Didn't Lowe have a flashlight? How did they find and rescue several passengers from Boat 14?
My research has determined that Lowe had a flashlight while loading the boats and for a short period after leaving the ship, probably given to him by John Simpson. However, for whatever reason (possibly the light had failed) he did not have it when returning to search for survivors.
With respect to yours, Pat's and Mike's comments, I think rather than work up a revisionist perspective on Lowe, to the point of challenging passenger accounts under a close cross-examination (which is a fairly impossible and speculative task given the tools we have) we should simply agree that he was a fairly abrasive guy that night. He probably made some racist remarks.
I disagree. I strongly believe, as per my academic training, all accounts should be treated to close scrutiny rather than acceptance at face value. It is not an ‘impossible and speculative task’, but rather a necessary part of historical studies. This examination should extend to all eyewitness accounts, as they
are, by their very nature, subjective. This is a basic approach in historical studies.
To state that ‘we should simply agree that he was a fairly abrasive guy that night’ is a gross oversimplification, and distorts our impression of his conduct. That he ignored normal nicities of social interaction at some points is not in dispute. But to say that he was 'fairly abrasive' is a sweeping generalisation. Other passengers saw him as a man who embodied the finest traditions of the British sailor.
I think it's fair to say, even today under the so-called politically correct standards, that such remarks are pathetic. And to say it in the context Lowe did seems pathetic, as well. But, obviously, nobody's perfect.
I have already stated I contest that Lowe ever made the remarks pertaining to the Asian passenger, as they come from one unsupported and — in my view — dubious source. In addition, I think you need to understand more about contemporary usages. ‘Jap’, while its use is unsupportable today, was not considered in the same light in 1912. ‘Little blighter’ — the use of which you condemn — was, in the context Lowe was alleged to have used it, not intended as derogatory. Nor, in England and Australia, is it considered particularly objectionable today in most instances. I've frequently been called 'a little blighter' by my nearest and dearest.
To use another example, the word ‘dago’ was used very commonly as a descriptive term for certain ethnic groups. To a modern reader, the term is so offensive as to be jarring. In 1912, however, this was not the case. I’ve read correspondence written by one of the other officers in the first decades of the century in which he refers to the ‘dagoes’ on his watch. The immediate impression, to a 2000 reader, is one of distaste, if not outright shock, so strongly emotive is the term. However, reading on further, one finds that the writer was actually making a positive comment about these men, contrasting them favourably to the ‘Britishers’ on the other watch.
Be aware that the usages and attitudes of 1912 are unnacceptable to modern sensibilities (take, for example, attitudes towards women and class). However, I suggest that you should leave some of your own judgements behind — ‘pathetic’ is not a term to use if you want to appreciate why people spoke and acted as they did.
I'm not out to prove Lowe was a racist.
No, you just accept it as a proven ‘fact’ and proceed from there.
Maybe some people are. Nonetheless, the fact the remarks may have been made many years ago doesn't necessarily vindicate Lowe. People frequently justify President Lincoln's racism as something on the order of the day. This isn't always accepted. In fact, in 1912, the order of the day was separate "Jim Crow" treatment for Asians in the U.S. - - whose kids went to separate schools, their families couldn't own land, etc. Believe me, none of them ever at any time appreciated being called "jap" - and they were called that, a lot, and for a derogatory purpose.
If you want to appreciate why people thought and acted as they did in 1912, you’re going to have to cease judging them on what is acceptable in 2000. History is about understanding events and individuals in context. Lowe — even if he were ‘guilty’ of the charges you lay at his door (and I doubt very much that he was) — was not an aberration. He was typical of his era, and does not deserve to be singled out for condemnation.
Further, objecting to rasicm isn't just a matter of political correctness. Racism is genuinely offensive to everyone. Even in days when racism was blatant and commonplace, from an individual's perspective, I think racism reflects upon a feeling that some one is better than some one else, and is always to some degree a defect in character. So, the "times" or "order of the day" or "not politically correct" excuses are in my mind too easy to adopt. But this is not the catalogue from which to judge Officer Lowe.
Please don’t lecture me on racism. I have long been actively politically involved in efforts to combat bigotry. Those familier with Australian politics at the moment would understand why there is a need to do so. Do not mistake my attempt to put Lowe in the context of his own time with my personal views on racism.
I find many 1912 views offensive — stereotypes about women and my own ethnic group, the Irish Catholics, spring to mind. But rather than seek to single out individuals for condemnation, I find it more productive in terms of historical studies to understand why these views came about and how they affected the behaviour of individuals.
You state that Lowe’s views on race (a canonical interpretation which I challenge) stem from a flaw in his character. I contend that they derive from his cultural and social milieu. You state that ‘racism is genuinely offensive to everyone’ (wouldn’t it be nice if that was true!). In 1912, it simply was not widely recognised as racism.
But it sounds as though nearly everyone agrees that Minahan was telling the truth about what Lowe said to her.
That Lowe told her to ‘Jump…’ etc. is not a point of contention. What is contentious is the extent to which we should ‘blame’ him for his usages. I hold that we are in no position to judge the man for his comment, as it should be viewed in the context of the pressures he was under. Your remarks are judgemental in the extreme.
The swearing, and race remarks are part of the record. But that record is a snapshot of a critical time for him, and reflects how he dealt with it. But it's not a catalogue for his life.
'Swearing' is part of those remarks recorded of him, as is the admiration of many under his charge. The 'race' remarks - if you're referring to the remarks Collyer attributes to him - are a matter of contention. It does *not* reflect how he 'dealt with it' (i.e. the disaster and its aftermath) - his comments and language must be viewed in the context of all the other sources concerning Lowe. Viewed in isolation, as you have done here, distorts our perceptions. As you seem to recognise, this is not a 'catalogue' (or indicative)of his life and character. If you want to have more than a superficial understanding of Harold Lowe and his role and actions during the sinking of the Titanic, it is necessary to have an understanding of his entire life and his character. Otherwise, you're just catching the surface.
If Lowe was abrasive, belligerent, or in a state of frenzy which brought out his baser character elements, on April 15, 1912, then that's the way it is.
I find this characterisation of Lowe utterly risible, even though you have qualified it with an ‘if’. I firmly believe that the most serious charge that could be leveled at him was that he used stronger language in a few instances than he would otherwise have used. Balanced against this (even outside of what he accomplished in terms of rescue work) should be his attempts to encourage those under his charge. Lowe was specifically commended for his conduct by passengers such as
Clear Cameron, Nellie Walcroft, the Comptons, and
Rene Harris. He could not have accomplished what he did if he were in a ‘state of frenzy’. There is a world of difference between suggesting that he became terse at points, even swearing at passengers, and stating that this was indicative of his conduct throughout.
Inger Sheil
