Miss Minahan vs Lowe

[George Behe]

Hi, Inger!

I wrote:

>Perhaps Lowe had better eyesight than Beesley. (Don't forget that Lowe
>was somehow able to tell that the man who disguised himself with a
>lady's shawl was -- again -- an 'Italian.')

Inger replied:

>Presumably Lowe saw the ‘disguised’ passenger at somewhat closer
>quarters when he manhandled him into another boat than the passenger in
>the water

I'm afraid that's merely an assumption on your part, though; for all we know, Lowe may have leaned over the side of the lifeboat trying to get a good close look at the Oriental to see if he was still alive.

>First class passengers — the Comptons and Harris among them —
>found nothing objectionable in his attitude .....

True -- but then Lowe didn't reveal his *motivation* to those passengers the way he revealed it to Mrs. Brown.

> I disagree that his ‘petty prejudices’
>‘undoubtedly’ cost ‘several First Class passengers their lives’. This is
>a serious charge — can you substantiate it beyond an extrapolation
>you’ve drawn from the account of what Lowe is alleged to have said?

Let me restate my comment: "Lowe's petty prejudices *may well* have cost several First Class passengers their lives."

In any case, the point is that Lowe admitted that he consciously used his own perception of a man's wealth as a criterion for whether or not that man would be allowed to enter a lifeboat. No matter how one tries to cut the cake, *that* is a petty prejudice that was utterly unworthy of a White Star officer.

All my best,

George

 

[Pat Cook]

I KNOW I'll regret getting into this! Like the saying goes "It's Deja Vu all over again!" However, my only comment was that Herbold and I have much in common. MY opinion actually has nothing to do with Lowe per se - I just don't and never have believed much of anything Daisy Minahan had to say, period, paragraph. And I do not even bother to discuss it anymore - no point. Just my opinion. She who complained, in U S Hearings, of tripping over bread, of all things, and never once even mentioned loosing a family member!

That being said I just wanted to mention two things. With all the haranguing (not sure of the spelling there) about Lowe's manner or bigotry, I feel someone should mention that it was only a scant 50 years earlier that, in America, it was legal to own slaves! In those days, even in First Class, bigotry was VERY accepted, mostly (IMHO) as a hold-over.

Also, George wrote:
"Perhaps Lowe had better eyesight than Beesley. (Don't forget that Lowe was somehow able to tell that the man who disguised himself with a lady's shawl was -- again -- an 'Italian.')"

I got a little fuzzy here - were you pointing out that Beesley couldn't identify the man passing for a woman in #13? Or did I miss something?

Best regards,
Cook

 

[Jay Lancey]

Hello

I just wanted to say to Pat, Inga and Mike that I think you have made some very good points. It seems to me that Lowe has been judged retrospectively for actions in 1912 that are unnacceptable in the year 2000. We see it in Butler's book and on the internet.

What are the accounts by Harris, Cameron and Walcroft?

Jay

 

[Pat Cook]

Hi, Jay,

Inger knows far more about this than I do. I can tell you a bit about Walcroft. Nellie Walcroft was traveling 2nd class with her friend Clear Cameron (Inger can fill you in on the book "Clear to America" about her letters). After the catastrophe, Nellie wrote two letters - one to a friend, Clara, in which she stated that Lowe shot some men to keep them from swamping the boat (or words to that effect) - the OTHER one, written to her hometown newspaper, the Maidenhead Advertiser (I believe) stated that Lowe shot AT some men to keep them from swamping the boat. Of course, the one saying Lowe shot the men is the one that sold for $13,200.00 at an English auction last year and is now on display at the Orlando Permanent Titanic Exhibit in Florida. I have written (as have many members of Nellie's family) to the exhibit to get them to display the newspaper letter beside the other but (though I haven't heard any different from the family) we have never received a reply. Some of them believe, as do I, that Nellie was in such a hurry writing her friend to tell her she was safe, she simply left out the word 'at' from 'shot AT the men'.

Personally, again just my opinion, even if I never saw the newspaper letter, I would be suspicious of the first letter. My reasons are this: in the letter she mentions people all around her drowning - she goes on for a couple of sentences or more about this, how horrific it was, how agonizing. But she states Lowe shot men and doesn't say any more about it? No "the horror" or "I have never seen anything like this" - nothing. That's why I believe she didn't realize what she had, indeed, written. Also, you add to this the fact that both Clear and Nellie were devoted to Lowe after the disaster - I just can't see them being so adoring of a murderer.

Again, for what it's worth, this is just my opinion and a long one for somebody who was going to stay out of it.

Warmest regards,
Cook

 

[Jeffrey M. Kern]

As to Miss Minahan's describing her tripping over piles of bread on deck, it is more than likely that she was giving her clearest detail of every step in every hour of the sinking for her. But yes there is no mention of Mr or Mrs Minahan.

And that draws me to my next question - did Mrs Minahan ever give a statement?

 

[Inger Sheil]

Joe:

I stated:
("... 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.")

You responded:
Inger, I know that. What I'm saying is that the testimonies and few
eyewitness accounts are all there is, and that's not much to work with 88
years after the disaster if you're going to somehow do this vigorous
cross-examination that completely discredits the clear statements of Minahan
and others in the record.

Yes, testimonies and eyewitness accounts are what we base our interpretations on. However, it does not then follow that we accept wholesale every eyewitness account (an impossible task, given the
contradictions). In any field of historical studies you are going to have to compare extant sources and reach conclusions about the merits of each one. I stand by my statement that ALL eyewitness accounts must be critically examined. I have not 'completely discredited' Minahan or Collyer, any more than when I have critically assessed Lowe's account and challenged some of his statements, or highlighted discrepancies between his own and other accounts, I am 'completely discrediting' Lowe. Any academic is trained to critically assess sources, particularly when - as in the case of eyewitness
accounts - the source is by its very nature subjective.

The truth is you'll just end up with historical revisionism, i.e., a different perspective based upon the same facts, which, I think, is what you're really doing.

An important point here is that these are not 'facts', they are subjective accounts.

Historical study is not static - any field of history moves in cycles of revisionism and reactionism. I have never had a problem with challenging the established Titanic canon if I feel that the material warrants it. I'd certainly rather that than a slavish devotion to a set of conclusions reached for the most part by popular historians and amateur researchers.

Indeed, I think it is essential that each generation of researchers critically appraise the sources and interpretation of the 'established'
history. I am not advocating change for the sake of change, but I am advocating a development of our critical faculties. New sources are emerging
all the time - only recently have Cameron and Walcrofts letters been published, and there are more accounts extant that have yet to enter the
public domain.

I wrote:
(" . . . Be aware that the usages and attitudes of 1912 are unacceptable 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.)

Joe responded
Frankly, your "modern sensibilities" actually refers to "caucasian sensibilities."

If you read my statement again, as cited above, you will note that what I am saying is that one should be aware that the views of 1912 are at odds with those of 2000. I would hope that 'modern sensibilities' (i.e., the
views we hold today) largely, if not universally, would condemn many of the usages of 1912, regardless of whether one was Caucasian or not. As I said, they are unacceptable.

Inger, the use of "Jap" is pathetically racist, and it was so in 1912. Consider, too, how Lowe used it. He said the "Jap" wasn't worth saving. Even worse, Collyer probably related all this as though she thought it was funny.
If that's not racist, I don't know what is.

It was not considered 'pathetically racist' by Lowe's peers It was a common usage. I do not, by the bye, believe Collyer 'probably related all this as though she thought it was funny' - I believe it was related as a 'colourful' incident. As I have said before, I strongly contest that Collyer (from whose account this story is entirely derived) was in any position to witness the incident as she describes it.

Further, the perpetrators frequently adopt a self-appointed stance in assessing what is racially offensive and what is not, and what is
"politically correct." But this is like having the fox in the chicken coop. The objects of racial stereotyping can assess racist statements too. Booker T. Washington, in his famous book, "Up From Slavery," often made the point
that racially offensive conduct was taken lightly, overlooked, or ignored. Washington was admired because he could take it all and still manage to build a prestigious learning institution. But Washington nonetheless found
that even the most subtle remarks were abrasive and done by persons with full knowledge of what they meant by them.

You have taken a single dubious incident and extrapolated from this an entire mindset for Lowe. In citing the above passage, you suggest that Lowe was wilfully making his remarks in the full conscious knowledge that what he was saying was hurtful. I contest Lowe ever said what he is purported to have said by Collyer. Personally, I have no doubt that 'Jap' was a part of his lexicon - if it wasn't then he was probably the only Edwardian sailor who was on the Far East run who did not use it. Likewise, I'm quite certain
that 'Mick' or 'Paddy' was a term he used for the Irish, and there would have been any number of words he used to describe women, not all of them
particularly palatable. I do not like these terms, I do not condone their usage - but, at the same time, I recognise that their use was the norm
amongst Lowe and his peers.

My wife is Japanese-American. To her family, which has lived in the United States since before 1900, "JAP" has always been there, and its always
been a very racist term. The fact that people then may have taken it more lightly than now, makes little difference overall.

I have not - and do not - suggest that the term 'Jap' was not offensive to the Japanese. That Lowe's identification of Italians, for example, was offensive to the Italians is quite well established. As I have said, I am an Irish Catholic. Perusing contemporary accounts of the disaster, there are many examples of attitudes towards the Irish Catholics that I find highly
offensive - and which the Irish who were subjected to these comments found offensive. What I attempt to do, however, is understand these statements in the context of the time in which they were made. I am cognisant of the fact that the individuals who made these comments were a product of their social milieu.

