I'm glad you've recognized the need to view Titanic in the totality of its own time-period, which is what I have been trying to emphasize all along. It is only then that we can properly judge its impact.
"Not to keep nit-picking but you seem to still be confusing an event with a series of events within the larger framework of a specific movement or trend." I have no idea what *specifically* you mean, but (keeping it to Wade) presenting the Titanic as raising black consciousness is not confusing an event with a series of events?
Wade may have described it as being the Titanic's real impact, but he did nothing to prove that Titanic dislodged public confidence in technology or belief in man's omnipotence. Which, if the Titanic had done so, WOULD have been the start of a major trend and/or movement in human history. (In case you haven't realized it, most "major" events in history do begin or kickstart trends or movements: that's why they're major. Just as a few examples across the spectrum, Luther's 95 Theses, Lexington, Waterloo, the invention of the airplane.)
Hold up: I thought Wade was saying that it was the TITANIC that destroyed the dream of man. If it is only what came after 1914, and not 1912, that represents an entirely different world, doesn't that give a pretty good clue that Titanic's impact on the "ways of men" wasn't as major as Wade, or you, suggest?