Translate

Showing posts with label chaos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chaos. Show all posts

Sunday, February 16, 2025

Welcome to Not Enough Lifeboats

A few weeks ago, I was reading up on people’s reactions to the current chaos plaguing the Federal Government (of the United States). One person noted that they felt like they were in the scene in the movie Titanic when the musicians start playing the song “Nearer My God to Thee”. This triggered my goblin brain to start watching scenes from the 1997 movie, a few documentaries, and interviews from survivors.

Which led me to the movie A Night to Remember (1958).


A Night to Remember is probably the most accurate movie about the maritime disaster ever made (sorry Cameron fans). It was based on a book with the same name by Walter Lord, who had been obsessed (much like Cameron) with the tragedy. Lord interviewed 63 survivors of the sinking, creating cohesive timeline of events.

I have not yet had the chance to read the book, but I have watched the movie. And I liked it better than the 1997 one.

A Night to Remember primarily focuses on the sinking of the Titanic. The narrative follows several characters - some fictional, but most based on real people - and how they either survive or parish. My personal favorite is the survival of the baker. In the movie (his story varies by retelling), he gives up his seat in a lifeboat for another person, knowing he’d likely die. He then gets blind stinking drunk, starts throwing deck chairs overboard for people to use for flotation, climbs to the back part of the ship, and rides his way down before gently entering the water. He then treads water for about two hours in near freezing temperatures before he is pulled into a lifeboat. He doesn’t give in to hypothermia, he doesn’t drown, and he doesn’t panic. 

Normally, that amount of alcohol that the baker (may have) consumed would have actually been a detriment to surviving the cold. But because of the alcohol, the baker didn’t panic. Nor did he go into shock - which is likely why so many people died of hypothermia. 

He stayed calm and survived. His name was Charles Joughin.

Joughin was an outlier. His odds of survival were almost nil when gave up his seat.The vast majority of Titanic’s staff died with the ship along with a disproportionate number of third class passengers and men. The laws of the sea (in those days) dictated that women and children were to be given priority for lifeboats…at least the upper and middle class ones. Poor women and children were still given priority, but not as much as their first and second class counterparts.

Classism at its finest.

And though women and children were first asked to enter the lifeboats, some of them refused to. At first it was because the women felt safer staying on the Titanic. After all, they’d been told the Titanic was unsinkable, so why would they get in a much smaller “less safe” wooden lifeboat? Then they began to realize their actual danger, and the women wanted to stay with their husbands. Such was a woman’s duty in those days. They knew they would likely die or maybe they were still in denial about the danger they were in. It’s not fully clear.

Still, sexism at its finest.

Of the children on board, only every second class child escaped the ship. Only one first class child died - a two year old whose parents lost track of her baby brother and refused to be separated until he was found. The girl’s baby brother had already been placed in a lifeboat by the boy’s nurse. The family never knew he had already escaped. 52 children (a little over half) from third class died. More first class men survived than third class children.

The Titanic did not have enough lifeboats for every passenger on the ship, but it had enough for regulations. Those regulations had never imagined a ship Titanic’s size, so had never been updated. It was also assumed that ships in the area (because there were so many in the Atlantic at that time) would get to a wreck site in time for people to be picked up from the first round of lifeboats, then go back to the sinking ship, and pick up more distressed passengers.

On the night Titanic sank, the California was the closest ship. However, after a nasty interaction it’s Titanic’s wire operator, the California’s operator signed off and went to bed. There wasn’t another operator on the ship to take his place. The Titanic set off multiple rockets which the California saw. However, again, it was assumed that such a large ship was unsinkable and that the rockets were some kind of weird celebration in the middle of the night. 

Should the California have checked out what was going on?

The California was significantly smaller than the Titanic. I think that even if they had responded and tried to help, it wouldn’t have made huge difference. People would have still ended up in the water and quickly died of hypothermia. However, the losses wouldn’t have been as terrible. We’ll never know though.

So, the partially filled lifeboats had nowhere to drop off the first round of evacuees. Why didn’t they go back to the pull people out of the water?

To be blunt, the people in the water would have likely swarmed the lifeboats and caused capsizing. More people would have likely died.

Thus, the survivors in the lifeboats got front row tickets to the horror of listening to people die. They heard the screams and they could do nothing to help without risking more people dying. Eventually, a boat was able to go back and a few people were pulled from the water. It was too little too late for the majority.

At the end of A Night to Remember, the following text is shown: “despite the tragedy, the sacrifice of those lost on the Titanic was not in vain, as new maritime safety measures like sufficient lifeboats, constant radio monitoring, and the International Ice Patrol were implemented to prevent similar disasters in the future.”

But why weren’t these things implemented before the tragedy. Why did it take the deaths of over 1,500 people - over two thirds of the passengers on the Titanic - for these changes to be made? Why did the Titanic crew ignore the ice warnings? They did the radio and wire operators prioritize sending passenger messages over ensuring they could still communicate with the ship closest to them?

Tragedy begets change. Disaster begets action.

We aren’t at the part of the Titanic sinking where the orchestra plays “Nearer My God to Thee”. We are at the part where the lifeboats are just starting to be filled. The first class is boarding first, but not all of them know or even think the ship is sinking yet. 

