How the Wild West was won with Ray Mears

[redandshane]

I have to agree I enjoyed the first episode but then I just got plain(pun intended) bored; the second one is droning on in the background in i player as I type. Not a patch on Wild Britain which I really enjoyed.

 

[The_Taffinch]

its where the dish donner kebab comes from. Someone has to say these things otherwise focus would be lost.

Interesting. Is this because the donner is indigenous to the area and was the main trapable animal available to them?

 

[General Strike]

I'm enjoying the series so far, but I do have one criticism; some of the interviewees (but not all) are not very interesting or enlightening. In fact I think some say some remarkably silly/annoying things.

I don't want to list them all, but one example is; in the Donner party segment, the custodian of the monument tells the audience that she wants them to understand that the Donner Party were not stupid. Fine, I think, let's hear about the exceptional circumstances that led these wilderness experts to their doom. Instead she then starts to tell us about how terribly they had suffered - she wants the audience to sympathise with the individuals involved, and presents no evidence that the party weren't making bad mistakes. I can only imagine that she wants anyone critical of the party to feel bad for doing so, in the light of their suffering. But that's not a rational argument addressing the point 'they weren't stupid' - the point she started on. It's sentimentality standing in for actual points or evidence.

Now I do not know whether the party were all wilderness experts or not. But the actual evidence presented in the episode is that they did make a bad error in not taking local guides, and compounded that by then trying a 'short cut' - another error that perhaps a guide would have dissuaded them from. The weather was not of their making, but had they not made those errors the weather would have been moot. That they suffered is not in question, and I do sympathise. But she seems to ask us to overlook their errors out of sympathy, and this is the danger of sentimentalism - that the person using it asks us to suspend our rationality.

 

[santaman2000]

I'm enjoying the series so far, but I do have one criticism; some of the interviewees (but not all) are not very interesting or enlightening. In fact I think some say some remarkably silly/annoying things.

I don't want to list them all, but one example is; in the Donner party segment, the custodian of the monument tells the audience that she wants them to understand that the Donner Party were not stupid. Fine, I think, let's hear about the exceptional circumstances that led these wilderness experts to their doom. Instead she then starts to tell us about how terribly they had suffered - she wants the audience to sympathise with the individuals involved, and presents no evidence that the party weren't making bad mistakes. I can only imagine that she wants anyone critical of the party to feel bad for doing so, in the light of their suffering. But that's not a rational argument addressing the point 'they weren't stupid' - the point she started on. It's sentimentality standing in for actual points or evidence.

Now I do not know whether the party were all wilderness experts or not. But the actual evidence presented in the episode is that they did make a bad error in not taking local guides, and compounded that by then trying a 'short cut' - another error that perhaps a guide would have dissuaded them from. The weather was not of their making, but had they not made those errors the weather would have been moot. That they suffered is not in question, and I do sympathise. But she seems to ask us to overlook their errors out of sympathy, and this is the danger of sentimentalism - that the person using it asks us to suspend our rationality.

It's doubtful that ANY of them were "wilderness experts." They were "settlers." In other words, farmers. Was not taking a guide a mistake? Probably; but then again, it wasn't an uncommon thing either. Does the fact that they made mistakes (or the fact that they weren't wilderness experts) make them stupid? Hardly. It makes them "normal."

It's easy to sit in judgement and do the armchair quarterbacking now, over a 160 years later with the advantage of hindsight. The reality is that they were doing exactly what pioneer settlers did; they went into the unknown.

 

[santaman2000]

....I thought it was very good, but its far more a history programme, maybe thats what he intended......

Umm....Doesn't the very title imply that?

 

[woodsorrel]

... but one example is; in the Donner party segment, the custodian of the monument tells the audience that she wants them to understand that the Donner Party were not stupid. Fine, I think, let's hear about the exceptional circumstances that led these wilderness experts to their doom. Instead she then starts to tell us about how terribly they had suffered...

