Controversy
Could the Titanic been saved? That is the question that many people asked after her disastrous maiden voyage and something that is still being asked today. There are many different controversies that surround the RMS Titanic. The way she was built did not reach the standard of the time; the metal and rivets were weakly constructed. The state-of-the-art technologies, which lead to the ship being labeled “unsinkable”, actually did more damage than good. Then there is the fact that there were only sixteen lifeboats on the ship; not nearly enough for half of the people on board the Titanic. There are many “what if’s” that could have changed the Titanic’s fate and these are just some theories that have been brought about through these last one hundred years.
(Above) People waiting outside theWhite Star Line offices in New York (Wels, pg 100).
(Above) People waiting outside theWhite Star Line offices in New York (Wels, pg 100).
The Titanic was built with the latest engineering marine technology, but was this what lead to her sinking?
The Titanic was built with a double bottom and 15 water-tight bulkheads that used watertight doors that were electrically controlled by switches in the bridge. They could be turned on, or used, individually or simultaneously. With these ships being equipped with these technologies it lead to newspapers, magazines and media to deem them “unsinkable” (History). However, what they thought would be their savior in a crisis’ might have actually sent the Titanic to her watery grave. A bulkhead is “a structure or partition to resist pressure or to shut off water, fire, or gas” (2011). The problem with the bulkheads on the Titanic was that although they were watertight, water was still allowed to move from one compartment to the next. The lower decks were watertight but the upper decks were not so when the ship as pulled under, the water came over the boat seeping into the decks that were not sealed (Stevenson, 1998). The other British shipping company, Cunard, had already discovered this problem and an innovated way to prevent it. Had the Titanic’s engineers listened and taking this information into account the ship might not have sunk so quickly, if at all (History).
If the builders were not so concerned with the passengers view, could more passengers been saved?
The twenty lifeboats that were provided for the passengers and crew aboard the Titanic were nowhere near enough to save everyone aboard. The lifeboats aboard the ship could save 1,173 people if they were filled to capacity, which in the moment of panic aboard the Titanic some only left the ship with twelve survivors. The Titanic when completely full could carry 2,435 plus the 900 crew members aboard the ship equally over 3,300 people. With the limited sixteen lifeboats available, only one-third of her passengers had a chance to survive. The disturbing element of the Titanic’s supply of lifeboats is that they actually exceeded the amount required by British Board of Trade’s regulations (History). The Board of Trade “regulations required vessels of 10,000 tons or over to carry a minimum of 16 life boats with a capacity of 5,500 cubic feet with rafts and floats equal to 75% of the lifeboats' capacity”. This means that with the Titanic carrying 3, 511 passengers, they were only required to make room for 952 of them. Titanic exceeded the regulations by White Star adding the four collapsible life boats on board (Kamuda).
Picture above of Titanic survivors (McMillan & Lehrer, pg 85)
Picture above of Titanic survivors (McMillan & Lehrer, pg 85)
To Save or not to save?
Even after the Titanic’s sinking, almost one hundred years later, people feel that it should remain a memorial and should not be subjected to the poking and prodding that comes with investigating the wreckage. Do we leave the history at the bottom of the sea or do we collect what we can to preserve what was?
In the article from National Geographic,Retrieval of Titanic Artifacts Stirs Controversy, it explains three men’s different opinions about what should be done with the Titanic wreckage at the bottom of the ocean. Edward Kamuda, President of the Titanic Historical Society, feels that the ship should not be disturbed. He feels that salvaging artifacts from the wreckage is inappropriate because he sees the ship as a memorial gravesite, and it is important to keep it so for the families of the deceased. “We know of three Titanic survivors who have died and had their ashes scattered on the site,” he said. Since Historical Society feels that the wreckage should be undisturbed the artifacts that are on display in their museum are items that were saved by the survivors.
Dirk Barton, who is the vice president of RMS Titanic, Inc, feels differently about the remains of the Titanic. He believes it is their responsibility to collect the artifacts and share them with the world. He claims that the Titanic is deteriorating and will soon no long exist. Although, in the article it states that scientist believe from their study it can take hundreds of years for this to happen (Handwerk, 2002).
