A trans-Atlantic cruise is being offered in 2012 to mark the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.
The Titanic Memorial Cruise will depart, as the original ship did, on April 8, from Southampton, England, and arrive at the spot in the North Atlantic where the Titanic sank on April 15.
A memorial service will be held onboard the cruise exactly 100 years after the Titanic hit the iceberg and sank, between 11:40 p.m., on April 14, 2012, and 2:20 a.m. on April 15.
Seems at the very least self-indulgent, at least to me.
You might ask why this bothers me so much, and that's a reasonable question, so let me answer it this way:
How about, on September 11, 2011, on the 10-year anniversary of the attacks, let's charter four planes out of New York and Boston. Let's fly two of them around lower Manhattan, having a memorial service on board at the times the planes smashed into the Twin Towers. Let's have another one fly over Pennsylvania, and another one over the Pentagon, offering memorial services at the appropriate times. Then the planes can continue on, symbolically finishing the flights that were ended so viciously 10 years before.
Sound sick? It does to me.
6 comments:
sounds like a BS way for the cruise line to make money; just as it would be a BS way for the airlines to make money in your example.....because there are idiots stupid enough to fall for it
Don't underestimate the guile and smugness that would lead to both such events. Hey, when it comes right down to it, the cinematic version of the apocalypse with "2012" is fairly self-aggrandizing as well. I'm just sick of it. And I think sick is the operative word. How about we enact a simulated flood to commemorate the flooding of New Orleans?
It doesn't strike me the same way. I don't think the analogy of 9-11 works because it's much too recent, not to mention that a plane flight as you described isn't simply isn't as conducive to a memorial. However, the Titanic is a part of history now, and I don't see this as any different than walking the Trail of Tears or participating in reenactments of Revolutionary or Civil War battles. Reenactments 10 years after those events would have been just as offensive as your 9-11 scenario would be today. They were all horrific events at the time, but the passage of time also allows us to remember and participate in history in a small way without offense. I don't think the participants in such activities are being disrepectful, and I think it's a good thing that these events are remembered.
Kinda sick and maybe tempting fate. I think I'll book passage on the Carpathia.
I agree with Sandy. An event like the Titanic drifts further into the past, regardless of the magnitude of its original impact. There are few alive that were directly affected by the Titanic sinking--and in a couple years--you will teach a class of people who do not remember 9/11 first hand. The best thing that can develop from historic tragedies is interest and reverence (commercial motives aside).
More interesting however, is the accepted time period after which a tragedy becomes humorous. As any good boatman in Belfast will tell you, She (the Titanic) was fine when she left here...
I agree with you Darren. The next thing we know people will be holding reenactments of the Donner party, or Pol Pot's actions in Cambodia, or what took place in places like Buchenwald. While I can understand why some people might feel such things appropriate when they include memorials at the appropriate places and so on, it seems creepy to me. I suppose my feelings stem from the impression that they are celebrating it and tragedies should never be celebrated.
Post a Comment