While watching DVD’s of the show Deadwood, and the special commentary featuring creator David Milch, a show that takes place in an illegal mining town, I came to understand how humans use certain kinds of language to psychologically justify certain orders of business which result in the destruction of nature. This can be found either through the use of vulgarity, to get themselves psyched up to do something which is not natural, or through euphemisms that hide the nature of what they are going to do. Often you will see a combination of this.
Over the last two days, on tour, I have been reading the brilliant Nathaniel Philbrick book In the Heart of the Sea. This book is a historical account that tells the story of the waleship Essex, which is the ship that inspired Moby Dick, due to the fact that it was sunk by a sperm whale in the Pacific Ocean. At the time, the sinking of the ship was said to be as widely known as the sinking of the Titanic. Melville, who had once been on a whaling vessel himself, used the story of the Essex as the basis for his book.
Most people now, even those that are tried and true hunters, view the killing of whales as nothing other than outright savagery, due to what we now know about whales. However, even during the time of the Essex, the early 1800’s, those that witnessed the killing of a whale for the first time were often troubled by it.
In order to get the men ready to kill whales the captains and first mates of the ship would use a language, while rowing towards the whales, “that evoked the savagery, excitement, and the almost erotic bloodlust associated with pursuing one of the largest mammals on the planet.” Here is the passage that the book uses that was spoken by a Nantucket mate (All the more interesting because those from Nantucket were Quakers, who are known in regular life for their pacifism. A pacifism that would disappear when whales were their quarry.):
Do for heaven’s sake spring. The boat don’t move. You’re all asleep; see, see! There she lies; skote, skote! I love you, my dear fellows, yes, yes, I do; I’ll do anything for you, I’ll give you my heart’s blood to drink; only take me up to this whale only this time, for this once, pull. Oh, St. Peter, St. Jerome, St. Stephen, St. James, St. John, the devil on two sticks; carry me up; O, let me tickle him, let me feel of his ribs. There, there, go on; O, O, O, most on, most on. Stand up, Starbuck [harpooner]. Don’t hold your iron that way; put one hand over the end of the pole. Now, now, look out. Dart, dart.
When the book talks about the killing of the whale, it is truly horrific. I am not one that is squeamish about violence, especially violence, no matter how real at the time of the event, that is taking place only in my imagination. But I found the following passage, especially if you are to read the full account in the book, very troubling:
When the final lance found its mark its mark, the whale would begin to choke on its own blood, its spout transformed into a fifteen-to twenty-foot geyser of gore that prompted the mate to shout, “Chimney’s afire!” As the blood rained down on them, the men took up the oars and backed furiously away, then paused to watch as the whale went into what was known as its flurry. Beating the water with its tail, snapping at the air with its jaws – even as it regurgitated large chunks of fish and squid – the creature began to swim in an ever tightening circle. Then, just as abruptly as the attack had begun with the first thrust of the harpoon, it ended. The whale fell motionless and silent, a giant black corpse floating fin-up in a slick of its own blood and vomit.
I highlighted “Chimney’s afire” because it is another use of language to make peace with a horrible act. This time, unlike the first passage that was especially vulgar for its time, it is a euphemism. Is the use of “Chimney’s afire” not a ridiculous euphemism for the act at hand?
When we perform mountaintop removal, when we steer the world towards destruction while ignoring climate change, when we kill off endangered species, what are the euphemisms that we use? How do we justify these acts to ourself so that we can carry them out?
I also just finished the book The Consolations of Philosophy, which examines that in order to be happy, to not be crushed by life’s disappointments, we must have a realistic view of the world. In the book, the author is referring on how your outlook leads to how you respond to tragedy and setbacks. If you have a rosy view of what is going on, you might not be able to handle a setback or tragedy, because you have an unrealistic viewpoint of what the world is like. Something shocking is even more shocking if you never thought of it in the first place. If you understand the harsh realities of life, you will still suffer and be sad at these times, but you will at least have the consolation of understanding that you are not suffering alone. (This is an extreme simplification of what the book says, but bear with me while I make a point.) I think also, that while one can certainly be active and fight 0r speak outagainst injustice in the world, it is extremely helpful to know exactly what is going on out there. To solve a problem, I think it helps to know the full ramifications of what one is up against. It might not always be necessary, but more times than not, especially in the political realm, a sharp view of reality will only aid one in their fight against injustice.
The reason I chose the Public Image Ltd. song above is that it constantly repeats the phrase, “This is What You Want, This is What You Get.” This is what you wish the world was like, but this is how it really is.
I think this glimpse into whaling and the language used around it can help one identify the modern equivalence of it. Again, what language are those that destroy the environment using? What horrible acts are they concealing behind the facade of language?
Posts for Public Image Ltd. Check Out: Careering
Posts for Deadwood: Deadwood and United Fruit
Posts for The Consolations of Philosophy: Socrates, Philosophy, and Why What is Popular is Not Always Right