Submitted by ChadExtra t3_10iuu73 in todayilearned
It's pretty easy to talk about what should or shouldn't have been done 111 years later from the comfort of our own homes, but the people in the lifeboats that night were cold, scared, and not thinking clearly. You can say "Those evil rich bastards were the ones who kept the boats from going back," but the reality is that these people had been jolted out of bed, thrust into pandimonium, and had been forced to watch a ship sink with thousands of people onboard. And once that ship sank, they were alone in the middle of the ocean, in complete darkness, with nothing between them and certain death but a tiny wooden boat.
Should the boats have gone back? Sure, but I can understand why so many people were reluctant to: They were terrified and traumatized. I think it was Aesop who said "It is easy to be brave from a safe distance."
There's a lot of that in this thread.
There is also the issue in ethics/maritime law where you are obligated to render aid unless/until doing so endangers the safety of your vessel and the lives of those on board. If Pitman had rendered aid, and his decision to do so ended up with the lifeboat sinking or additional people dying as a result, he would have been culpable for that, too.
Basically, it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
No matter what happens, if anything goes wrong, it is generally always the master's fault, since he/she is "the boss."
At least that's what they taught us when I got my captain's license.
There's even some debate over whether Captain Ronstron of Carpathia put his own ship at undue risk when he pushed it to its limits through the same waters that sank a much larger ship. He's lauded because he was successful, where I think he'd be condemned if he wasn't the one to save the passengers in the lifeboats or even damaged his own ship in the process.
Then you have Captain Lord of the Californian who to this day is treated like a villain for his inaction that night. His ship was surrounded by ice and had stopped for the night. Even if he conclusively knew of the Titanic's predicament, he wouldn't have been entirely in the wrong to stay put. Like the other guy said, he was responsible for the ship and he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. He was dragged for his inaction, but if he tried to get to Titanic, hit an iceberg, and sank, suddenly the question would be "Why did you try to get to Titanic when you knew you were surrounded by icebergs?"
Sometimes, you just can't win.
Right. Plus this happened in 1912. People tend to forget how different things were back then. The captain going down with his ship wasn't a quaint, old-timey tradition, it's something that was pretty much expected. If your ship went down and took a thousand people with it, you'd better just go with them and not show your face back on land, even if it wasn't your fault. J. Bruce Ismay was dragged in the press for surviving. There was a Japanese guy who survived (I forget his name). When he got back to Japan, he was treated as a national disgrace for living while so many others died.
All that to say: If you made even the slightest mistake, you'd be villainized to the point that a hundred years later people would still see you as a mustache twirling asshole who threw a baby out of a lifeboat to steal its spot. It was the early 20th Century version of being canceled, only much, much, much worse.
It happens every time Titanic is spoken about online, and I'm sure it happens in every disaster. People typing in ALLCAPS to get across how USELESS all those people were in the disaster. Stupid, weak and cold-hearted.
How, if their own badass was there, they would've saved everyone through their brilliance, strength, and unflinching good nature.
I'll bet they've never been in a survival situation, let alone make these kinds of decisions, especially not in a position of power in these situations where eyes are looking at them for answers.
Good examples of that happening in this comment section.
People lack perspective and they lack empathy. They gleefully judge others without stopping to put themselves in their shoes. E
very survival situation spawns a few heroes who rise to the occasion. Until you've been in that kind of situation and have proven yourself to be among the 1 percent of badasses, how about you cool it with the finger-wagging, huh?
It's funny, the same shit happened right after the ship sank. It just goes to show that 111 years later, some people are still the same judgemental assholes that they were in 1912.
Reading through the thread, there's a commonly known fact that hasn't been brought up.
The crewmembers, and many passengers, knew there wasn't enough space in the lifeboats for everyone currently in the water. They already had to make the decision to let others die to ensure they didn't die with them, including people they loved. They're already making difficult decisions under awful circumstances.
What everyone seems to be condemning them for is for failing to calculate in their head a formula that would yield the exact amount of time to get the most people saved in a survival situation involving listening to hundreds of people die. How reddit is that?
It's one of the most Reddit things imaginable. When people are thrust into an awful situation like the Titanic disaster, they're not thinking clearly. All these commenters swear up and down that they would be sober and clear-headed throughout. Maybe some would be, but most would freeze up like a deer in the headlights.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments