THE TRUTH VS THE HOAX

By: Clarice G. Antatico

                     

                         

In somewhat 1890, there is a bizarre article that arouse. The piece was entitled, “The Killing of the Mammoth” by Henry Tukeman, which appeared in the October 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine, a popular British general interest magazine of the day. As such, the article began with the letter penned by Horace Conradi that released Tukeman from his premise to keep the slaughter of what may have been called mammoth.

Although the story was entirely made up, many readers were still believed it to be true. Perhaps Tukeman’s realistic description of the scene made it sound real. However, when Henry Tukeman was given an offer by Mr. Conradi to secured the mammoth and keep the slaughter of the said specimen. With that, I disagree! Killing the life of a mammoth just for a money?! How rude it is to do such thing. In addition, the author had shown what kind of person is he. Are his claims legit? For example, in the beginning of the article, he claims that the remains of the mammoth were now reside in the Smithsonian museum. As I do research regarding in that statement, I found out that Smithsonian doesn’t have a mammoth skeleton. Also, I was confused because he didn’t introduce well who Mr. Condradi is. He also used his socioeconomic status to convinced us to agree with his claims. As he stated, “I poor man, found myself unable to refuse it” (referring to the offer of Mr. Conradi). Indeed, many readers will surely call him unpatriotic perhaps because of not telling his real purpose regarding the killing of the mammoth, aside of receiving money from Mr. Conradi. Also, because he is not honest with his self and to the people around him. Besides, in the second paragraph he stated some facts like “a small tribe of Indians living at Fort Yukon” “a clerk at the trading post, a private trader, and a missionary and his wife were only whites there in 1890, except when a rare visitor called from Circle City, a mining camp eighty miles up the Yukon River.”

As old Joe told the story about him and his son, there seems an error in it. There is a bias in that line, for he keeps on saying that his son, Soon-thai, is very brave. Opinion is also present in the article when the author said “the old Indian sat down and wiped his hand over his forehead and for fully ten minutes no words was spoken­ –he perhaps thinking of his dead son.” That line shows an opinion because the author had personal statement based on his knowledge of the facts. Later on the old Indian said “I am old an’ tired, an’ to talk of Soon-Thai, my son, makes me weak like a woman.” Again I was confused if Tee-Kai-Koa is an animal or place. Old Joe had stated “presently we hear a splashing in a lake which is beyond some willows; an’ there are no trees there; but we creep in very softly, an’ we come to the reeds, an’ wade through them to edge, up to our knees in the water. He is there, the Tee-Kai-Koa, standing on the other side of the little lake.” Then, Tukeman also stated “later I got Joe’s account of his return from the land of Tee-Kai-Koa. See? The author didn’t make it clear.

On the other hand, the author had claim fact, wherein he said, “In the tribe of Indians wintering at Fort Yukon was an active, intelligent young fellow named Paul, who spoke English well, and was always in demand during the summer months as pilot on the streamers of the A.C. Company.”

When Tukeman and his friend, Paul, got the idea of elephant-shooting, they both agreed and swore secrecy with each and journeyed to find such specimen. As they arrived at the mouth of the “little river” he’d stated his opinion in the said river saying that it was identified by a high, sandy bank on the right hand. “The gully was apparently nothing but a depression in the mountain-side, and it terminated in an abrupt declivity” this line was also an opinion.

 Some instances from the article that lead the reader to believe that scene had actually happened and that involves facts: “we found enormous footprints of the mammoth. On August the 29^th, we had our first sight of the mammoth. Tearing up great masses of lichenous moss and feeding as an elephant feeds.” The author is also right when he described the mammoth, “his long, thick hair, hanging down beneath his belly like a fringe, had effect of shortening considerably the appearance of his legs… thirty-one feet, nine inches away from the bases.”

I was annoyed when he, the author, narrated their experience and their plans during the hunting of the mammoth. Although, the author showed their sympathy as he stated, “a feeling of pity and shame crept over me as I watched the failing strength of this mighty prehistoric monarch.” He was still destroying the nature and the Mother Earth. In the next paragraph, it seems like they are too late to realized that they had killed enormothe us animal. I was so frustrated when the author uttered his opinion regarding the deed they’ve have done, “saving the skin, bones and every portion capable of preservation” for example. When they journeyed down the Tee-Kai-Koa River, there he met Mr. Conradi – and he kept the secret of the remnants of the mammoth. Furthermore, there he showed that his claims are true. Don’t get me wrong but he made his claims more believable, to be able to make the reader agreed with him.

Indeed, it was a fantastic tale. A tale that made everyone believe. With that, I do research because I was confused at the same time. According to McClure’s Magazine, Tukeman’s story was written as a work of fiction. Tales of living mammoth had popped up in newspapers here and there and Tukeman’s story was an imaginative extension of what so many reports hinted at. It had not been intended to deceive readers, but the “mammoth mania” soon deluged the magazine.

Yes. There was a truth in Tukeman’s story, though. Some claims of the author were indeed true and familiar.

However, as a critical reader you really have to criticize well and apply your knowledge of the premise of the arguments such as, bias, slanting, hedging, facts, opinions and so on, for you to make your argument also believable.