Lowe can only be judged - if we can judge him at all - against a background of his peers. These were white Anglo-Saxon males. If you single him out, and those comments attributed to him, then you are removing him from the context of his era. Once you do that, you are distorting our perceptions of both the man and his time.

Would you feel comfortable being judged in the moral climate of 88 years into the future, whatever that moral climate might be? I most certainly would not.

Cont'd

 

[Inger Sheil]

On the contrary, my point of contention is whether Minahan was telling the truth about the "Jump . . " statement.

Well, we both concur that Minahan told the truth about Lowe's words as she recalled them. What is contentious, however, is the extrapolations you have made from this.

Lowe made other statements about a "Jap" that night which, from my perspective, tend to buttress the possibility of his having been abrasive to Minahan. I make no apologies for being "judgmental" because in my mind the
'didn't want to bother saving a "Jap"' statement is racist on its face, quite aside from the incredible context wherein the statement was made, and it's offensive - - even by 1912 standards.

And I disagree with your wholesale adoption of Collyer's account. You take Collyer's account as supporting your idea that Lowe was 'abrasive' to
Minahan (in this one instance, or in general? Do you believe that he snapped at her in a heated moment, or that this was indicative of his conduct
towards her throughout their interaction?), and yet you fail to take into account Compton's assertion that Lowe's bearing gave those under his charge confidence, or Harris's description of how he tried to bolster the spirits of those in the boats. Lowe was not everyone's cup of tea - hardly surprising, giving that he was brought into contact with people from a very different background, who saw him reacting to the pressures of the evening.

His demeanour and the lexicon acquired from an early age in the rough environment of the Welsh schooners would not, under the best of circumstances, appeal to all. These were not the best of circumstances.

Stating that someone makes a racist remark on April 15, 1912 is not the same and saying the guy is a racist. To me, a "racist" pulls a minority
person on a chain behind his pick up, or plays a concentration camp game on the subway, with his notebook computer. A guy who says "Jap" on April 15, 1912 isn't in that league. Inger, you made the leap from racist remarks to "racist" to discredit my argument.

Alright - while one does not have to be a 'racist' (according to your interpretation of 'racist' as given above) to make a 'racist remark', let us look at how 'racism' is defined:
Racism is "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an
intrinsic superiority". In this sense, Lowe and the majority of his peers were "racist". I don't condone their attitudes (having lived in Asia for
some years, I am well aware of what it feels like to be in an ethnic minority, and to experience racially-based prejudice).

I wrote:
(" . . .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.")

Joe responded:
Inger, I think you have to understand the man's life to make a fair judgement about him, but I don't think you have to understand his whole life to assess his conduct on April 15, 1912. It might help, but I don't think it's necessary.

I disagree. You can arrive at an assessment of his conduct on the night the Titanic sunk, but unless you understand his character and motivations, any assessment you reach is going to be superficial. That judgement is not 'fair' at all.

I wrote:
(" . . . I firmly believe that the most serious charge that could be levelled at him was that he used stronger language in a few instances than
he would otherwise have used . . . 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 . . .")

Joe responded:
Inger, couldn't it be said that his use of "stronger language" was "abrasive?" What, in heaven's name, is the difference? Are you going to
develop some April 14-15, 1912 time line of Lowe's conduct whereby this or that act was "strong language," at a particular time, so we're careful not to generalize. Since we have so few facts, I can't assess whether he was abrasive that whole evening, but that doesn't mean he wasn't abrasive to Miss Minahan.

There is a difference between suggesting that Lowe became terse and swore at passengers in some isolated instances and summarising this as indicative of his conduct throughout, and it seminal to our understanding of Lowe and how
he behaved the night the Titanic sunk. What is more, your use of 'abrasive' was coupled with other terms, and was not specifically confined to the incident with Minahan or Collyer.

You have used the following terms to describe Lowe's conduct:

"belligerent and abrasive" (no qualifiers there!)

"Lowe obviously didn't have much class about himself"

"He must have been in a state of frenzy"

And finally you build yourself up to the following:

"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."

You state that we have 'so few facts', and draw your interpretation from Minahan and Collyer. Have you also consulted Compton, Harris, Cameron and Walcroft? Not to mention the many crew members who described his conduct and mention nothing of him being in a 'frenzy'. All these are public domain accounts, and we have others that we are using in our interpretation of Lowe's character and conduct.

A momentary loss of temper with Minahan - and you might recall that we never had Lowe's version of that incident - does not mean that any of your above statements are justified, used as generalisations as you have done. Indeed,
the indications we have seen from passenger and crew accounts are that Lowe assessed the situation and responded in a manner that was, for the most part, cool and rational. This is in keeping with his character as described
to us by those who knew him very well.
Under the pressures that they experienced that night, many of the Titanic's officers and crew had moments when they responded to a passenger in a manner not indicative of their habitual conduct. Boxhall, as I have already pointed
out, told a passenger "shut up" (a rebuke that Douglas felt was justified).

