Submitted by That-Situation-4262 t3_zkwxsw in history
WilliamWhit t1_j029xbz wrote
I’m sorry, but expensive or not, we’re not gonna take the chance and look for treasure in the spooky washed up ship?!
That’s just crazy.
Epistatious t1_j02b34e wrote
Looks like its within tide zone? Will be expensive to excavate. Might just be a whaler or fishing boat.
Jebbers199 t1_j05wv2c wrote
Article seems to think it's a cargo ship that was probably carrying fruit from the Caribbean.
Epistatious t1_j07ax27 wrote
Just saying, not every wood boat in the caribbean is laden with gold.
[deleted] t1_j040zkt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j02g62o wrote
[deleted]
C2h6o4Me t1_j0386p0 wrote
That's asinine. I want to believe that you're saying it out of respect for the dead, recognizing that they died there specifically for a reason, etc. But is exhuming bodies that are a few hundred years old for examination, with the unlikely expectation of identification, and (presumably?) later reburial more respectful than than, you know, actually letting them rest in peace? All because of a western concept of what a "proper burial" is defined as?
AnxiousBeaver212 t1_j03m9ks wrote
Not even to mention that shipwrecks with dead inside are commonly respected as cemeteries.
[deleted] t1_j03os24 wrote
[removed]
Pt_Zero t1_j02znmi wrote
But if it’s not a slave ship the crew aren’t worth a proper burial?
arillyis t1_j0315vt wrote
Yup. That's what they said
/s
Pt_Zero t1_j03s98v wrote
Either we’re valuing lives equally or we’re not. If they’re not implying that the slaves bodies are somehow more valuable than the crew of a non-slave ship, it’s a needless and stupid distinction to make. They didn’t explicitly say it, but it’s heavily implied. Otherwise, why make that distinction at all?
ixNet t1_j040sbu wrote
Because slaves didn’t get to decide to be on the boat - they were subjected to the risk of sinking against their will.
Pt_Zero t1_j043vgn wrote
Does it matter in this context? At least you’re willing to admit that in your mind the bodies of slaves are more valuable to you than anyone else. Personally I think they’re all about the same. I think it’s an utterly silly distinction to make especially when we have no clue who any of these people were in life.
ixNet t1_j0456eh wrote
I agree with that and ultimately think bodies should be undisturbed for a plethora of reasons, including contribution to the ecosystems due to tissue decay. I was just pointing out why the contexts of their deaths can be assumed to be even less of their own volition.
OtisTetraxReigns t1_j03zzyo wrote
Are you familiar enough with burial rites of East African cultures of the 18th century to decide what counts as a “proper burial” for those people? Because if not, you’re doing it out of guilt rather than respect for the dead.
Build a memorial, by all means, but leave the bodies alone.
Pt_Zero t1_j043ydz wrote
I think you meant to respond to the person above me…
Princess_Moon_Butt t1_j03aaxb wrote
Slave ship or not, there's a good chance the crew was able to make it off the boat, even if they didn't make it all the way to shore.
But if it was a slave ship, they probably left the "cargo" chained up below deck.
[deleted] t1_j02t5c3 wrote
[removed]
Zberry1985 t1_j02yakw wrote
i'm thinking it's more likely that it was an intentional grounding. everything was probably stripped out and the hull left abandoned.
kloudykat t1_j04ltvs wrote
you sound like Shaggy.
Zoinks Scoob! That's just crazy!
WilliamWhit t1_j05eb0t wrote
Totally grew up on Scooby Doo so that’s amazing 😂
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments