A Poor Argument

By: EJ Kyla Rose M. Valdez

Money: Is it enough to kill? Is it an acceptable reason to get the life that you didn’t give? Just for the sake of a dollar price?

The structure of the article was good. It is a narration of the experience of Henry Tukeman, the author. He actually gives a vivid description on the setting, of the character, and the flow of the story over all. Author does not just give description but take his readers to his world. He have done a great job on letting readers to imagine, and think about how the story flows. That would make them interested and eager to finish reading his article. However, upon reading this, as a critical one I had my own judgement on his piece entitled “The killing of the Mammoth”. Either it is a good morally and acceptable or if it is not.

The author actually seeks to know the hidden realities or what really happen about the history of the Ancient Indian. He wants to see the place where the story of him happened. If it really exist. Also to find out the reason why they was afraid of that place, the north, and of the “Tee-Kai-Koa” as they call. He wants to know the reason behind the fear and avoidance of people of the tribe on that place. And yet he succeeds. Which is a significant help for him to accomplish his task, which is to document the existence of such wonderful and rare species.

Tukeman proves that the smoke would really attract their target, the Mammoth. By doing a lot and tries an experiments which he refers to the story an Ancient Indian told. When he fired the pile of the woods intentionally and got the full attention of the enormous animal. The animal which shows excessive emotion such as a cry of fear and anger as seeing smoke, that once or before have feared not only him but also  other animals living there.

Reading his article, a reader may be convince that this kind of animal is dangerous, or considerable as evil one. That it is just right to kill them for experiments purposes, documentation, and display to a presidios museum for the people to see and admire of. To get money, to get up from being a poor man and to have a luxurious life. Readers may also accept the social status as a reason to do things or a choice to do either good or bad.

In general, I disagree with the author, with the idea of killing the mammoth although I think it is a licensed job. He was given the authority. That it is for the people of the public to be informed and educate about hidden realities. To dig up things not yet discovered. Because it is still not enough reason for me to kill.

The author fails to consider the fact that the law is strongly against of the killing of an extinct species. He also fails to consider those little ones that would read his article about the killing of the mammoth may leave their little mind a confusion, if it is really fine to kill animals just because of unacceptable reason. Just for the sake of one’s self. Also, to consider what would this article and what he have done cause to those who protects wild and those who love it.

Tukeman said “… that I, a poor man, found myself unable to refuse it.” If I would to criticize this kind of argument, I would consider this as an example of Slanting. Why? Simply because though we all know that poverty is now on its high level still, it is not enough reason for us to do certain things that we all know right from the start were wrong or against the law. He used his social status, being a poor man, as a defend tool. For his readers won’t ask why does he accepted such offer. He simply implies that the readers cannot blame him of doing so.

Also, first paragraph contains a claim of value. When he says “… found myself unable to refuse it.” He claims that such offer to him was something important and would be a great help for someone like him. We could also consider the fact that it is influenced by his preference or choice, with the accordance to his needs or should I say his ambition.

Refers to some of the paragraph, the old Indian shows Bias on telling his story to Tukeman. He would always say that his son, Soon-thai, was brave. He said; “Soon-thai is brave, plenty brave, an’ he says… But Soon-thai, he is brave, he says, ‘I will see this devil an’ if he is no bigger than a very big bear, I will shoot him from a tree, perhaps’. Oh, he was brave, my son­­- very brave.” He was consistent and repetitive of his argument.

 “He was doubly eager when I told him of the vast fortune awaiting any man who could get this absolutely unique specimen of supposedly extinct fauna to the hands of taxidermists in civilization.” In this point, Hukeman used slanting. He manipulates the mind of Paul. He was trying to be good despite of his bad purpose. Which made Paul, a man far from civilization believes and follow him to his journey on haunting the ‘Tee-Kai-Kao” as they call.

Hedging was also present in his text. He used vague statements that do not directly attempt to tackle an issue. He quotes, “Soon-thai’s object in climbing it had probably been to inspect some massive bones which projected from a ledge about fifty feet up.” He does not support his claim with a fact that Soon-thai’s intention was really to inspect those said bones. Ancient Indian did not mention about that thing at all.

Again, Bias is being observed on his article. As he stated that “As to Paul, I have never met his equal in any of my travels. He was strong, active , untiring, cheerful, and full of a native ingenuity which overcame obstacles as soon they appeared, while his courage, and his quite an absolute confidence in our ultimate success, acted as a nerve tonic to me when I found myself speculating whether we had too heavy an under taking on hand.” The author was consistent on his point.

Untested claim of him, such as smoke would attract and scare mammoth later on become a claim of fact. ”We lighted the first piece of rotten wood, and then ran back to the tree at our best speed, igniting the other pieces on our way, and a final one near our tree, into which we hastily climbed to watch the result of our experiment… I have heard the scream of an angry bull elephant, the roar of an African lion, and the savage, half-human cry of the great gorilla; but none of these compare with the awe-inspiring cry of a mammoth.” He prove his claim then.

In the later part, when Tukeman said that; “A feeling of pity and shame crept over me as I watched the failing strength of this mighty prehistoric monarch whom I had outwitted and despoiled of a thousand peaceful years of harmless existence. It was as though I were robbing nature, and old Mother Earth herself of a child born on her younger days, in the dawn of time.” It seems like he still tries to hide from his readers the truth that it is his will to kill that animal. He suggested that he was pity for the fate of it, which actually is the result of his ambitious dream.

    I, as a reader of today’s generation, could say that I’m amazed of the way he wrote the article. His signature style that were not on other writers, his way of descripting was admirable, his patient on writing and documenting experiences for the benefit of other. He was a good writer at all. However, there are these arguments, ideas, and points that were not essential on making an article reliable and convincing. Ideas that were against on mine, those I know were morally unacceptable and never been supported by facts that may convince me as a reader. A challenge to every aspiring writer.