When I was in the area, I spent some time with a local guide. He greatly admired the Stephens Party (pioneered the route successfully before the Donnor party) and was rather annoyed that the so many local landmarks were named after the (failed) Donnor Party. He beleived that the Donnor Party was stupid in many ways.

I spent some time retracing the route of the Stephens party and was astounded by the terrain they crossed with their wagons. Reading the articles pointed to by the links below, they left Iowa with 50 and arrived in California with 52! Everyone made it, including two newborn children! That is quite an accomplishment.

Here is a blow-by-blow description

Here is the Wikipedia link


- Woodsorrel

 

[General Strike]

You seem to be treating my observation like I'm judging the members of the party as individuals - I'm not, I'm just going over the evidence conveyed in the episode. There may well be information that explains and mitigates the circumstances - but she doesn't present any. My point was that the person interviewed was unwilling or unable to differentiate between a sensible argument (like the one you just made - not taking a guide was a risk, but one which was regularly taken, not every group could afford one, etc) and an appeal to sentimentality (don't judge the victims of this terrible tragedy, because they suffered such hardship). As such, she didn't have anything useful or informative to say on the topic that she said she wanted to address.

For instance, she could have said that a famous explorer, Lanford Hastings, suggested to them that they try an untested variation on his 'Hastings' Cutoff' route, and they were delayed by the roadbuilding that they had to perform to get through this route. Within a few years, Hastings' routes through this area had been abandoned.

 

[santaman2000]

You seem to be treating my observation like I'm judging the members of the party as individuals - I'm not, I'm just going over the evidence conveyed in the episode. There may well be information that explains and mitigates the circumstances - but she doesn't present any. My point was that the person interviewed was unwilling or unable to differentiate between a sensible argument (like the one you just made - not taking a guide was a risk, but one which was regularly taken, not every group could afford one, etc) and an appeal to sentimentality (don't judge the victims of this terrible tragedy, because they suffered such hardship). As such, she didn't have anything useful or informative to say on the topic that she said she wanted to address.

Having not yet seen the episode, I'm defending her blindly. But that said, it would be my guess that when she said, "Don't judge..." I expect she's referring to not judging them about the cannibalism rather than the mistakes that led up to it. As for her not presenting evidence that they were indeed NOT stupid, well none is needed. The opposite would be for anybody thinking they were to present their evidence that the Donner party was stupid And no, just because other arties made the journey successfully, that's not evidence. Luck had an awful lot to do with the entire westward saga.

 

[General Strike]

Having not yet seen the episode, I'm defending her blindly. But that said, it would be my guess that when she said, "Don't judge..." I expect she's referring to not judging them about the cannibalism rather than the mistakes that led up to it. As for her not presenting evidence that they were indeed NOT stupid, well none is needed. The opposite would be for anybody thinking they were to present their evidence that the Donner party was stupid And no, just because other arties made the journey successfully, that's not evidence. Luck had an awful lot to do with the entire westward saga.

Then why does she bring up the question of their stupidity at all?

 

[Seadog]

I think the main conclusion I am reaching on this series is that it should be 6 episodes, not 3. You can see they filmed for 6, but cut it to 3. Trying to do too much, in not enough screen time is a shame.

I think you may be on to something... I had not noticed the series had been cut down.

My problem with lasts nights program is while it nodded to issues such as the massacre of the buffalo (that image of the pile of bone is one of the most obscene images of wanton greed and destruction) was just too gentle on the perpetrators. The criticism was implied - by contrast to the attitudes of First Nation people earlier - but then undermined by the closing eulogy to the pioneers. Plains farming was almost celebrated - but just because the consequences of government settlement policies of the mid to late nineteenth century does not come home to roost (with a vengeance) until the mid 1930's with the Dust Bowl does not let the US government off the hook. I thought we were going to touch on this with plains grass root systems - especially given the massive area of erosion where that was shot.

