Facultative Carnivore

Another piece of news which did not then bear the aspect of tragedy was that an Englishman, Hubert Darrell, had not reached Fort Macpherson after having visited the Baillie Islands in the fall of 1910. When Dr. Anderson repeated this piece of news to me we discussed it and agreed, as we still do, that Darrell was a man who would not have starved under ordinary circumstances, and we therefore felt sure that he had turned up alive and well somewhere or other unless sickness or accident had overtaken him. Darrell was a man who understood thoroughly the principle of “doing in Rome as the Romans do,” and he had on many occasions, to my knowledge, in the past applied that principle so well that he was as safe as an Eskimo in his wanderings about the country; and really safer by far, for he had learned all the Eskimo had to teach him, and added to that knowledge the superiority of the white man's trained mind, and a natural energy and resourcefulness that are rare among men of any race. 

Although it was not until a year later that we became certain that the travels of Darrell over the northland of Canada had come to a tragic ending, I shall insert here a brief sketch of the man and his work. He was one that did not advertise, and although some of the most wonderful journeys ever performed in Arctic lands were done by him, the world would probably never have heard much of them even had he lived a longer time. 

Darrell had come from England as a young man and owned a farm in Manitoba. I think it was the gold rush to the Yukon that first drew him thence to the North, although at that time he did not go much beyond Great Slave Lake, where he spent some time with the half caste and Indian hunters and travelers. He had already learned their ways when David T. Hanbury came there in 1901 and induced Darrell to join him on a trip eastward from Slave Lake to Chesterfield Inlet. 

After spending the winter near Hudson Bay, a party consisting of Hanbury, Darrell, a third man named Sandy Ferguson, and about twenty Eskimo went inland, crossing north over Back's Great Fish River to the Arctic coast, following the coast west to the Coppermine River and ascending it to Dismal Lake, and there crossing over the divide which separates the waters of the Arctic Ocean from those of Great Bear Lake. Here the Eskimo turned back in August, and on their way home incidentally paid a visit to Captain Amundsen when he was wintering on King William Island, while the three white men proceeded by canoe across Great Bear Lake to the Mackenzie River. This was a journey of more than seven months in which the entire party had lived wholly on the country. It was Hanbury's last trip, but not so with Darrell. 

I met Darrell first at Shingle Point on the Arctic coast, just west of the Mackenzie River, when I was spending my first winter among the Eskimo (1906–1907), and when he was on his way guiding a party of mounted policemen from Herschel Island to Fort Mcpherson. That was always his way. He was about as new to that country as the policemen were, but still he was a competent guide, for he never lost his head, and after all, in most places in the North it is not difficult to find your way if you keep your wits about you. 

It was the winter before I saw him that he had made one of his most wonderful journeys. That winter Captain Amundsen with the Gjoa was wintering at King Point, halfway between the Mackenzie River and Herschel Island. In the fall of 1905 Captain Amund sen, as the guest of some whalers, traveled south in their company across the Endicott Mountains to the Yukon. The whalers and Amundsen had several sleds, and Eskimo to do the housework and camp making, and they traveled over a well- known road, where it is only a matter of three or four days from the time you leave the last Eskimo camp on the north side of the divide, where you can any time purchase deer meat, condensed milk, flour, or any such article you think you may need, up to the time you come to the first Indian camp on the south side of the divide, where you can supply yourself with dried fish, venison, and other articles of food. Amundsen has of course never said a word to indicate that he considers this Alaskan journey he made a difficult one, which as a matter of fact it is not; but the world at large insists upon considering it a marvelous feat, and the story, which the telegraphs and cables flashed all over the world, of the arduous road over which Amundsen had come to Eagle City, keeps echoing and reëchoing in the speech of men and in the pages of magazines. 

That same winter Darrell also made a trip south from the Arctic Ocean to the Yukon. Instead of having whalemen for companions and Eskimo for guides, he went alone. Instead of having several teams and sledges, he had no dogs and only a small hand sledge which he pulled behind him; and on that sledge he carried sixty pounds of mail. He made his way from Fort Macpherson over the mountains by a more difficult road than that followed by Amundsen's party. Although he traveled alone he had no adventures and no mishaps (adventures and mishaps seldom happen to a competent man), and when he arrived on the Yukon the telegraph despatches recorded the simple fact that mail had arrived from the imprisoned whalers in the Beaufort Sea, and not a word of who had brought it or how it had been brought.

On the Yukon Amundsen happened to meet Darrell. He recognized the feat for what it was — one of the most remarkable things ever done in Arctic lands. “ With a crew of men like that,” Amundsen says, “ I could go to the moon.” Although he no doubt never expected to see him again, Captain Amundsen invited Darrell to visit him on the Gjoa at Shingle Point. Darrell does not seem to have agreed to this at once, and Amundsen returned with his party north to the coast, leaving Darrell behind on the Yukon. But one day towards early spring Darrell turned up at Amundsen's camp at King Point. He had come alone again over the mountains by a new route, and without adventure, as always. 

From the time I saw him guiding a party of mounted police in November, 1906, I did not see Darrell again until the summer of 1908, when I met him at Arctic Red River, the most northerly Hudson's Bay post on the Mackenzie River proper. In the meantime he had been making his quiet journeys alone, here and there through the north, and that fall I believe he crossed the mountains again to the Yukon. I do not know what his movements were from that on until the fall of 1910, when he appeared at the Eskimo village at the Baillie Islands, without dogs as usual, and dragging his sled behind him. The schooner Rosie H. was wintering there at the time, but Captain Wolki was away and the ship was under the command of her first officer, Harry Slate. 

To travel alone and without dogs is an unheard of thing even among the Eskimo, and both they and Mr. Slate tried first to get Darrell to stop over and next offered to give him some dogs to haul his sled, but both without avail. He was used to traveling that way, he said, and it would be too much bother to hitch up the dogs in the morning. He told them further, truly, that nothing would go wrong so long as no accident happened, and that to have dogs with him if an accident did happen would be of no particular use. 

Darrell had been with a canoe up Anderson River the previous summer and had left his camp near the mouth of the river at the foot of Liverpool Bay. In order to return there he started southwest from the Baillie Islands, and a few days later he met some Eskimo by whom he sent a letter to Mr. Slate. At first Darrell had intended to come and visit me (for our base at Langton Bay was only ninety miles east of the Baillie Islands), but Slate had told him that I would not be at home, and only Ilavinirk's family were keeping the camp for me. He had therefore decided not to come. The letter he wrote Mr. Slate, which contains some messages to me, is the last positive thing we know of Darrell. In it he says, as he had already told Slate, that he intended to go the three hundred miles or so to Fort Macpherson and thence across the mountains to Dawson, and intended to return the next year. Eskimo information makes it clear that he left his camp in Liverpool Bay, but in what direction he went we do not know. Personally, in making such a journey, I should have traveled along the coast; but Darrell was used to the woodlands, and certainly the woods are an advantage in a way, although the snow is soft among the trees. It may be that he tried to go straight overland through the forested area from Liverpool Bay to Fort Macpherson. It is also possible that he may at the last moment, because of approaching sickness or for some other reason,, have taken to the ice of the Anderson River with the idea of reaching a camp of the Fort Good Hope Indians, who may be expected at one place or another after you get a hundred miles up the Anderson. 

The only thing discovered since Darrell was last seen that may possibly be a clew, is that some Eskimo told me at the Baillie Islands in March, 1912, that the previous summer they had been in a boat up the Anderson River and had seen a blazed tree with some writing upon it. As a good many of the Fort Good Hope Indians can read and write, the chances are that this is some of their scribbling. Nevertheless I advised the Eskimo if they went up to the place again to cut down the tree and bring the piece containing the writing down to Captain Wolki at the Baillie Islands. It is not likely we shall ever know what the ultimate end of Darrell was; but whatever it was, those who knew him feel sure that he met it bravely and without heroics.