This is what I mean by "revisionism." You're not disputing the facts, you just re-characterize them, or isolate them, and by that offer a more
innocuous perspective on Lowe.

What 'facts' am I not disputing? I am not disputing Lowe's words to Minahan. I am however, disputing your interpretation of them as indicative that Lowe was "belligerant and abrasive". I also dispute Collyer's account
of what Lowe is purported to have said. I am not 're-characterising' 'facts' - I am challenging your interpretation. Nor am I "isolating" these "facts"- quite the opposite, in fact. I am attempting to present Lowe's words and actions in the wider context of both the 14/15 April 1912, and indeed his entire life. It is you, rather, who are determined to isolate a comment he made to Minahan and a comment he is alleged to have made in Collyer's
presence. Rather than looking at his reported conducted over the course of the evening, you have taken two incidents. I have incorporated more survivor accounts in my interpretation of Lowe's conduct than your limited adherence
to Collyer and Minahan. I am not trying to offer a 'more innocuous perspective' on Lowe - I am disputing your sweeping generalisations about
his conduct as 'belligerent and abrasive' or in a 'state of frenzy'. I reiterate - I believe he did on more than one occasion use strong language,
although in the normal run of affairs he would not have sworn at the women under his charge. I also believe that, for the most part, his conduct was not 'belligerent' or even 'abrasive'...and certainly not that he was in 'a state of frenzy'.

Inger, I appreciate that this is a very serious issue for you. It wouldn't bother me at all if you prove to be entirely right about Lowe. But I don't want to continue this because I think we're just getting into a "swearing match" ourselves.

I don't think this is getting into a 'swearing match' - can you cite an instance of any personal insult, let alone obscenity, being exchanged? You
are, however, correct in that this is a serious issue for me, and I will try to explain why I feel strongly about the interpretation of Harold Lowe in Titanic circles.

Harold Lowe initially attracted my attention not because of any purported heroism on his part, but rather because of the powerful immediacy of his
language. A few years ago my colleague Kerri and I, dissatisfied with the information extant in Titanic literature on the Fifth Officer, began our own research. We started out with the popular history canonical Lowe - a hot-tempered young Welshman, variously described as 'lively', 'impulsive', 'excitable' and with a range of similar adjectives. Collyer was gospel as
far as we were concerned, her account reprinted in a range of Titanic literature, from Gracie to 'Titanic Voices'. There were some points to the
established Harold Lowe that were curious, however - on the one hand Lowe was described as excitable and impulsive, on the other hand references were made to his cold detachment. Where did the truth lie in this dichotomy?
Gradually we started assembling data, starting from the basics - establishing his birthdate (when we began this work, not even his son was
certain of the date). We began peeling away the layers of accepted 'fact' - even the age at which he believed he ran away to sea was incorrect. We took nothing for granted, and attempted to trace all secondary sources back to primaries.

Finally we started interviewing those who had known Harold Lowe very well, and what we found surprised us. We were very soon disabused of the notion that he was a 'typical' hot headed Welshman (and there you have the irony
that Lowe himself has been subjected to racial stereotypes). Lowe was Welsh by birth, but not by heritage - he always considered himself 'English'. Nor,it was stressed to us, was he hot headed or 'feisty'. Quite the opposite. I
have heard him called by one individual who knew him well 'the most even-tempered man I ever knew'. Further research also lead us to realise
that his views on racial issues had been grossly oversimplified.

Lowe, like any man, cannot really be understood if the focus of the viewer is turned only towards one event in his life. This is sufficient for the
surface interests of popular history, but not for any reader hoping for a more than superficial understanding of his character and actions. For
example, a reader might go along with the interpretation of some writers that Lowe was somehow amused by the allegation that he was intoxicated the night of the sinking. A perusal of newspaper accounts of the inquiry reveals
how deeply angered he was by the charge. And, further, when you know what his motivations were for his stance on drinking, you can understand how
justified he was and how hurtful the allegations were.

An understanding of his career background is also essential to understanding his conduct. Lowe was the only one of the Titanic's officers not to have
come through the apprenticeship system. He worked his way up from ship's boy on Welsh schooners, as hard a school as you can imagine. Once the system of apprenticeships became widespread in the British mercantile marine in the middle of the 1800s, the gap between the f'c'stle and the bridge began to widen. Fewer men 'came up through the hawsepipe' - Lowe was one of them.

That he was able to do so is a testimony to both his talent and his remarkable self-discipline.

The man that stepped aboard the Titanic was an outsider among men who knew each other quite well. Lightoller, for example, had served with almost all his fellow officers before. Many had come over from the Oceanic, a passenger liner that had been on the same trans-Atlantic run for years, the one that the Titanic was about to commence. Lowe's two WSL ships had been mostly
cargo, on a run out to Australia. He was a stranger to all on board, about to make his first run across the North Atlantic - a prestigious and
challenging route. Letters I've read from one of the other junior officers indicate just how exhausted these men were, surviving as they had since their arrival in Belfast mostly on a few broken hours of sleep. Lowe's line that 'we don't get any too much sleep and when we sleep we die' might strike us as amusing, but his deep sleep the night of the collision - even through the steam emissions - was indicative of his heavy exhaustion.

He was awakened from his sleep that night and propelled into a nightmare.

There was no gradual, dawning realisation...the moment he got out of bed, he knew something was seriously amiss as he could feel she was down by the head, and passengers outside his cabin were already in lifejackets.

Accounts tend to agree on the energy and activity Lowe displayed during the sinking. He was not passive by nature, and his proactive role during and after the sinking are entirely haracteristic. This is not intended as a digressive ramble on the life and times of Harold Lowe. I'm trying to give you, and others, the tools to understanding Lowe's frame of mind the night the Titanic sank. Perhaps then you can understand why Lowe became very short with some passengers, and probably crew, and why he ignored many of the nicities of passenger/crew interaction. And perhaps you might gain a better appreciation of why I object to Lowe being dismissed with the facile assessment that "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." This is a grotesquely reductive verdict on the man and his actions. I have a good deal more to say about Lowe's conduct and interpretations of it, both contemporary and in the field of popular history, as I feel that this is an area that rewards further study beyond
your dismissive statement.

Inger

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo George!

I responded to you:

>Presumably Lowe saw the ‘disguised’ passenger at somewhat closer
>quarters when he manhandled him into another boat than the passenger in
>the water

To which you replied:

I'm afraid that's merely an assumption on your part, though; for all we know, Lowe may have leaned over the side of the lifeboat trying to get a good close look at the Oriental to see if he was still alive.


Well, that’s responding to an assumption with an assumption.

If that's the case and he was closer than the man with whom he had physical contact while transferring him, then - given the clearance between the gunwales of a near empty #14 and a man in the water - Lowe was leaning pretty far over! All that trouble of pulling up to the man, calling to him, leaning far over to ascertain his ethnicity...and then he decides he's not going to save the man? Having got that close, he pulls away? Then figures what the hell, and goes back? This from a man who once jumped overboard to save an Asian passenger?

Collyer does not specify distance, but she does use the phrase 'hailed' — our only clue as to how far Lowe was away when he is supposed to have decided the man was not worth saving. To 'hail' is "to attract the attention of by shouting or gesturing". This, to
me, implies communication over distance (unless, as per your scenario, Lowe
was leaning over and shouting in the man's ear…or approached, shouting, leaned over very close — closer than a man he had physical contact with in the boat — and then decided to turn away).

True -- but then Lowe didn't reveal his *motivation* to those passengers the way he revealed it to Mrs. Brown.

Nope — they, like the male passenger who saw him in action, got to see his actions first hand and judge for themselves.

In any case, the point is that Lowe admitted that he consciously used his own perception of a man's wealth as a criterion for whether or not that man would be allowed to enter a lifeboat. No matter how one tries to cut the cake, *that* is a petty prejudice that was utterly unworthy of a White Star officer.

I don't know if you recall, but we discussed this briefly on-line one night. I think Lowe's statements, as you reported them via Brown, are in keeping with Lowe's demeanor on the Carpathia. I find it perfectly believable that a man who said to one individual that for an exchange of souvenirs he would give him the bullet he nearly got would also make statements of the kind Brown purports he made. This does not, however, amount to a confession. As you might recall, I have my own theories as to what was motivating Lowe's behavior on the Carpathia.

Look at how Lowe loaded the lifeboats. While working under Murdoch, Lowe
allowed first class men in the boats. While finishing up loading #14, he
continued what Scarrott had started - no men. Period. Not 'no first class
men' - but no men at all. Or rather, one man...he let in Williams, a second class passenger, in order to row.

As I said, those who saw Lowe in action (rather than spoke to him later)
formed their own conclusions about how he loaded the boats. Some, such as
the Comptons when separated from Alexander, found his actions commendable.
Others found his method of separating men from women brutally harsh. Still
others, at least one male passenger among them, commended him for his
determination to ensure that there was no 'dirty play'. Of those who saw him
actually loading the lifeboats, can you produce one witness who noted a
discrimination on his part against first class male passengers? Lowe did
indeed discriminate - but against male passengers as a whole. What strikes
me about what you've cited from the Brown account is that Lowe expressed a
determination not to discriminate in favour of the privileged class - they
would take their chances with everyone else. Yes, his use of 'good men' to
describe the other classes is somewhat risible, as it seems to imply that
'good' and 'first class' are mutually exclusive terms. And, if his comments were born out by fact, I might agree that in this instance he wasn’t a shining example of White Star Line’s finest. It makes an interesting change — Lowe, the scourge of the upper class, as opposed to the usual WSL officers, scourge of the teeming masses.

