Rattle-Snakes for Felons

I was particularly struck with Franklin’s “Rattle-Snakes for Felons,” primarily for what he described in the Pennsylvania Gazette article relates back to a major theme I am learned about in another class this semester. At this time Britain had no formal prison system as countries do today, so to deal with criminals they transported them from Britain to one of the many colonies. Accordingly, the primary recipients of these prisoners were the American colonies and (later on) Australia. In my other class, we discussed how this practice was not only used as a practical means by Britain to get rid of prisoners, but was also just another way for the “Mother Country” to establish its power and dominance over its colonies. Franklin writes in the piece on Britain, “Thou art called our MOTHER COUNTRY; but what good Mother ever sent Thieves and Villains to accompany her Children; to corrupt some with their infectious Vices, and murder the rest? What Father ever endeavour’d to spread the Plague in his Family!” (358). Obviously, Franklin is being somewhat overly dramatic as we have seen throughout the semester with most of his writings, but the seriousness of what Britain was doing to America cannot be overlooked. Yes, it is commonly accepted that other violations committed by Britain truly led to the Declaration of Independence, and to the Revolutionary War (such as the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party), but it didn’t help Britain’s case that they were bombarding the American colonies with criminals. We discussed in my other class that this practice could be seen as falling into the category of acts that were the calm before the storm that finally set off the revolution. On another note, it is interesting to think about the idea that the countries of America and Australia were both started largely by a population of convicted criminals.

Cannibalism: Then and Now

As we’ve discussed in class the past week or so, the story of Robinson Crusoe is more than one simply of a man struggling for survival in the face of solitude. The novel also largely deals with and is driven by many economic and political ideals. For example, we first come into contact with Crusoe’s economic logic with his evil/good list on page 102. Later, we see the ideas of colonialism and imperialism take place in that of Crusoe’s interaction with the character “Friday.” At first, Crusoe sees Friday as just another savage beast, but then decides that he has the ability to save him from his savagery. This is simply a minor example of the colonialism that is described in the novel through character representation. As noted in the Appendix to the Cannibalism section of readings, “Defoe was just one of many writers who featured cannibals in their representations of New World encounters” (397). Essentially cannibals were the representation for those less civilized beings that were colonized by the wealthier, smarter, and more resourceful Europeans.

However, what struck me as interesting is that some of the writers (especially Montaigne) had views on cannibalism that certainly would not be accepted in our current society. Today cannibalism is beyond illegal, it is seen as morally wrong and unforgivable. It is so out of the realm of possible that it is never even discussed in popular culture (except in the very rarest cases) where one has had to eat another human in order to survive, or in movies such as The Silence of the Lambs. Yet, in this movie the cannibal known as Hannibal Lecter is a psychopath and in turn is the farthest representation of what is culturally acceptable.

Thus, for Montaigne to write about cannibalism as if it is something that friends experience together and enjoy is greatly different from our current perceptions of cannibalism. In addition, although it may seem that Montaigne and Rochefort’s writings are not completely serious (as they refer to the act as entertainment), to even describe cannibalism as an act of rage or revenge, or to mention to one that you have eaten their ancestors (401) would be seen today as completely barbarous.

Today, society and the media are largely in agreement that torturing our enemies and prisoners of war (two groups mentioned by the writers) is one of the most inhumane things one can do. What about if we ate them, as described by Montaigne, Rochefort, Dampier, and Defoe? I’m sure the response would be immensely different.

For Their Own Good

Reading Montaigne’s and Rochefort’s accounts of Cannibalism among native populations gives the reader a sense that these graphic depictions serve not just to inform, but also to entertain in a twisted way. In the same way that modern audiences flock to theatres to see every severed limb fly in Saw 14 or 15, the gruesome cannibalistic details of these narratives seem to play to a desire in the European audience for gory entertainment. Montaigne describes natives “roast”ing a captive and then “Eat[ing] (the captive) amongst them, and send[ing] some Chops to their absent friends” (397). He letter outlines a process of cooking a man that involves “teraing a Body Limb from Limb, by Racks and Torments, that is yet in perfect Sense, in roasting it by degrees, causing it to be bit and worried by Dogs and Swine” (398). Rochefort explains that the natives think “the French are the most delicate, and the Spaniards of the hardest digestion” (399). He goes on to describe how “as soon as (an) unfortunate person is laid dead upon this place, the young men take the body, and having wash’d it cut it in pieces, and then boyl some part, and broil some upon wooden Frames” (401). This gratuitous detail seems to serve some function other than sheer relaying of information.

William Dampier further complicates the issue when he asserts that in all his travels he has “never (met) with any such People: All Nations or Families in the World…having some sort of Food to live on…and would scarce kill a Man purposely to eat him” (402). With this conflicting account, one must ask what purpose it serves for Montaigne, Rochefort, and their contemporaries to paint native peoples as terrifying savages in the most vivid detail.

One possible explanation is that Montaigne and Rochefort use such depictions to rationalize an imperial system that grows increasingly brutal. One common justification of colonization was that Europeans were bringing civility to uncivilized people. The ultimate example of lack of civility is Cannibalism. The more vivid these images become, the easier it is to justify Imperialism. In Robinson Crusoe, Robinson states surprisingly, “I See little difference between that (Cannibalism) and our Way, which in War is frequent in Heat of Action” (403). In this passage, Robinson seems to acknowledge the occasional savageness with which his own people behave. Perhaps Montaigne, Rochefort, and their readers saw something similar and their wild characterizations of Cannibalistic native peoples helped them assure themselves that the West was colonizing for the good of those colonized.