(Hubert Darrell's writings are in Oxford - https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/c5cc2dca-ab2c-3087-aead-cce2545ca9b7?terms=%22Darrell%20Hubert%201875-1910%22)

THE FOOD VALUE OF MEATS.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the pros and cons of vegetarianism. Man's adaptability to conditions is great, and while men may live and apparently thrive for a time upon a one-sided diet, a generous mixture of animal and vegetable food is best calculated to enable a man to meet the exigencies of our civilization and the nervous strain of our large cities.

In this country our prosperity, the excellence of our meat supply, and the habit which most Americans have formed of eating a good deal of meat, makes it more important to dwell upon

the ill effects of eating too much meat, rather than upon the necessity of eating some.

Fat and lean meat of animals taken together contains all the fourteen elements of which the human body is composed, but not in the same proportion. A man could, therefore, live on an exclusive meat diet, though owing to the great concentration of such food, it would not be advisable for him to do so. The human body requires four times as much heat-producing as muscle-making food and as the main function of meat is to repair old tissue and form new, he would need to eat great quantities — about six and a half pounds daily — to furnish heat which could be much more advantageously derived from some form of starchy or saccharine food. These, too, would furnish the bulk needed to keep the bowels in proper condition, and would lessen the waste products to be elIminated by the kidneys.

In a few cases of disease such as flatulent dyspepsia, chronic gastritis, diabetes, obesity and chronic dysentery, an almost exclusive meat diet, with only a little dry bread, has been found beneficial.

While for well persons, the stimulating qualities of meat eaten in moderation are desirable, the deleterious matter of which the system must rid itself when too large an amount is indulged in, thwarts the very purpose for which it is taken and renders the brain dull and the whole person lumpish.

To lay down a general rule for the amount of meat to be consumed by a person in a day would, however, be impossible since the state of health, the age, occupation and climate all modify very materially the proper daily ration.

It is thought, and not without foundation, that meat makes the blood rich by increasing the number of red corpuscles in it. It is, therefore, often prescribed by physicians for anemic persons and consumptives. Raw meat, which is sometimes given in such cases, has no advantage over lightly cooked meat, in fact the latter is much more wholesome. Meat should be entirely prohibited in acute or chronic Bright's Disease, gout and rheumatism. It is well known that meat is conducive to tissue building and for this reason children over eighteen months old should have meat at least once a day and better twice a day. Growing boys need much meat and should be allowed a larger amount at a meal than their elders ; but no person in health should take meat more than twice a day. A small boy may, with propriety, eat from five to six ounces at a meal. Boys of ten years from seven to eight ounces, and large boys from seven to twelve ounces. Men and women over fifty years of age ought to eat sparingly, especially of meat, as the waste products of meat are the urates, phosphates, sulfates and urea which must be excreted by the kidneys and hence tax these organs, besides making all the fluids of the body acid, causing rheumatism and gout.

Persons eating much meat should have abundant out-door exercise, as nearly every particle of meat must be burned up in the body and large quantities of oxygen are needed for this. Sedentary men should, therefore, not eat heavy meat meals especially during business hours.

Fat furnishes heat, but in so concentrated a form that a certain amount of fat produces two and a half times as much heat as an equal amount of starch or sugar. On this account pork with other food forms a suitable diet for cold weather, since the fat and the lean of an ordinary portion contain five parts of heat-producing material to one part of muscle-making substance. Veal is a good meat to serve in warm weather, as even the lean portions of it contain but little fat; but veal is only suited to persons with absolutely normal digestion, since, being an immature meat it is less easily digested and assimilated than beef or mutton.

Meat has been supposed by some to tax the digestive organs proper, more than other food; but, while it remains in the stomach from an hour to two hours longer than vegetables, the digestion of the lean part is practically accomplished in the stomach and little work thus devolves upon the intestinal ferments, so that it does not require more energy, on the whole, to dispose of meats than to dispose of foods such as starches and sugars which are hurried through the stomach, but must undergo a long process of intestinal digestion.

The products of the digestion of meats, moreover, enter more quickly into the blood, and its sustaining effect is more quickly felt than when another kind of food is taken. Any sudden exertion is known to be more easily withstood by a man accustomed to a meat diet than by another.

