History Channel has a hit on its hands with “The Vikings.” Now in Season 3, the show is undeniably enjoyable and engrossing. An unfortunate dark stain on the show, however, is its portrayal of Christians and Christianity.
Last spring, I wrote about its bizarre antagonism — and, in that quest, huge historical inaccuracy — towards Christians, demonstrated throughout Season 2: e.g., horrific punishments done in the name of Christianity, such as crucifying apostates (a practice of which there is not a scintilla of evidence or historical record); stereotypical slovenly priests; evil Christian kings… you know the drill.
I hoped this season would be better but it doesn’t seem like it.
Season 3, Episode 5 — “The Usuper”, aired March 19th — carries on the season’s juxtaposition of the Christian English against the pagan Vikings. This episode in particular features King Ecbert‘s son, Aethelwulf, and his men, slaughtering an entire village of Viking settlers (including mowing down children) just… ’cause.
Never mind that it’s the other way around: history shows it was the Vikings who had no respect for English life and slaughtered indiscriminately in their decades-long pillaging and raping. And never mind that throughout all of Medieval Christian Europe’s history, there is not a single case of a village — much less the women and children inhabitants — being systematically murdered, or by a king’s son and with the king’s blessing (we later learn King Ecbert — modeled after the real-life King Ecgbert of Wessex — was quite pleased with his son’s actions and manipulated his son to do just that). Sure, the reason for Aethelwulf’s anger towards the Vikings is that the poor bloke learned his wife (ahem!) ‘lay with’ Aethelstan, one of the Viking crew (an English-monk-turned-Viking), so, naturally, he’s pretty upset with the Vikings and their darn settlement. But idea that murdering women and children would naturally follow as an extension of his rage, however, is absolute hogwash — it’s just another excuse for the producers to sew in further Christian smearing.
If you’re thinking, “His reaction just seems like a bit of a stretch”, you’re right. But what’s wrong with a little creative license if it checks off the “destroying Christianity one TV show at a time” goal?
Lest viewers miss the agenda here, the scene is drawn out for several minutes, with children routinely shown meeting-their-maker and women receiving a sword in the back. Aethelwulf then cries out, in an almost laughably on-the-nose moment, “It was all for this! [motioning to the cross] It was all for our Lord!”
Did I mention there is a burning cross, too? It’s all very Ku Klux Klan….The producers clearly want the viewer to make an association that Christians are only slightly less evil than Michael Myers (whether it’s Mississippi Burning or 9th century Wessex). The sad part is: Was there not a single writer or producer or even cast member who said: “Hmm, wait a minute, guys… Was cross-burning even a ‘thing’ back in the Dark Ages? That might be an anachronism.” No, apparently, no one did. But, as it turns out, it’s an embarrassing one. The earliest indications of cross burning aren’t until 19th century Scotland — i.e., a millennium later. Why? Well, burning the symbol of our Lord would kind of be a weird thing to do, huh? In fact, even the KKK only started doing it simply bc of a screw-up.
Awful mistake, writers….
The *fun* doesn’t stop there. Bring on the next episode! “Born Again,” aired March 26th, features Aethelwulf’s wife, Judith, giving birth to the illegitimate son, and Aethelwulf congratulates her through gritted teeth. So far, so good. Except, suddenly in walks a terribly mean-looking, cruel-sounding monk (as noted in my previous article, the show goes out of its way to feature odd-looking, serial-killer-vibe as Christian priests and monks). In he barges (hmm, why would a MONK be the one to lead the guards in and lead this punishment? Just go with it!) and declares that she must – keep in mind, she’s just given birth and is still in bed — come with them. Once again, in case you neglect to feel the requisite turning-in-your-stomach towards malicious Christianity, he kisses his cross (the show is reminding you he’s one of those terrible CHRISTIANS!).
Of course, there is more imagery. Not only is a monk leading her out to face-the-music but a huge cross hovers behind her.
What then follows is a highly uncomfortable scene where Judith is tied to a pole and the punishment for her adultery is to be administered (by yet another priest — this time, it’s the sadistic, unappealing one we met in earlier episodes, who crucified Aethelstan for apostasy). The punishment? Her nose is to be cut off, as well as her two ears.
For good measure, the priest notes this (utterly barbaric) punishment is the penalty “advocated by the Holy Book.”
If you’re wondering where in the Bible it calls for cutting a woman’s nose and ears off for adultery, much less harming her in any way, join the club.
But, as I noted earlier, what’s a lil’ lying (or a LOT) about the Bible, if it means attacking Christianity? After all, we know Jesus Christ didn’t save Mary Magdalene from that crowd over her sins of the flesh — he called her for body parts to be cut off!
Now, you might be protesting — “Alright, but let’s give the writers the benefits of the doubt. Perhaps they are just showing how this particular group of Christians twisted and distorted the Bible and Christianity.”
The trouble is, aside from Aethelstan (the English-monk-turned-Viking-turned-Christian-again), there are no positive — or at least neutral — Christians in the entire show. But most importantly, the example is simply too extreme — and too unlikely. There was no such practice in the Middle Ages. In fact, fornication and adultery were largely — surprisingly — shrugged over, once historical records are examined. For more, see here. A woman might find herself facing a fine for such, and her reputation ruined — but certainly not mutilation or any physical punishment. In the rare case that a townspeople might try to invoke such punishment, it would likely be (as historical records routinely show), the local priest or holy men who would intervene against such barbarism.
So what is the goal here? Why is the History Channel seemingly going out of its way to twist history in order to smear Christianity?
Series producers reportedly include:
I urge readers to express their views and ask them to reverse course on the hate, bigotry, and outright historical lies that are ruining an otherwise solid show.
(h/t to Rey Lastre for this…)
Dicen que triste cosa es no tener amigos,
Pero más triste es no tener enemigos.
Porque quien enemigos no tenga,
Es señal de que no tiene,
Ni talento que haga sombra,
Ni bienes que se le codicien,
Ni carácter que impresione,
Ni valor temido,
Ni honra de la que se murmure,
Ni ninguna cosa buena que se le envidie.
They say it is a sad thing to not have friends,
But sadder still is to not have enemies.
Because he who has no enemies,
It is a sign that he has,
Neither talent that shades,
Or goods that any covet,
Neither character that impresses,
Nor courage that is feared,
Nor honor about which others murmur,
Or any good thing to envy of him.
As a child, I was a hopeless bookworm fascinated by history and mysteries. When I wasn’t devouring Nancy Drew Case Files and Encyclopedia Brown, I was reading up on the Bermuda Triangle, the Lost Colony of Roanoke, the Lochness Monster (wad up, Nessy!), and Titanic. Our neighborhood library to which my dad would take me had a total of 3 books on Titanic — I checked them all out at least 5 times.
Since I like to pepper this blog with a break from my political writings and, instead, with random, fun tidbits about history, I will impart here a few kernels of information about the Titanic’s sinking (having watched every documentary made on the subject… the James Cameron DVD specials… etc…. why not!). Hey, maybe this blog post can come in handy while you’re at an office party this month and looking for something to read on your phone aside from your Twitter feed, or while you’re on a blind date and in need of conversation pieces (on second thought, you may come off like a massive dork — do NOT bring up “Hey, want to know something interesting about TItanic?” on a date).
I will also discuss the 1997 James Cameron film, one of the true masterpieces of cinematic history. While the insecure may scoff at my love of the film (wrongly assuming it’s due to some tween-like fondness for the Jack-Rose love story, or for Leonardo DiCaprio), the undeniable truth is that the film is to be revered and appreciated by any history buff. How many times have directors, writers, and producers approached historical periods or events for a film… only to completely botch it, employing little to no historical accuracy? Assuming the film’s main purpose is to entertain, they fail to appreciate that a film can be wildly engrossing, visually stunning, and accurate. (Ridley Scott is a director who comes to mind: Gladiator was so loose with historical facts that one historian reportedly walked off the set and another asked that his name not be credited, while Kingdom of Heaven is a disaster of epic proportions.) Titanic does just the opposite. There is no other film — none — that is as historically accurate or takes such a painstakingly detailed and committed approach to even the most minute detail’s adherence to actual events.
