We know the reverence most people hold for cemeteries – sometimes through the gasps of disgust when one is vandalized.
But there are those who apparently feel the lines are blurred when it comes to a historic centrepiece that still captures fascination, such as the Titanic.
As we approach the 100-year mark following the sinking of the fabled luxury liner, sides are arguing about the ethical implications of taking artifacts from what many maintain is a sunken gravesite.
The remains of more than 1,500 of those who didn’t survive the sinking are in the area of the ship.
Under discussion are thousands of artifacts taken from the site through use of a submarine and now in the hands of a group of American investors.
It’s been the centre of a legal battle, but a Virginia judge recently ruled that 5,000 of the items salvaged can go up for auction in April.
Steve Blasco, a marine biologist with the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, was part of a joint expedition to the wreck in 1991.
He said he’s talked to survivors who say they regard the area as a gravesite, and he too believes those who lost their lives there deserve reverence.
The judge, while ruling that the group has the right to sell the articles, said they must be sold together and eventually be made available for education and public display.
That doesn’t convince everyone. The Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax has made it known it wouldn’t sign on to any such travelling exhibit because, as many argue, it is indeed a gravesite.
Supporters say it’s aimed at preserving artifacts, but would we even for a moment consider doing the same in a cemetery?
Those who went down didn’t choose their final resting place.
Nonetheless they deserve the same respect as any other departed, without the thought of their belongings being taken for someone’s collection.
The group of investors can dress it up as “historical interest”. But it’s got profiteering written all over it.
This editorial first appeared in the Truro Daily News.