The thing which does tax the digestive organs is to oblige them to supply all the needs of the body from food of one kind, be that either meat taken entirely, or vegetables and starches eaten exclusively. Meat, vegetables and bread may be eaten together ; or milk or cheese may be substituted for meat, and eaten with vegetables and bread. Either of these combinations forms a good diet for well persons.

Helen G. Sheldon

How to Reduce Flesh

A man or woman who feels that flesh accumulating too rapidly may lose it by drinking sassafras tea, either cold or hot, with or without sugar, as the taste demands. There might be conditions of the system when it might be injurious, however, and it would be better to consult a doctor before using it. A strong infusion may be made of one ounce of sassafras to a quart of water. Boil half an hour very slowly, let it cool, and keep from the air.

A perfectly safe way to get thin is to eat chopped meat without any potatoes. Drink as little as possible of any fluid. Exercise a great deal without drinking and if possible eat no bread, butter, or sweets. Lemonade, acid drinks of any kind, a little strong tea and saline mineral waters will assist you, but of thees take only as little as possible. Start the morning by drinking a glass of clear water.

How to Increase Flesh

Thin people who wish to get stout should eat oatmeal, hominy, or any of the preparations of wheat now sold. Wheat rolls, corn mush, cream, chocolate, milk, sugar, omelets, jams, eggs, potatoes, bacon, and all other fattening foods.

Infant nutrition, Dr. Marsh argued, could perhaps show its effects well into adult life. A child was usually at the breast for as long as three years. Marsh had seen cases of more than six years — so had Leavitt; and so have I, since. At the age of a few days Eskimo babies started receiving, along with their mothers' milk, food masticated by the parent and passed directly from mouth to mouth. Thus she fed the child on what she herself liked best — always, of course, lean and fat meats, except in case of famine, when vegetables might be included and when the child and mother fared alike — neither of them well but the child a little better than the parents. 

Chapter 12 contains a great deal of information about Eskimo's Way of Life.

In reply to a further query, the rector wrote again from Sitka on September 16, 1958. He confirmed that he had lived at Anvik all but three of the years between his birth in 1895 and his first journey in 1908 when he went out to become a graduate of Middlebury College, Vermont. “I returned to Anvik as a missionary in 1922 and lived there until 1948, except for furloughs and the four years I was in Fairbanks.

“The native people of the Anvik area are Athapaskans. During my youth the main parts of their food were meat (caribou, rabbits, grouse, waterfowl, beaver, porcupine, black bear and lynx) and fish (salmon, whitefish, shellfish, loche and lampreys). The loche has a large liver which is said to be even richer in vitamins than ordinary cod liver. The Indians also ate raw foods such as berries, wild rhubarb, and a root which they called ‘mouseberries’ because it was gathered and hoarded by field mice.

“They obtained fat from caribou, black bear, and beaver tails. The lampreys were rich in oil, which was highly prized. They also bought seal oil from the Eskimos. Even in my boyhood they supplemented their native diet with white man's food, including lard ...

“The usual way of cooking meat was either boiling or frying. As a boy I was once invited by a party of Indians to eat bear meat with them. It was boiled and well done ... I do not know that any flesh foods were eaten raw, except for dried fish ...”

Neither does the published literature on the forest Indians report that any flesh foods were customarily eaten raw by the forest Indians of Alaska or northern Canada. Indeed, the name “Eskimos” is believed by many to have been derived from an Algonquin expression meaning “they eat their meat raw.”

When I went down north along the Mackenzie, in 1906 and 1908, I now and then heard talk of how horrified the Athapaskans had been when they first saw white men of the Northwest Company and Hudson's Bay Company eating the customary British underdone roast meats. In 1910, when we met the Athapaskans northeast of Great Bear Lake — Dogribs, Slaves, and Yellowknives — we found that they were still mildly horrified to see the Hudson's Bay Company Canadian Joseph Hodgson and the Old Country British John Hornby and Cosmo Melvil, who were then living among them, eating rare caribou steaks and roasts.

In a presentation of evidence regarding the views of frontier doctors on the incidence of cancer, it is of consequence to make clear that early testimony regarding the rarity or absence of malignancies is as clear and strong for the forest Indian north as for the grassland Eskimo country. Some of the early medical missionaries — notably Dr. Hutton in Labrador — have inclined to credit a diet of raw flesh with that former absence of cancer in which they believed. To emphasize this point let me quote again Dr. Hutton's book Health Conditions (1925), Page 35:

“Some diseases common in Europe have no t come under my notice ... Of these diseases the most striking is cancer ... In this connection it may be noted that cookery holds a very secondary place in the preparation of food — most of the food is eaten raw ...”

If only Eskimos are considered, in relation to the alleged former absence of cancer, and of these only the Labradorians, then the logical deduction for one who believes nutrition to be fundamental in relation to malignancy, is that actual rawness of food may be the crucially important cancer-inhibiting factor. But the force of this logic diminishes as we go westward from Labrador, among the Eskimos. Without cancer's appearing at all, cooking grows steadily more important as we move west. From Dr. Hutton's and other accounts, the Labradorians, east of Hudson Bay, were the greatest raw-flesh eaters of the whole Eskimo world. West of the Bay the boiling of flesh increases; and inland from the Bay, among the Caribou Eskimos, the roasting of caribou supplements the boiling. At Coronation Gulf, near where Dr. Jenness and I spent the first years during which the Copper Eskimos ever associated closely with Europeans, the years 1910 to 1915, there was considerable summer use of roasting, though the winter cooking, if any, was by boiling. Among the Mackenzie Eskimos, as described from the 1860's by Father Emile Petitot and from the early 1900's by myself, boiling and roasting were both considerable. These methods were even a bit more common in northern Alaska, as described by John Simpson in the 1850's and Murdoch in the 1880's. In southwestern Alaska as described by Dr. Romig in the manuscript he submitted to our Encyclopedia Antarctica, for the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first one of the twentieth, the cooking of flesh foods reached its Eskimo high point.

Yet the mission testimony, starting from Labrador, remains equally clear, from east to west: the medical missionaries all looked for cancer, and they never found it among the “primitive,” though they did find it among the “modernized.”

Thus clarification is important for whoever expects a nutritional key to this Eskimo cancer situation. Among the Athapaska and western Eskimos cooking was hardly ever carried to the point of “well done,” or “boiled to pieces.” Instead the native meats resembled our fashionable roasts, which have a well-done layer on the outside, medium done just under that, and the center pink or red. And so it was with the forest Indians — at least with those Athapaskans from Great Bear Lake to just west of the Mackenzie, with whom I hunted and lived — though they insisted on some cooking, they were in practice as careful as Eskimo cooks to see that the centers of most pieces were pink.

To sum up the raw and cooked-food elements of northern medical missionary theorizing about cancer:

During the time when large numbers of non-Europeanized northern natives were allegedly free of cancer, there was little cooking of flesh foods beyond the degree which we call medium. Among grassland and coastal Eskimos raw flesh eating ranged from a great deal in northern Labrador to a good deal in southwestern Alaska. Only among forest Indians were raw flesh foods avoided, and even among these there was little use of overcooked flesh.

Vegetable foods, where eaten at all, were always raw, among prairie and woodland natives alike. Among Eskimos, vegetable foods were important only in the farthest west — along the west coast of Alaska, among the Aleutians, and along the south coast of Alaska. In the most northerly region from Baffin Island, Canada, to Point Barrow, Alaska, vegetable eating was negligible, except in time of famine. Among woodland Indians, vegetables were negligible with the Athapaskans from the west shore of Hudson Bay to beyond the Mackenzie. In Alaska the eating of raw vegetables by forest Indians increased westward along the northern belt and then increased still more southward, into the country of the Tlingit.

During the time when the medical missionaries reported cancer difficult or impossible to find among large numbers of primitive natives, there was no usual cooking of any vegetables, whether among grassland or forest natives. The cooking of vegetables is part of that Europeanization which is considered by some missionaries to be responsible for the introduction of cancer, or for the change from its being hard to find to its being impossible not to notice.

The European-style application of intense heat to food through frying was new to all northern North American natives.