In no particular order, let’s talk-Titanic! (otherwise known as: the moment A.J. lost any semblance of coolness!)
The lifeboats is the first issue that folks bring up when discussing Titanic. “If only they’d had more lifeboats, all those people could’ve been saved!” But is that really true? Let’s explore…
First, what we know: 1) Titanic’s crew and passengers numbered about 2,200. 2) Only about 700 souls survived, on lifeboats (1,500 — i.e., 2 out of every 3 — perished). 3) The ill-fated ship carried 20 lifeboats, enough for only about half its passengers (theoretically, each lifeboat could carry about 65 persons = so, 20 X 65 = 1300).
OK, but why did Titanic carry only enough lifeboats for half the persons onboard? Isn’t that illegal?
Nope. Titanic was perfectly within the law — in fact, it carried four more lifeboats than required by the ordinances of the time. You see, shipbuilding in the Edwardian era was advancing so quickly that it was outpacing the legal regulations. While sixteen lifeboats were required for boats weighing over 10,000 tons (by a law enacted almost twenty years before Titanic sailed), no new regulations addressed how many lifeboats should be carried on boats significant larger (such as the 45,000 ton Titanic!). And, as referenced in the film, White Star Line owner Bruce Ismay overruled designer Thomas Andrews‘s original inclusion of additional lifeboats, in order to provide the passengers with more deck space. While Ismay’s decision may seem careless in hindsight, the Titanic — though never outright described/marketed as ‘unsinkable’, contrary to popular belief — was generally believed to be so: thus, the idea of sacrificing critical deck-space for lifeboats seemed unnecessary. In the case of a highly unlikely accident that required evacuation, the lifeboats would be used to transport passengers to a rescue ship — in other words, lifeboats for every single person onboard would just be unnecessary.
But having more lifeboats onboard would have definitely saved lives, right?
Not necessarily! One fascinating aspect that is often omitted from discussions is that, due to (1) the speed with which Titanic sank, (2) the lack of organization and communication amongst the staff, (3) passengers’ reluctance to board the lifeboats, (4) the staff’s lack of training in lowering lifeboats, and (5) the time it takes to load and lower a lifeboat… it is unlikely any additional lifeboats would have even been used! As you may recall from the film (which accurately depicts this), as the ship submerges, there is even one lifeboat (a collapsible) that has yet to even be deployed — in other words, they barely had time to load and lower all the lifeboats that were onboard. Additional lifeboats would have likely sunk with the ship and never been of any use. Thomas E. Bonsall, a historian of the disaster, notes that the evacuation was so badly organized that even if they had additional lifeboats, it is impossible to see how they could have launched them due to the lack of time (remember: Titanic sank in a little over 2.5 hours) and lack of organization. In fact, the first lifeboat was not lowered until a full hour (!) after the ship had struck the iceberg.
Alright, well, if there were enough lifeboats for half the folks, why were only 1/3 saved?
The reasons are several.
(1) As depicted in the film, most of the lifeboats were not filled to capacity. In one instance, Thomas Andrews exclaims he saw one lifeboat “with only 12!” (this is true — Boat 1 had only 12 passengers onboard. It consisted of first class passengers and crewmen. Follow the link here and scroll down to “Boat 1” if you’re in the mood to be outraged at the callousness of human beings.)
2) How many could the lifeboats carry? One of the officers on duty that night — who survived — later stated at the 65-capacity number was wrong, as that would require folks to be perfectly balanced, possibly standing, and in calm weather conditions. He argued that a capacity of 40 was a more realistic figure. But this ‘testimony’ seems to be self-interested, in order to defend his own actions of failing to properly load the boats. Because, as you can see from the recap below, a few of the boats had more than 40 on board and made out just fine.
Boat 1: 12 (!!!)
Boat 2: 17 (!!!)
