You must log in or # to comment.
The hypocrisy isn’t with the sub. Extensive rescue efforts always happen with oddball accidents and disappearances. Any sub or ship disappearing while exploring the Titanic would get the same attention.
The hypocrisy is with handling refugees in general. Just like with the local homeless, nobody simply knows what to do with them, everyone likes to pretend they kinda care but also want the problem to go away, and nobody wants to have them in their own back yard.
Well, unless it’s Ukrainians with “blond hair and blue eyes” (yea I’m not getting over that, because that’s exactly how people think about this situation) who are welcome with open arms and get free housing and care. Because all war refugees are equal, but some are more equal.
But some black kids? If a couple hundred drown, that’s just less problems for the western countries.
That’s how it works.
blond hair and blue eyes
Yes, I‘m sure it‘s their hair and eye color rather than the obvious fact that refugees from war torn countries in the Middle East have endangered public security here. It‘s not groups of Ukrainians that have quite literally raped and killed children in my country.
That all refugees are equal sounds like some lefty thing, in reality they obviously are not. Turning a blind eye to reality and accusing those that do not of racism isn’t going to win any elections. That’s why I doubt any efforts that would help more refugees come to Europe would be politically successful.
For what it‘s worth I am sorry for the refugees. I don’t know how we can help the situation without risking our own safety. Crying racism isn’t going to do it. We would need to convince voters that a solution does not threaten safety here.
I‘d imagine that if we want to implement stronger sea rescue operations, we would need a legal basis for bringing the rescued to another location, rather than settling them in Europe while we start years long asylum processes that can never realistically be fair. I doubt voters are going to approve otherwise.
Well I didn’t think we had any of you people on this platform, but I guess you spread everywhere.
What country are you talking about specifically, are they actually “risking security” or does the news just highlight every individual case so it looks that way?
tl;dr:
On June 14, what is believed to be one of the deadliest refugee and migrant shipwrecks occurred off the Greek coast, potentially claiming the lives of around 800 individuals. The Canary Islands off the coast of West Africa have become the main destination for migrants trying to reach Spain, with a smaller amount of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to the Spanish mainland. The Mediterranean Sea has also become a perilous route for migrants seeking a better life in Europe, with a tragic loss of life. Over the years, countless migrants have embarked on treacherous journeys, often packed onto overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels in their desperate attempt to reach European shores. According to the UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, although the total number of migrants who embark upon the dangerous journey has fallen since the peak in 2015, the number of those who are killed during the dangerous endeavor has in fact risen.
I am a bot in training. Suggestions?
Oh. Nice bot :)
“Why is such an extensive and expensive effort being made to rescue five people who took a voluntary leisure excursion when thousands of migrants are constantly drowning in their effort to escape hardship, poverty, and war? While some of the Titan’s passengers paid $250,000 for their doomed trip, migrants are often penniless and are escaping to western countries to find work. Why aren’t nations working together to help them and save them from dying at sea?”
The reasons are pretty obvious.
2 incidents I can think of - Chilean miners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Copiap%C3%B3_mining_accident , Thai kids rescued from Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tham_Luang_cave_rescue. I’m sure ther are more , malaysia MH370…
The world responds without prejudice when these kinds of out-of-the-ordinary accidents happen. Refugees is a completely separate issue and needs its own discussion. So does homelessness, Mental health, prescription drug abuse… Saving lives doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.
My criticism on this topic isn’t attached to the rescue efforts, but to the media coverage.
Attempting to save people is a good thing. There’s few people so truly undeserving that they don’t deserve the attempt, and I don’t trust myself to make that distinction.
But what made this story such catnip to everyone who had a platform?
Was it the submarine? A conveyance so exotic it captures the imagination. Was it the passengers? Not famous but wealthy, and easy to know about. Was it the destination? Our obsession with the Titanic has a constantly refreshing shelf life, it seems. Or was it more morbid— the imaginary oxygen clock ticking down breath by breath, trapped beneath an uncaring sea.
Whatever thing or combination it was, this story was goddamn everywhere.
But I don’t know that the media ought to carry all the blame. They supplied the drug, but it’s not like we haven’t taken the hit every chance we can get.
Every story about every development gets comments and discussions. The story is the star of many a “have you heard?” conversation. And every schmo with a classist axe to grind is gleefully grinding it in the briny deep.
But maybe I’m chasing the wrong thing here; moralising about what is printed, what is read, and what the “right” kind of news is. It might be that “news as entertainment” is just something people like, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong in it besides what I was taught and have imagined to be so. Perhaps in accepting it as valid, I can retrain those criticisms on what actually is healthy or unhealthy about it.
Novelty is key here. Novelty + Titanic + billionaires + hubris equals an unbeatable level of novelty in any news cycle. Tragically, immigrants drowning is no longer novel. Speaking of novel, I highly recommend The Beekeeper of Aleppo for anyone wanting an insight into why people cram onto these little boats and set sail. Warning: it is harrowing. Also, a shoutout to the RNLI, whose volunteers carry on saving lives at sea in the face of criticism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65893789
If I remember correctly the Chilean miner rescue was covered as extensively here in Germany as the search for the Titan. Another example would be the Kursk drama, which received huge media coverage as well. I think it’s that these dramas unfold over several days and thus capture the interest of the people. The coverage would be far less if the fate of the submersible has been known on day one, as is often the case with the horrible deaths in the Mediterranean.
I’d say if there were never refugees on a boat, and suddenly one appears and was in distress then tehre would be a lot of coverage (though even now there is a lot of coverage on the boats that capsize, and not much if any of the ones that arrive that are known).
If there were kids getting stuck in caves in Thailand every week, it would quickly become not-news-worthy.
Even if the reasons are obvious it doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about it. Ever heard of doing something for the wrong reason?
Oh sure, we can discuss it. I just didn’t have much time to write a long comment!
This is a complicated issue, and the most obvious reason I would say is that these rich people and white explorers are more “important” than refugees, due to their background and money.
There is a debate on whether to allow refugees into citizen’s countries. If so, how many? Should you allow all of them? What if there was a catastrophe and 2 million people moved through Europe? What if 1 million refugees attempted to enter your country?
This is likely a never ending debate as the “answers” are valid for one group of people, and changes as societal standards change.
The refugees crisis comes down to power consolidation, and natural resources.
If the people in power save a boat, they set the precedent, save all boats, open borders, people are people etc.
The people in powerful positions are only powerful because there are many people without any type of power, sacrifices if you will.
Of course they saved the rich guys. They have more “pull” within the current power structure.
This has all the makings of a film scenario: maverick inventor who defies the rules, in his own submarine, visiting the Titanic, with a limited crew with personal involvement, visiting the Titanic. Then they go missing and there’s a very clear countdown timer by when they need to be rescued or it’s certainly too late. Of course it appeals to the public.
The sharks in Hollywood are already ripping each other to shreds for who gets the film rights.
Such a stupid take:
- We know way less about submarines, especially non-military ones, so that we can get way more info from finding the cause of the failure with submarines compared to normal boats, especially as refugee boats often are very obviously overcrowded.
- There likely would be a way greater effort to save refugees if it didn’t mean them coming to Europe. Just from a monetary perspective, saving 300 refugees is probably more expensive than saving a handful of rich people in the long run.
- Even though it’s dangerous, it seems way less dangerous than the titanic drive. Here, the failure rate was 1 in 4, and by far not that many refugee boats sink
I mean, completely different part of the world with different rescue agencies. I get it. But ya…
At this point, there’s been more articles about this supposed hypocrisy than about either disaster. The media is really milking this for all it’s worth.
