In the preface, Nathanial Philbrick, states that the point where Herman Melville's Moby Dick ends--with the sinking of the ship--is merely the starting point for the story of the real-life Esssex tragedy. Much of the guts of Philbrick's research is based upon a firsthand account penned by Thomas Nickerson, a cabin boy who was 14 at the time of the disaster. Nickerson actually stood at the helm when the ship was rammed and survived a harrowing ordeal.
I hope you enjoy this real-life tale of Nantucket whalers, who not only battled the "savage sea," but also their own humanity in order to survive.
In a thoughtful paragraph, please respond to the following:
1. In 1820, Nantucket was a Quaker town. What are the basic tenets of the Quaker faith? What are your opinions about a Quaker community embracing an occupation such as whaling? (please proofread before posting--see rubric for guidelines)
The basis of the Quaker religion is peace to everyone and everything. Quakers are ones to never use force they do not forcefully convert, they ask and if the reply is no, then they accept that answer. The Quaker religion is one of the most generous religions they give to anyone who needs help or is less fortunate. I feel that there is a huge paradox between the religion and activities that the people of Nantucket upheld during the 1820’s. While they were Quakers and believed that every living creature should not be hurt they “harvested” the sperm whale until near extinction. These creatures were not killed in a way to be found humane, they were killed by a long painful fight against their hunters. during they story the English settlers in Nantucket would use the Native Americans as slaves to help hunt whales(pg. 5,6). They also treat the hunt as a festival in page 7 all of the towns people gather as a whale gets towed into the wharf. i feel that there is a contradiction but there is one in every society. The rights of American citizens have been taken away for our security, while puritans believed in predestination they looked for signs every day as to if someone was to be damned for ever in hell or not.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Lindberg 11/23/09
I agree whith topher that there is a paradox between the activities and that of the fait of the Quakers.On one hand they believe in peace and on the other they mercilessly hunt the sperm whale with cruel intention of harpooning it.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that there is something wrong with this paradox. I mean, if you believe in peace for humanity, shouldn't there be peace for every one and every thing? These Quaker people are maiming the whale causing it to die in an appalling fashion. And also(Page 5,6), if the Quaker followers did not believe in slavery, what are they doing to the native people? Forcing them to do something that they don't want to do isn't slavery??? OF COURSE IT IS! You think that the Africans wanted to be taken from their homeland, beaten and then work their butt's off for nothing?!?!? OF COURSE NOT! Something is terribly wrong with their belief.
ReplyDeleteHunter 11/23/09
I agree with hunter, the Quakers clearly say that they are pacifists. a pacifist is someone who doesn't believe in harming anyone. They saying whales are nothing? And with the slaves, the Wampanoag's were taken out to go on the suicide mission of being forced to go whaling. They said they didn't believe in slavery and said it was a horrible practice. I do agree that their beliefs are horribly "out of whack" and wrong. On page 8 it says they Polk and prod the whale until it has dies. Their belief has gone terribly wrong.
ReplyDeleteBen Smith
I agree and dissagre with ben, because the Quakers clearly state that they are pacifists. That means they will not hurt anyone or anything. On the other hand they needed the whales to survive. They used the whale for much more than just eating. They used whale oil to light their oil lamps, they used the bons for women's corcets, and they used the whale for many more things. Although i do not like the idea of killing a whale they did have a point in doing this. To survive!
ReplyDeleteNicole! 11/23/09
I'd have to agree with Hunter on this, on one hand I can see the paradox being OK because Whales aren't people or because they're being killed for usage. The method for hunting one a whale was also very cruel and painful for the whale. But, being a pacifist means to not harm anything. You didn't see Ghandi going around and killing rabbits to eat them or to make fur coats. There's definitely something wrong with the Quakers if they're doing this.
ReplyDeleteDylan 11/23/09
Thanks for your thoughtful comments guys. It is very cool to see a dialogue unfold on the screen. You did a nice job responding to each other comments. This is a great start. I think you will enjoy reading this book!
ReplyDeleteBUT, and yes there is occasionally a BUT as we all learn to navigate a new 'process.'
Overall, not everybody followed the rubric. Several entries:
1) Did not have a clear Thesis statement (about the paradox: Quaker VS. Whalehunting)
2) Did not thoroughly address all aspects of the QUERY
3) Did not CITE two references to support your argument.
4) Remember to proof before posting. (read aloud)
I sort of agree with Dylan. The quakers were suposed to be a group of peaceful religious people with a strong belife against slavery. But on pages (5-6) it tells us that they are basically enslaving the native americans for whale hunting. By them whale hunting it seems as if they are going against their own belifs by killing these inicent animals. These quakers seemed like they just did not follow the quaker way.
ReplyDeletepetra callo
ReplyDelete11-29-09
I concur with Petra and Dylan in that the Quaker religion tells them to be peaceful, and they are supposed to be opposed to slavery. This is however of course where the paradox comes in to play. Although they are supposed to be peaceful people, they cruelly force the Africans into the small packed whaling ships and go out and hunt Innocent whale; albeit a cause to continue living, it still contradicts their ways.
ReplyDeleteAsa Kuhn
11/30/09
I agree with the majority of my classmates, with their opinions about the Quaker faith and whale-hunting. Like Herman Melville, I believe that their hunting and killing of coastal whales was a paradox [xii]. Taking place in the year 1821, the settlers of Nantucket developed a knack for hunting nearby whales off the coastline. At that time, the religious whalemen claimed to be pacifists, however, they were actually participating in the "well lubricated..machines of the industrial age"[xi]. Ultimately the paradox of the Quaker whalemen, demonstrated a necessary lifestyle in the 19th century
ReplyDelete