First off, I'm new here so a big hello to my fellow Titanic enthusiasts and researchers. Today I picked up the new hardcover book put out by Life Magazine and it's an amazing book to have. Pictures I've never seen before. Stories before, during and after the sinking that I've never read before...like I said to me it's an amazing account of what happened.
I know that when the bodies had to be retrieved from the ocean if they were disfigured or "mangled"(that's the wording in the book) it was decided that those bodies would be committed back to the ocean. From what I understand the body was wrapped and weighted and then placed back in the ocean. My main problem with this is some of these people must have suffered horribly in that frigid water. Those that were "mangled" probably had their share of suffering too if not killed immediately. I find it cruel in a sense to place these bodies back into the very ocean that was the cause of their pain, suffering and eventual death. I explained to my husband like this....if I were to die in a fire, would you have me cremated? Unless it was my explicit wish, he said he would never do that. It would just be wrong.
So my point is why couldn't they retrieve all of the dead and either assign them a number like those in the Halifax(?) cemetery OR create a mass grave somewhere in a cemetery and give them a proper burial. The little boy who went without identification was eventually identified in the year 2000. Isn't it possible that those who were buried in the ocean stood the same chance.
It just feels wrong to me to "bury" the bodies at the very spot they suffered and died. I know room was probably limited and coffins were limited a well but I can't stop thinking about this as an injustice to those that died and were "buried" in the exact same spot. There's something sacrilegious about it to me. I'll use the fire example again...if I died in a fire and the house had to be torn down(and if it were even a remote possibility) I would not want to be buried in the very spot I lost my life. It would be disrespectful to me.
I know things were different back then and that the wreckage site is now considered a burial ground but I just can't get past what happened to those who were deemed too disfigured to be properly buried. Has anyone one else thought of this or is of the same train of thought on this topic? They died in the Atlantic and then they were "buried right back in the Atlantic....it really does make me sad to think about this happening.
*If I posted in the wrong area please feel free to move my topic.
I know that when the bodies had to be retrieved from the ocean if they were disfigured or "mangled"(that's the wording in the book) it was decided that those bodies would be committed back to the ocean. From what I understand the body was wrapped and weighted and then placed back in the ocean. My main problem with this is some of these people must have suffered horribly in that frigid water. Those that were "mangled" probably had their share of suffering too if not killed immediately. I find it cruel in a sense to place these bodies back into the very ocean that was the cause of their pain, suffering and eventual death. I explained to my husband like this....if I were to die in a fire, would you have me cremated? Unless it was my explicit wish, he said he would never do that. It would just be wrong.
So my point is why couldn't they retrieve all of the dead and either assign them a number like those in the Halifax(?) cemetery OR create a mass grave somewhere in a cemetery and give them a proper burial. The little boy who went without identification was eventually identified in the year 2000. Isn't it possible that those who were buried in the ocean stood the same chance.
It just feels wrong to me to "bury" the bodies at the very spot they suffered and died. I know room was probably limited and coffins were limited a well but I can't stop thinking about this as an injustice to those that died and were "buried" in the exact same spot. There's something sacrilegious about it to me. I'll use the fire example again...if I died in a fire and the house had to be torn down(and if it were even a remote possibility) I would not want to be buried in the very spot I lost my life. It would be disrespectful to me.
I know things were different back then and that the wreckage site is now considered a burial ground but I just can't get past what happened to those who were deemed too disfigured to be properly buried. Has anyone one else thought of this or is of the same train of thought on this topic? They died in the Atlantic and then they were "buried right back in the Atlantic....it really does make me sad to think about this happening.
*If I posted in the wrong area please feel free to move my topic.