Boat 3: 32
Boat 4: 30
Boat 5: 41
Boat 6: 26
Boat 7: 28
Boat 8: 25
Boat 9: 40
Boat 10: 57
Boat 11: 50
Boat 12: 42
Boat 13: 55
Boat 14: 40
Boat 15: 68
Boat 16: 52
Collapsible A: 13
Collapsible B: 14
Collapsible C: 43
Collapsible D: 20
3) Captain Smith ordered his officers to put the “women and children in and lower away.” Officer Murdoch and Officer Lightoller (both portrayed in the film) interpreted the evacuation order differently; Murdoch thought Smith meant women and children first (but men green-lit if no women around, hence why Murdoch allowed men to board), while Lightoller thought it meant women and children only (hence why he lowered lifeboats with only women and children, even if there was room remaining). Murdoch’s interpretation certainly seems more sensible and Lightoller’s makes little sense — empty seats?! As with most things in life, it was all a game of luck (a line from the film, funny enough). A male who happened to be near a lifeboat Murdoch was lowering, had a fair chance — but around Lightoller? none.
4) Passengers were reluctant to board. ‘Why leave the warm ship and board this clunky, dangerous-looking lifeboat, only to have to return once they sort out the problem?,’ they must have figured. John Jacob Astor, the richest man on the ship, who perished, was one such example, overheard remarking that staying on the ship was safer than boarding the lifeboats.
5) The divets (mini-cranes that lower the lifeboats) did not seem to support the weight of the heavy lifeboats carrying passengers. To make matters worse, officers had no idea how many passengers each boat could sustain. In fact, James Cameron noted that, while filming, the divets constructed for the film’s ship/set (which were actually stronger than those on the Titanic) were visibly straining from the weight of lowering the lifeboats (not breaking but certainly bending). Did the divets on the Titanic start to shake and bend? Did the officers fear that they would break? Did such fears lead them to initially lower lifeboats with lower numbers and gradually increase the number on each?
Alright, so the lifeboats may or may not have been a contributing factor in the number of casualties. What about the speed with which Titanic was traveling? Wasn’t that the biggest factor?
Aside from the lifeboats issue, the usual culprit regarding Titanic is the speed it was traveling. There is no denying that made a difference. We know Captain Smith was urged to speed it up and ‘stretch her legs’, to arrive early and make headlines, by owner Bruce Ismay. We know this because a woman sitting at the table next to them one afternoon overheard the conversation (and testified to that effect at the post-sinking hearings). In fact, she is depicted in the film: look over Ismay’s shoulder at the first-class female passenger who glances over — eavesdropping — as Ismay and Captain Smith have their infamous chat. Of course, it is a matter of opinion whether Smith should have disregarded Ismay’s suggestion. He apparently did not and the speed did make a difference. Here’s why:
Titanic swerved to avoid the iceberg. This caused the iceberg to slice through the side of the ship, making holes all along the side. The ship was designed to withstand water in four of its forward compartments – but not five. Well, guess what? It sliced through four… and into five. And it sliced into five by only a few inches! In other words, Titanic could have dealt with the side-swipe slashing four of its forward compartments — it was the fifth that was the kiss of death. Ouch. So, essentially, the difference between Titanic sinking or night that night — came down to a few inches.
A recent documentary, however, “Titanic’s Final Mystery” by Nigel Levy, thankfully sheds light on the speed-as-the-culprit issue. It seems Captain Smith was not really being reckless after all. Even at full speed, the lookouts would have, theoretically, been able to see an iceberg when it is still 30 minutes away! So why did Titanic fail to see it earlier, spotting it only when impact was 30 seconds away? We’ll get to that later. For now, the point is they didn’t see it in time, they swerved, and the ship was sliced through the side, opening holes in one compartment too many.
What are some other coincidences that contributed to the sinking?
As one of the historians on the “Titanica” documentary noted, there were a whole host of factors that came together in one ‘perfect storm’ (or horrific storm, one should say) to cause the ship to sink. Makes one wonder if it’s true that what is meant to happen, will happen.
For instance, the lookout’s binoculars were missing that day, so the lookouts went up on their post without any. Had they seen the iceberg a few seconds earlier, would that have made a difference? Definitely, as perhaps the ship would have turned with enough of an angle so as to avoid the five compartments slashed open. (However, in the “Titanic’s Final Mystery” documentary, it is noted that the binoculars would actually not have been used by the lookouts, as binoculars are for inspection of objects, not detection. In fact, using binoculars might impede one’s ability to see the entire horizon or the full picture of what is laying ahead.)
The wireless operator in The California (a ship who was stopped, only 10 miles away and thus could have saved Titanic’s passengers) went to bed less than half an hour before the Titanic struck the iceberg. Conicidentially, he’d also been told to take a hike by Titanic’s wireless operators earlier that night, as, being so close, his message regarding ice in the area was interfering with the backlog of messages that Titanic was sending out on behalf of its passengers. When the Californian operator sent the message, he wrote:
“Say old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice.”
Titanic’s wireless operator responded:
“Shut up, I am busy working.”
What a mistake.
The freak weather conditions. One may wonder: well why was Titanic’s route planned, in early April’s North Atlantic, through areas known for icebergs? Good question. The truth is: icebergs were not normally a problem in that area. In fact, it was too far south for icebergs, especially ones so large. But, there they were. Moreover, 1912, it seems, was a freak year for icebergs, with twice the amount in the area than was customary. And the icebergs were not the only freak-weather condition contributing to the night’s tragedy. The waters were also eerily calm. Why was this a problem? Well, with calm water and no waves it was much harder to spot an iceberg (since there is no breaking water at the iceberg’s base). Oh, and did I mention the moon was hidden?
So we know approximately 700 persons went into the lifeboats and 1500 perished. But couldn’t the lifeboats (especially the ones that had room) return and pick up some of the folks who fell into the sea?
Yes, of course they could have. However, in a show of humans’ dark side, selfishness, and callousness — only one (out of the 20 lifeboats) returned to pick up survivors (if I recall correctly, six persons were saved this way). Several individual passengers on various lifeboats urged their fellow rescued passengers — or officers-in-charge — to return. In the movie, this is portrayed by Molly Brown, who urges those on her lifeboat to ‘grab an oar’ and row back… only to be refused and threatened. While the human instinct of self-preservation is understandable, and the fear that the lifeboat could be swamped is not without merit, the refusal to return is almost unforgivable. Humans struggling in hypothermic-inducing-levels-of-cold, wearing awkward life jackets, are not exactly going to successfully ‘swarm a boat.’ The failure to return must be an aspect of that night that haunted survivors for the rest of their lives.
Who are some of the heroes of Titanic?
In a story about the perils of human selfishness and arrogance, I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of Titanic’s story. Let’s start with the electricians: Titanic had 32 electricians onboard. Early on, they were told to save themselves and make a run for it. All 32 decided to stay in the bowels of the ship, working in order to keep the electricity and wireless operations working. And they did — the wireless operators were able to send out repeated messages (to no avail, sure, but at least they were able to make the effort), and the lights stayed on (helping passengers find their way) until only a few minutes before Titanic floundered.
The band (consisting of devout Christians) also opted to play until the end, to ease the tension and panic of passengers.
And, of course, there are the officers who performed ably and the many male passengers who calmly did not even fight for a place on a lifeboat, resigning themselves to their fate with dignity and grace. (In fact, some have noted that male fatalities were disproportionately British due to British culture’s emphasis on chivalry and a ‘stiff upper lip’ in times of crises. As the ship sank, Captain Smith is said to have shouted: “Be British boys, be British!” One cannot help but smile at these stories — tough Brits certainly went down with their pride and heroism intact.
Weren’t there any ships nearby that could come to Titanic’s rescue?
