Odaylan and "mountain men"

From: Richard, Jeff <jeff.richard_at_...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:03:18 -0700


John writes:

>While the mountain man analogy has undoubtedly proved its worth in some
>areas, I still have reservations about 'commercial' trapping, at least on
>any large scale, and certainly by Odaylans. It represents a view of
>wilderness that is destructive and short-term - the very world-view that
>gave me reservations about the mountain man analogy in the first place.

Hmmm. I think much depends on the meaning of that phrase "commercial trapping." Historically, fur-trapping for trade is a very traditional practice in North America - and for that matter Iron Age Europe. I disagree that it represents a destructive view of the wilderness - any more than hunting itself.

Now, if by "commercial trapping", you mean large, well-organized fur companies, with trappers armed with the best in Mostali technology, that probably does represent a destructive view of the wilderness. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Odaylans operate in such a manner. The utility of the mountain man analogy isn't being proferred for hunting technique, but on the interaction between the mountain men and their settled communities.

>One reason is the small-scale/barter nature of most clans (money is for
>traders) and the fact that Odaylans generally represent a further extreme
of
>this - the almost complete rejection of civilisation.

Agreed. For the individual Odaylan, trading furs to the clan merchant (or to a city merchant, depending on the local) means spiffy weapons, nimble horses, maybe a well-carved chair. It also means status vis a vis other fur-trappers and possibly within the community itself. Disliking settled life does not necessarily mean that the Odaylan is immune to conceits like pride, ambition, greed, etc. Actually for that matter, I think the Odalyan "almost complete rejection of civilisation" is overplayed.

>Another is that most trapping animals will have totemic status for certain
>clans (and for certain Odaylans!), so you can't casually go round the
>Boldhome markets wearing a mink without risking a beating or worse from the
>Black Oaks who hold it ancestral and sacred. A trader could get around this
>of course, but you'd wear such furs only on among your own tribe, where
>you'd know which animals were totemic.

Why? I suspect places like Boldhome are filled with folk that violate individuals clan's taboos. Do the Black Oaks patrol the markets of Boldhome?

>Thirdly, such trapping is clearly unsustainable - it survived only a few
>generations in the US, which is as large as *all* of Genertela, and
>considerable less in Australia (koala pelts etc.) which is just as large.
It
>also goes against the hunting ethic and the decrees of the Lady of the
>Wild - kill what you need to survive, and no more. Never kill
>indiscriminately etc. - over to Mr Kipling. It goes against the idea of an
>Odaylan as Protector and Conserver of the wilderness, the one who
constantly
>fights with Barntar because of clearing.

>From personal experience, I have several friends and relatives in rural
parts of the US (Idaho, Colorado, eastern Washington), who both sport hunt and view themselves as Protector and Conserver of the wilderness. They fight the local Barntar (land developers) because they wish to preserve the woodlands for their own purposes. Again, I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Odalyans form the Hudson Bay Company - but I do think that they engage in furtrapping as a source of trade goods and other income.

Jeff

Powered by hypermail