However — his comments are not borne out by his actions loading the lifeboats. Rather than judging an exhausted, emotional man — already dealing with his own post-disaster aftermath — I’d prefer to judge his fitness to be an officer based on his actual conduct.

Best wishes,

Inger

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Inger!

> I find it perfectly
>believable that a man....... would also make
>statements of the kind Brown purports he made. This does not, however,
>amount to a confession.

Actually, Mrs. Brown indicated that it was more of a boast than a confession; Lowe told her he "saw to it that among those who were saved would not be any of the rich nabobs." In fact, Lowe said this *twice,* and Mrs. Brown said that he "preened his feathers" while he did so. We have absolutely no reason to doubt Mrs. Brown's description of this conversation; indeed, Lowe's cocky attitude indicates that he was nowhere near being an emotional wreck whose statements should not be taken at face value. Quite the contrary -- I think Lowe meant every word he said.

>.... can you produce one witness who noted a
>discrimination on his part against first class male passengers?

Certainly -- Lowe himself described one specific incident to Mrs. Brown to demonstrate that he was in earnest; a certain First Class gentleman wished to get into the lifeboat with his wife and Lowe said that he told that First Class gentleman to "chase himself around the deck."

Lowe's *motivations* are of the utmost importance in telling us about the 'real' Fifth Officer Lowe, and I think Lowe inadvertantly revealed a great deal about his inner person when he discussed his inner motivations with Mrs. Brown. My own impression of the exchange is that Lowe was probably expecting Mrs. Brown to express approval of his startling revelation and that he didn't quite count on the scornful reaction that his heartless statement actually elicited from her.

> Yes, his use of 'good men'
>to
>describe the other classes is somewhat risible, as it seems to imply
>that
>'good' and 'first class' are mutually exclusive terms.

Lowe's insistence that "We saw to it that they (First Class gentlemen) would take their chances with good men" does far more than imply it.

All my best,

George

 

[Jeffrey M. Kern]

Pat - this may sound and seem rather ridiculous and risible, but do you not think that Miss Minahan's sudden drop and deterioration of health a month later had anything to affect/effect her statements? Even by the time she gave her affidavit and letter to Senator Smith (13 May 1912), her health had begun to drop drastically. And we also should look at the type of woman she was — unorthodox in her own way, such as Miss Constance Willard (who flatly refused to enter Lifeboat 8, although finally was persuaded by Colonel Gracie and several other men to enter Lifeboat 10) and a few other ladies in First Class. Certainly one would take into thought and question why Miss Minahan mentioned the sorts of things that she did, i.e. ‘piles of bread’, ‘unruly crowds’, &c. As I mentioned earlier, she may have wanted to be as specific as possible as she knew to whom she wrote and I note that there are many verities in her statement (which is why what she had to say should not be dismissed entirely), although the one thing (of which began this discussion) was the debate between Lowe and herself and its validity in theory. And you also presented a good question — why was it that she did not mention her brother? I think by the time Miss Minahan wrote that affidavit (during her failing health, having contracted tuberculosis from the icy elements of the North Atlantic) she was not willing to allow that fact to be a fact in her mind, hence the unorthodox behaviour she had (which was why she was Miss Daisy Minahan) which had, by that time, increased even more (try living in those conditions with no treatment or antidote). I realise this is quite an odd piece of two cents added to this flaming conversation, as was the other statement given, but I am suggesting that her ill health may have sparked some of that fire which presented itself in a letter and affidavit addressed to the United States Senate Hearings of 1912 and its stated arrangement. It could be something to look at.

Miss Sheil, what are your thoughts on this possibility?

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, George!

> I find it perfectly
>believable that a man....... would also make
>statements of the kind Brown purports he made. This does not, however,
>amount to a confession.

Actually, Mrs. Brown indicated that it was more of a boast than a confession; Lowe told her he "saw to it that among those who were saved would not be any of the rich nabobs." In fact, Lowe said this *twice,* and Mrs. Brown said that he "preened his feathers" while he did so. We have absolutely no reason to doubt Mrs. Brown's description of this conversation; indeed, Lowe's cocky attitude indicates that he was nowhere near being an emotional wreck whose statements should not be taken at face value. Quite the contrary -- I think Lowe meant every word he said.

And this is Mrs Brown’s interpretation of Lowe’s attitude while relating the incident. As I mentioned — I find it in keeping with what he said to other passengers at that time on the Carpathia. I have little doubt that Lowe was justifying to himself — and others — his own survival. He was an officer. He had not been ordered into a boat. His junior, Moody, — who had told him he would get in another boat and whom, according to Scarrott, had been instructed by Lowe to leave in #16 — had not survived. Given the hostility towards some of the male survivors, I find it quite psychologically apt that Lowe was anxious (consciously or unconsciously) to construct himself in whatever way he felt would appeal most to the person was addressing. I believe he did a similar thing in the inquiry when he decided to regale Smith with his account of what he said to Ismay. Lowe, however, modified the impact of his initial remarks, later emphasising that Ismay was trying to assist as best he could. In that instance, an independent witness (not to mention Ismay himself) supported his version of events. On the charge of discriminating against first class passengers, Lowe’s comments as reported by Brown are not supported by the evidence.

“Emotional wreck” is perhaps too strong a term. He was, however, exhausted and dealing with his own reactions to the disaster. These would affect him deeply for the remainder of his life. He would, in future, both insist that he had to wait as long as he did to go back and rescue individuals from the wreckage, and at the same time would regret not having gone back sooner. He would even react publicly with great emotion when speaking of the disaster, and of Harris’ kindness to him. Lowe would not later speak of the disaster willingly, and actively avoided the subject. Don’t you think his prior and subsequent conduct should be taken into account when reading Brown’s version of this exchange? As for taking it at face value — I do not, as I have said believe any account should be taken without question. Eyewitness accounts are subjective, and I would be rejecting my historical training if I were to simply adopt without question every eyewitness account.

>.... can you produce one witness who noted a
>discrimination on his part against first class male passengers?

Certainly -- Lowe himself described one specific incident to Mrs. Brown to demonstrate that he was in earnest; a certain First Class gentleman wished to get into the lifeboat with his wife and Lowe said that he told that First Class gentleman to "chase himself around the deck."

Actually, what I was looking for was a corroborative account for Lowe’s version of events — not the words of Lowe himself, as these are the point of discussion. I had wondered if your quest for ‘unsavoury accounts’ regarding the Fifth Officer had born any fruit. Lowe quite possibly did order a man away from the decks using those terms. I’ve found at least one other account where he ordered a man away at gunpoint. However — in order to prove discrimination against male first class passengers, you would have to demonstrate that Lowe was treating them differently from the other men. And Lowe was not — he was ordering all men back from the boats, in some cases quite aggressively.

Lowe's *motivations* are of the utmost importance in telling us about the 'real' Fifth Officer Lowe, and I think Lowe inadvertantly revealed a great deal about his inner person when he discussed his inner motivations with Mrs. Brown. My own impression of the exchange is that Lowe was probably expecting Mrs. Brown to express approval of his startling revelation and that he didn't quite count on the scornful reaction that his heartless statement actually elicited from her.

As I said above — I tend to agree with you that Lowe was seeking Brown’s approval, and he was tailoring his remarks to appeal to what he (wrongly) believed she would approve. However, what did independent witnesses have to say about his conduct? The Comptons, whose son/brother Alexander was one of those ordered away from the boats in spite of a request to accompany them, were amongst his staunchest admirers. One surviving passenger, as I have pointed out, specifically commended him for his efforts to ensure fair play in loading the boats. And here, I think, lies the truth of the matter. Lowe’s remarks — shorn of his attempt to impress Brown — indicate that he was determined that male first class passengers would be treated the same as the other male passengers. And it is this that is borne out by the witnesses, and the facts of who survived in the boats Lowe loaded.

As to Lowe’s demeanor — this is an important point. Lowe had the misfortune to physically appear ‘cocky’ (upturned nose, thin, wry mouth), and further had a means of expressing himself with terse emphasis and idiosyncratic phrasing that could create that impression. Lowe, however, was — according to those who knew him that we’ve interviewed — a very modest man. The Brown comments must be viewed in context with those of other survivors, such as Harris, who attempted to induce him to take the credit that was due to him (even to the point of a monetary reward). His reaction was to reject both. Even in correspondence with survivors he accepts thank yous with good grace, and doesn’t bask.

This is why I think the Brown report is important — it speaks to his psychological state on the Carpathia, and how he was interacting with passengers. It can’t be read in isolation, however. You need to look at both what independent witnesses saw of his conduct in loading the boats (keeping in mind specific commendations for his attempts to ensure no ‘dirty play’, and those who suggest he was assertive/aggressive in keeping all male passengers back). Likewise, his personal conduct should not be judged on the interpretation of one person. Not Minahan, Harris, either Compton, Collyer, Walfcroft, Cameron, Brown or any other single individual.

Regards,

Inger

 

[Pat Cook]

Folks, I will now leave you to it. This thing is wearing on my nerves yet again and getting nowhere, as it has in the past. And I don't want to be around for the explosion.

Best regards to all,
Cook

who is going back to lifeboat #13 and 'rotten glad of it', to quote Mr. Twain

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Inger!

You wrote:

>And this is Mrs Brown’s interpretation of Lowe’s attitude while relating
>the incident.

Mrs. Brown was there; we weren't.

> Given the hostility towards some of the male survivors, I find
>it quite psychologically apt that Lowe was anxious (consciously or
>unconsciously) to construct himself in whatever way he felt would appeal
>most to the person (he) was addressing.

If Lowe was a chameleon who pretended to be one thing to one person and another thing to another person, Mrs. Brown's impression of Lowe's "cockiness" is every bit as valid as the impressions of those ladies who were swept away by his "manly bearing." Titanic's three professional gamblers were very solicitous and reassuring to the ladies in their own lifeboat, too, but those manly reassurances tell us no more about the gamblers' *inner motivations* than Lowe's manly reassurances to his own passengers tell us about Lowe's *own* inner motivations.

> On the charge of
>discriminating against first class passengers, Lowe’s comments as
>reported by Brown are not supported by the evidence.

If that is indeed true, Lowe shouldn't have attempted to deceive Mrs. Brown.

>Don’t you think his prior and subsequent conduct
>should be taken into account when reading Brown’s version of this
>exchange?

Do I believe that Mrs. Brown was mistaken about Lowe simply because Lowe gave several other people the impression that he was "manly?" No, I don't.

>Eyewitness
>accounts are subjective,

That's why some people were favorably impressed with certain aspects of Lowe's behavior while other people were unfavorably impressed with *other* aspects of his behavior.

>Actually, what I was looking for was a corroborative account for Lowe’s
>version of events — not the words of Lowe himself, as these are the
>point of discussion.

Lowe supported his description of his own behavior by citing a specific example of that behavior. I'm afraid that's the best I can do at the moment.

> However — in order to prove discrimination against male first
>class passengers, you would have to demonstrate that Lowe was treating
>them differently from the other men.

True. However, in order to demonstrate that Lowe may have harbored a secret resentment of his wealthy social betters and that he wished to bring them down to the level of (to use Lowe's own expression) "good men," all we need is for Lowe to have expressed such sentiments to a disinterested second party. Lowe did so (twice!), and I take him at his word.

> — I tend to agree with you that Lowe was seeking Brown’s
>approval, and he was tailoring his remarks to appeal to what he
>(wrongly) believed she would approve.

Oh, I disagree that he was *tailoring* his remarks to *appeal* to Mrs. Brown -- I think he was expressing *genuine* feelings that he *mistakenly* thought she would agree with.

> Lowe had the
>misfortune to physically appear ‘cocky’ (upturned nose, thin, wry
>mouth), and further had a means of expressing himself with terse
>emphasis and idiosyncratic phrasing that could create that impression.

Nevertheless, Lowe was undoubtedly capable of being *genuinely* cocky when he wished to be, and I think you do Mrs. Brown a great disservice when you assume that she was probably mistaken in her assessment of Lowe's attitude.

>Lowe, however, was — according to those who knew him that we’ve
>interviewed — a very modest man.

A modest man can still harbor a secret resentment of his wealthy social betters and feel great satisfaction when those folks are brought down to the level of "good men."

>The Brown comments must be viewed in
>context with those of other survivors, such as Harris, who attempted to
>induce him to take the credit that was due to him

Or perhaps the favorable comments of Mrs. Harris and friends should instead be taken in context with the comments of survivors who may have seen through Lowe's outer pretext and gotten a fleeting glimpse of the 'inner man.' Only by considering *both* the attractive and unattractive aspects of Lowe's personality can we get an accurate picture of Lowe as a living, breathing human being.

But once again we're going around in circles, Inger, so I'm going to follow Pat's lead and bow out of the discussion. Although it's clear that you don't agree with me, I believe that Lowe's personality had a dark side that several survivors got uncomfortable glimpses of during the Titanic disaster. Although it wouldn't be fair to judge Lowe's *entire life* based solely upon that dark side, neither should that dark side be minimized, rationalized or explained away by Titanic reseachers.

I'll look forward to seeing your book when it's been completed. (Don't be surprised, though, if my copy of it eventually contains a few handwritten annotations in the Titanic chapter.) ;-)

All my best,

George

 

[Inger Sheil]

Hallo, Cook!

I hereby solemly promise that, when we get to NY and settle down with the first pint (or whatever they are over there), I'll refrain from regaling you with #14 controversies, and instead will bore you to tears with charming anecdotes about James Moody's early career

Best wishes,

Ing

 

[Inger Sheil]

Jeffrey -

Can't say I've got enough on Minahan at the moment to venture into speculation on whether her health might have had any influence on her statement, as I'm still looking into her background.

I've always wondered if she was the source behind the story that was handed up to Smith during Lowe's testimony at the inquiry alledging Lowe's intoxication. If she had passed that on to her representative, and if Lowe had categorically denied it, it would make sense for Smith to later request a specific affidavit. This is highly speculative, however, and I imagine it is unlikely ever to be proven.

I must admit to a good deal of sympathy for Minahan. She was undergoing an extraordinarily traumatic experience, and being blared at by Lowe certainly did not improve matters. It was one thing for survivors and newspaper reporters to admire Lowe's rebuke of Ismay (one of the most interesting comments in this vein saying that Lowe 'gave him socks'), it would be quite another thing to have that sea-honed language turned on you personally. The rough side of Lowe's tongue, so those who are in a position to know tell us, was very rough indeed.

Regards,

Inger