 

[petrochemicals]

Interesting. Is this because the donner is indigenous to the area and was the main trapable animal available to them?

yes, you could trap them in wagons as they tried to cross mountain ranges, the bones have been replaced with metal spits in modern donner kebabs.

Umm....Doesn't the very title imply that?

pedant award ! He is slowing down is the point, for whatever reason.

 

[demographic]

My problem with lasts nights program is while it nodded to issues such as the massacre of the buffalo (that image of the pile of bone is one of the most obscene images of wanton greed and destruction) was just too gentle on the perpetrators.

Hmm, its worth remembering that one technique that native Americans used to hunt buffalo was to stampede them off a cliff.


White settlers may well have killed far too many but I doubt the wastage was only due to them.

 

[rik_uk3]

I'm enjoying the series so far, but I do have one criticism; some of the interviewees (but not all) are not very interesting or enlightening. In fact I think some say some remarkably silly/annoying things.

I don't want to list them all, but one example is; in the Donner party segment, the custodian of the monument tells the audience that she wants them to understand that the Donner Party were not stupid. Fine, I think, let's hear about the exceptional circumstances that led these wilderness experts to their doom. Instead she then starts to tell us about how terribly they had suffered - she wants the audience to sympathise with the individuals involved, and presents no evidence that the party weren't making bad mistakes. I can only imagine that she wants anyone critical of the party to feel bad for doing so, in the light of their suffering. But that's not a rational argument addressing the point 'they weren't stupid' - the point she started on. It's sentimentality standing in for actual points or evidence.

Now I do not know whether the party were all wilderness experts or not. But the actual evidence presented in the episode is that they did make a bad error in not taking local guides, and compounded that by then trying a 'short cut' - another error that perhaps a guide would have dissuaded them from. The weather was not of their making, but had they not made those errors the weather would have been moot. That they suffered is not in question, and I do sympathise. But she seems to ask us to overlook their errors out of sympathy, and this is the danger of sentimentalism - that the person using it asks us to suspend our rationality.

The video link I posted is worth a watch, its not definitive but still not bad, then perhaps spend some time researching the party members and their background/experience; your level of judgement may well change.

 

[General Strike]

The video link I posted is worth a watch, its not definitive but still not bad, then perhaps spend some time researching the party members and their background/experience; your level of judgement may well change.

No, I'm not judging the party - I've done a little bit of reading about it and I think they got messed about by a series of entrepreneurs putting their own gain ahead of the group's safety. But the woman Ray interviews didn't have anything sensible to say about it and it's her poor argument that I'm criticising. Although it could be down to the edit. However other interviewees, such as the woman at the gold rush town, are really interesting.

 

[General Strike]

Hmm, its worth remembering that one technique that native Americans used to hunt buffalo was to stampede them off a cliff.


White settlers may well have killed far too many but I doubt the wastage was only due to them.

Huh, like Neanderthals did with Woolly Mammoth! Were there mammoths in N America? I wonder if there is continuity of the technique from the stone age?

 

[santaman2000]

Then why does she bring up the question of their stupidity at all?

Good point. But as I said, I haven't seen the episode as yet.

 

[santaman2000]

Huh, like Neanderthals did with Woolly Mammoth! Were there mammoths in N America? I wonder if there is continuity of the technique from the stone age?

Yes there were. At least there were either Mammoths or Mastodons. Not sure which though. TBH I'm not completely sure what the difference is.

A "carry over from the stone age?" LOL. The native Americans were actually still in the stone age until the Europeans arrived. It seems incredulous considering the level of civilization achieved by the Mayens, Aztecs, and Incas. None-the-less, they were in the stone age; no metal tools at all.

 

[MikeLA]

wish we could farm Bison. Tried Bison prefer it to beef and its much better and supposed to be healthier

 

[steve a]

You can farm Bison, there's a Bison Farm in Wiltshire, it's where the Wilderness Gathering is held each year.i agree I prefer it to beef as well
http://www.bisonfarm.co.uk

 

[Tengu]

Why are the Donner party important when many people got though?