The next little while is going to be painful and chaotic. The people who are going to be the most impacted will not be offered seats on those lifeboats.

Walter Lord provides a hard critique on Edwardian culture and class. He points out the classism and the final dregs of Gilded Age hyper capitalism that caused the disaster. He calls out the hubris of man over nature.

I wonder what history will say about this era of American history.

Until next week.

If you liked this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like to hear from me.



Sunday, April 2, 2017

Welcome to Rules are Rule are Rules

Spring has officially arrived! Yay! The sun is out longer. Its finally getting warm. And the news is filled with tons of stories about the biggest annual event that takes place this time of year.

I am of course talking about prom. (What were you guys thinking I meant?)

Between over the top "asked to prom" proposals to the never ending controversy over what is appropriate prom attire, I can't seem to escape the high school dance's drama in my news feed. Which is odd, considering my prom was notably uneventful. Oh it was fun, but drama free (at least from my perspective) and I can't remember anyone being turned away because they wore an inappropriate dress.

Heck I don't remember us even having a dress code at all for our prom.



Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment (or extremely susceptible to click bait), but for some reason I love clicking on these stories, skimming the article, and then rolling my eyes when I finally reach the comment section. Because you know what the most common type of comment is on anything regarding kids complaining about their dress code (or just how unfair life is in general)?

"Rules are rules."

I really hate this phrase. Even if I agree with the "rules" being discussed, as soon as I hear/see this argument my inner Mindy (the small Animaniacs* child who always almost kills her loyal "silly puppy", Buttons) surfaces.

Why? No, seriously why? Why are these rules the rules? What is the logic behind them? Why do they exist? Why do I have to follow them? Do they serve any purpose other than to annoy me?

If the answer to any of the above questions is along the lines of "because I said so" or "so as not to distract other people", I am liable to burst out laughing. Neither of these so called explanations have had any effect on me since I was six. They are inadequacy and only serve to annoy me further.

Now some people might respond with "well, that's life" or "tough cookies that's the answer". And again I might burst out laughing. Yeah life's not fair. I am well aware of this fact. Doesn't mean I have to take it lying down. As an adult, I can fight back against unfair rules or protest laws I don't like as much as I want. Why shouldn't we expect kids to as well?

See that's the funny thing about rules (and laws) in general. There doesn't need to be anything fair about them. The sole purpose of rules is to maintain some form of order. We as a society need order to properly function (at least that's what I've heard, I don't know whether it's true or not). Thus we have rules.

In theory, rules should make some sort of logical sense. Why can't I go in the construction zone without a helmet on? Because I might get hurt from a falling object. Why do I need to keep the walkway clear on the train? So that people can easily move around in case of an emergency.

However, like many things, rules don't always age well. Society changes and things progress, but our rules don't. The advent of the Internet has certainly been an interesting example of this phenomena (pretty much on steroids). Our rules and laws aren't keeping up with how quickly the Internet is evolving. Remember Napster back in the early 2000s?

If rules don't make sense or feel outdated, then they should be challenged and changed. There used to be a law in the state of Virginia that bathtubs were forbidden inside the house. In modern times this seems like a silly law, but I'm sure at some point in the state's history it made logical sense. The rule/law needed to change to how bathing was treated by society.

Without rules, we would have chaos and anarchy. Now I much prefer order to chaos (this is just a personal preference), but I can't deny the fact that order can get a little dull at times. Throwing in a little chaos challenges order and can even help to improve it. Too much, however, can cause serious damage.  It's a delicate balancing act. Then there are the people who just want to watch the world burn. Though they too might have a point, it could cause all of humanity to go extinct.

So about that dress code thing. I honestly think most dress codes need to be updated and changed. Fashion is always changing and evolving. Women can wear pants now (believe it or not my university didn't always allow women to wear pants on campus). We no longer have people measuring how long swim suits are at the beach. It is, gasp, okay to show an ankle or two. And it is perfectly acceptable to wear socks with your sandals (I will be laughing at you, but it's not against any rules).

To tell kids to not challenge rules (outdated or otherwise) is a disservice to them. Kids and adults should always question authority figures and the rules they make. Rules can be made that give an advantage to a group of players while causing massive disadvantages to another, more vulnerable group. They should be challenged and removed. Challenging authority and the rules they make is an important part of what makes America great. After all, if the founding father's hadn't challenged the rule of Great Britain, the US might not be the crazy independent country it is now.

As David Bowie once sang (may he rest in peace): "And these children that you spit on as they try to change their worlds are immune to your consultations. They're quite aware of what they're going through."

So the next time you see or hear people protesting rules they think should be changed, don't tell them they should just live with what the powers at be decide. Listen to them, they probably have something important to say.

Unless they want to disenfranchise someone, then you have my permission to laugh in their faces.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me. Now, I'm off to go protest bathtubs being inside houses in Virginia. Clearly they should be back outside with nature.

Until next week.

*If you guys didn't know, Animaniacs  is on Netflix. I have been enjoying rewatching this show. I think some of it has gotten better with age.