The last person who shares their opinion in the controversial issue is Bob Ballard; he led the US-French team in the discovery of the Titanic. After they initially discovered the wreckage they came back a year later and took pictures but instead of collecting artifacts they left a plaque as a requesting that the ship be left undisturbed out of respect for those who died that night April 15, 1912. Ballard wants the Titanic to be shared with the world but in a manner that will not compromise the ships memorial site. He feels that with the growing technology people will be able to get a better view of the ship with undersea cameras instead of taking submarines and peeking through small windows (Handwerk, 2002).
This controversial issue will continue to be debated until one side moves slightly faster than the other. They are continuously collecting artifacts here and there from the wreckage and they will continue until someone stops them or they get what they need.
I have seen up close artifacts that have been rescued from the ocean floor and I am amazed and how well they can restore them to almost new conditions considering it has been sitting in the sand for almost 100 years. I am personally torn between both sides of the debate. I feel the need to see the history with my own eyes. I am drawn to the artifacts by the shire thought that these pieces were at the bottom of the sea and once used by passengers to eat off of or something that they wore and now I am able to see them. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be a great amount of respect shown to the ship when they are collecting her passengers’ objects. History should be preserved, shared and explored, but not violated.
The picture above is the plaque that Ballard placed on the Titanic for a memorial site.
In the article from National Geographic,Retrieval of Titanic Artifacts Stirs Controversy, it explains three men’s different opinions about what should be done with the Titanic wreckage at the bottom of the ocean. Edward Kamuda, President of the Titanic Historical Society, feels that the ship should not be disturbed. He feels that salvaging artifacts from the wreckage is inappropriate because he sees the ship as a memorial gravesite, and it is important to keep it so for the families of the deceased. “We know of three Titanic survivors who have died and had their ashes scattered on the site,” he said. Since Historical Society feels that the wreckage should be undisturbed the artifacts that are on display in their museum are items that were saved by the survivors.
Dirk Barton, who is the vice president of RMS Titanic, Inc, feels differently about the remains of the Titanic. He believes it is their responsibility to collect the artifacts and share them with the world. He claims that the Titanic is deteriorating and will soon no long exist. Although, in the article it states that scientist believe from their study it can take hundreds of years for this to happen (Handwerk, 2002).
The last person who shares their opinion in the controversial issue is Bob Ballard; he led the US-French team in the discovery of the Titanic. After they initially discovered the wreckage they came back a year later and took pictures but instead of collecting artifacts they left a plaque as a requesting that the ship be left undisturbed out of respect for those who died that night April 15, 1912. Ballard wants the Titanic to be shared with the world but in a manner that will not compromise the ships memorial site. He feels that with the growing technology people will be able to get a better view of the ship with undersea cameras instead of taking submarines and peeking through small windows (Handwerk, 2002).
This controversial issue will continue to be debated until one side moves slightly faster than the other. They are continuously collecting artifacts here and there from the wreckage and they will continue until someone stops them or they get what they need.
I have seen up close artifacts that have been rescued from the ocean floor and I am amazed and how well they can restore them to almost new conditions considering it has been sitting in the sand for almost 100 years. I am personally torn between both sides of the debate. I feel the need to see the history with my own eyes. I am drawn to the artifacts by the shire thought that these pieces were at the bottom of the sea and once used by passengers to eat off of or something that they wore and now I am able to see them. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be a great amount of respect shown to the ship when they are collecting her passengers’ objects. History should be preserved, shared and explored, but not violated.
The picture above is the plaque that Ballard placed on the Titanic for a memorial site.
“The ship historian John Maxtone-Graham has compared Titanic’s story to the Challenger space shuttle disaster of 1986. In that case, the world reeled at the notion that some of the most sophisticated technology ever created could explode into oblivion along with its crew. Both tragedies triggered a sudden and complete collapse in confidence, revealing that we are vulnerable despite our modern presumptions of technological infallibility” (History).