Indeed there were — namely, the California. But the ship that ultimately arrived on the scene was the Carpathia — albeit it at 4 am (an hour and a half after Titanic had already sunk and the 1500 who went into the sea were long dead). Though it arrived late, Carpathia nonetheless rescued those in lifeboats from the freezing temperatures and, it should also be noted, the Carpathia’s captain hauled-ass (to put it in modern-day terms) through icebergs to get there as fast as it could (in 4 hours), without hesitating for a moment.
Which brings us to the villain (or just woefully inept) player in the Titanic story… the Californian.
The Californian was a ship which had stopped (due to a huge sheet of ice, it decided to stop and wait until morning to continue its journey) only 10 miles away from Titanic. In fact, Titanic could see Californian earlier that night, and vice versa.
As I mentioned earlier, the Californian sent Titanic radio messages regarding the ice in the area. But its messages were interfering with the personal messages that Titanic’s wireless operator was sending out (on behalf of passengers: e.g., “See you in New York; having a grand old time!), so Titanic’s operator asked the Californian to leave him alone. Shortly thereafter, the Californian’s operator went to sleep. It was roughly 11:30 pm. And Titanic hit the iceberg less than a half hour later. OUCH. So, when Titanic began furiously sending out wireless signals (including the new “SOS” cry for help), no one was listening in the Californian’s empty wireless room.
Titanic then began firing rockets into the air (rightly so). This should have worked. That, too, failed. Sure, the lookouts on the Californian’s deck saw the rockets — and even phoned down to the Captain several times (essentially: ‘Hey Captain, there’s a ship a few miles away and it looks kind of weird — we think they’re firing rockets into the air’). The Captain, however, failed to take any appropriate action. He simply told the lookouts to try signaling to the ship with a lamp (Morse Code) but did not tell them to go to the wireless room and turn it on to see if any messages were coming through. Incredible, huh?
So, despite being within visual distance, the Californian did nothing. Imagine for a minute what it must have felt like the next morning for the Californian’s crew when they woke up and heard the news… and realized they could have helped but didn’t. That they could have saved 1500 lives… but didn’t. Sometimes, when I want to go to sleep but need to stay up a little while longer, I think of the Californian’s wireless operator changing history by deciding to go to bed… and, it does the trick! (Not really, I usually pass out.)
So, Remember the Californian! Don’t be them! 🙂
As for inquiries afterward, there were many of course. The Californian’s captain’s story kept changing and he even reportedly hid the ship’s official log, so as to hide that they had noticed the Titanic’s rockets.
What could Titanic have done differently to avoid the casualties?
In one of the documentaries, James Cameron has a fun exercise with fellow experts in which he poses to them the following question: “Let’s say you’re on Titanic. The iceberg has already hit and the damage is done. What would you do differently?” One expert suggested driving to the California (the same way you can go a small distance in an injured car with a flat tire, a ship taking on water can still move a few miles). Others seemed skeptical of this, however. One suggested moving folks onto the iceberg (yeah, that sounded crazy to me, too) — but one expert rightly retired that the iceberg was a few hundred meters back (so how would they get passengers on it?).
In a book I read years ago, it was suggested that Titanic would have been better off hitting the iceberg straight on. It is hard to argue against this theory in light of what we know: that the damage was mainly due to the side-swipe (which tore holes/a gash along the side, in five compartments). Hitting the iceberg straight on would have just resulted in one big thud and a bump (and damage to the stern or maybe one or two forward compartments) but it could have remained afloat.
BTW, the freak side-swipe? It had never happened before in maritime history and has never happened since! Seems Murphy’s Law was in play that night.
What happened to the Titanic’s survivors?
They were taken to New York. In fact, many were given rooms at the Chelsea Hotel on 8th Avenue and 22nd Street (holla to my old hood!). A friendly bellhop there told me some of the ghost stories of the hotel, including one woman routinely seen by guests. She was apparently a passenger whose fiancé didn’t make it onto the lifeboats. Shortly after reaching the Chelsea Hotel, besotted by grief, she took her own life in one of the rooms.
So there’s my Titanic-facts recap! Feel free to let me know your thoughts, especially regarding what you think Titanic could have done differently or any thoughts you have this mystical, certainly timeless, event.