Thursday, July 30, 2009

The Donner Party

The Donner Party was a group of American emigrants, headed towards California. They were snowbound in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846–1847. Like the Speluncean Explorers, some of them resorted to cannibalism. There were about 33 people in nine wagons when they departed from Illinois in 1846. When a blizzard trapped them, the emigrants slaughtered their remaining oxen, but there was not enough meat to feed so many for long. In mid-December, fifteen of the trapped emigrants set out on a 100 mile trip to seek help. This group consisted of 10 men and five women. When one man gave out and had to be left behind, the others continued, but soon became lost and ran out of food. Caught without shelter in a horrible storm, four of the party died. The survivors resorted to cannibalism, then continued on their journey; three more died and were also cannibalized. Close to death, the seven survivors—two men and all five of the women—finally reached safety on the western side of the mountains on January 18, 1847.

Californians rallied to save the Donner Party and equipped a total of four rescue parties, or "reliefs." When the First Relief arrived, 14 emigrants had died at the camps and the rest were extremely weak. Most had been surviving on boiled ox hide.

When the Second Relief arrived a week later, they found that there had been no more deaths, but some of the 31 emigrants left behind at the camps had begun to eat the dead. The Second Relief took 17 emigrants with them, leaving 14 alive at the camps. When the Third Relief arrived later in March, they found nine left. They rescued four children, but had to leave five people behind. By the time the Fourth Relief reached the camps on April 17, only one man was left alive.

The justified their actions by eating each other family's dead, so they didn't have to eat their own.

Although no one was intentionally murdered (that we know of) there are similar circumstances to the Speluncean Explorers. It just so happened that there was a lot more people in the Donner party and they had more time to die. The Donner party was also traveling with animals that they slaughtered before resorting to canibalism. The Speluncean Explorers didn;t have that luxary.


5 comments:

  1. The Donner party and the Speluncean explorers do have similar stories that give rise to the justification of cannibalism. I think that different survival tactics have to be exhausted in order for anyone to believe that killing another person could possibly seem justified. Taking into consideration the time and conditions of the Donner party, one would have to assume that these circumstances caused them to resort to cannibalism, but you have to wonder what legal ramifications would occur for them. All laws and punishments would have to seriously look at to apply, from all the people that died and the system of how cannibalism seemed to be the last resort for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel that no crime is committed here, as their situation resembles that of the Uruguayan rugby team in 1972. The members of this team were traveling to a match when their plane which was off course, crashed in the Argentinean Andes. Several of the members had already died from impact, and the ones who survived were starving and injured. When an avalanche struck the fuselage that had become their temporary home, killing several more, they were left with no choice but to resort to cannibalism. More than two months had passed before they were rescued, suggesting they would certainly not have survived if not for their cannibalism. It should be noted that they were not charged with any crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In response to Brian B:
    However, the society in which they reentered was not very accepting towards them. In fact many of them faced prejudice for their acts.
    They refused to tell their tale instead, telling the public that they lived off cheese.
    "However they were pushed into the public eye..."
    Why would they lie about what happened?
    I believe in this documentary I watched pertaining to the aftermath of the incident, some of them thought about suicide as punishment for their acts. Maybe they felt that what they did was morally reprehensible.
    I think in this case they were charged with their crimes, not a legal level, but rather at the public level.
    The public was the judge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that everything should be taken into consideration before deciding if canibalism is justified or not. Noone was murdered that they know of, so they were not killing people just so they could be eaten for survival. They were stranded for a long time and would not have survived if they did not resort to canibalism so in this case I think that they did the right thing, that it was justified, and also that no crime was committed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with a lot of the statements above. The idea that since the party didn't kill that they were "better" than the Spelunkers. The different time frame and availability of food though doesn't matter. The issue is when the food runs out is it ok to kill and eat a man. I don't think it is wrong to eat humans, though as Ryan was saying, other people may. The more important difference is what the law states, and for the Spelunkers that was that killing is wrong. That is the main difference. If it was illegal for the Donner Party to eat humans than the situations might be more similar.

    ReplyDelete