the black crewmen want to eat the enemies as food, I think that this could be justified. They had not eaten in atleast the past month,and were becoming desperate for food. However, I think that the fact that the black cannibals did not attack the pilgrims or the crew, shows the black cannibals' respect for others. I know cannibalism is highly frowned upon, but some people will do whatever it takes to survive.
The white pilgrim men and the black fellows of the crew are two different groups of people. in my opinion the white pilgrims are worse than the cannibals. they do whatever they want to in order to make a profit or get ivory they are powered by greed. on the other hand the black crew is just trying to survive. the black crew controls thier temper as well as their hunger even though they are being mistreated by the white pilgrims. even though they are mistreated, it seems as if they dont hold grudges against the white people. a good example of that is when they are under fire, the black crew could have turned on the white pilgrims but instead they helped fight back. even after being called savages and being looked upon with disgust, that did not stop them from helping the white pilgrims fight when they were under attack. i feel that the black crew is more humane. i think cannibalism can be justified in certain circumstances. im not trying to say that if i get really hungry i am going to eat a person but in the defense of the black crew men, they were starving. the only food they had to eat was some rotten hippo meat, and they were not allowed to go and trade for goods. in some cultures cannibalism is okay. i think that here in America it is frowned upon because we arent accustomed to it. there are probably many places all over the world were canniblaism is ok. i personally think that cannibalism is gross and the thought of eating another person is just.... YUK!! But i also grew up in america. if i were to grow up in a culture that practiced cannibalism i would probably have some good reasons to justify it.
The "black fellows of the crew" and the "white pilgrim men" were completely different and had different goals on the journey up river. The white pilgrims were looking to trade ivory, and the black cannibals were workers on the ship. The white pilgrims were greedy for money and power, and all the black cannibals wanted was some humans to eat because their rotten hippo was thrown overboard by the white pilgrims. The black cannibals were calm and very well-tempered. Being cannibals, you would expect them to behave differently towards the white pilgrims who treat them badly. I would not consider either of them more humane. The white pilgrims are greedy and show hatred towards the black cannibals because they believe themselves to be more civilized. On the other hand, I do not believe the black cannibals are more humane because they eat humans. I believe cannibalism can be justified in the case of survival or death. Though, I believe if the cannibals have a choice of hippo over human, they should definitely eat the hippo.
It is clear to see that the white pilgrims were motivated strictly by their greed for ivory and the money they could make from it. Each one seem to have only one concern, that was their individual self preservation. Because of their English decent and common knowledge that was so foreign to the blacks, the white pilgrims naturally looked down on the blacks. The blacks on the other hand were quite different, in that they had more of a concern for the overall welfare of each other. Though they were in a strange place far from their homes, they were able to keep each other calm when everyone heard the scream in the dense fog. i wouldnt say that one is more or less human that the other because they each show really inhuman qualities. The white pilgrims show it with their very poor treatment of the black crew. The fact that they provided no food for them or stopped to let me buy food was severely inhuman. Then the blacks show it quite clearly when they asked marlow if they could eat some of the native people along the shore. I would like to say that i can understand (though i've experienced true hunger) what its like to be hungry to the point that you could eat just about anything, but i can say without a doubt that i would never eat another human being. So i would say that this is very inhuman.
Greedy eaters dig their graves with their teeth. -French proverb. If you compare and contrast the white pilgrims and the black fellows. The white pilgrims wanted to get their share of ivory at anycost. Even at the expence of others lives.The black fellows on the other had have been giving wire as payment and had their food toss over board, because it was rotten.I would have to hold the black fellows higher because they made the best out of their situation. They havent eaten real food for months. Not to mention they haven had the chance to trade or get food. SO when they have a chance such as eating the enemy. I think its justified.
There was a big difference between the White pilgrims and the africans on the ship. The pilgrims were just a bunch of greedy men with no self control. The africans, even though they are referred to as "savages" and "cannibals" seem to be the most humane people on the ship. They could have easily taken over the ship, escaped or even eaten the other passengers. Even though they were starving they remained loyal and worked diligently. On pages 222-223 when the black crewmen asked to eat the man on the bank, I think he was not serious just expressing the fact that he was very hungry. I think that cannibalism is totally justified when survival is at stake. It is a totally logical act as long as you aren't the person being cannibalized.
Post a Comment