12 ms·

When slaves and free men were shipwrecked together

247 points by I-M-S 11y ago

kstrauser 11y ago
> It was Castellan who had made the decision to scupper L’Utile by cutting her rudder in the hope that more men might be saved. Why would that improve their chances? That intuitively seems like a bad idea, but the people who know what they're doing thought otherwise.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  I think that was meant to provide access to men trapped in the ship, which was not going to go anywhere with or without the rudder.
- gvb 11y ago
  That sentence as written is nonsensical. I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper" (a hole in the side wall at deck level to drain water off the deck). The principle of scuttling the ship is to remove the buoyancy so that the ship settles firmly on the bottom (which is shallow because it is grounded) and does not get pounded to bits as the waves pick it up and slam it back down. This helps keep the ship intact and allows the people more time to get off.
  - munificent 11y ago
    > I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper" When used as a verb, "scupper" means to destroy or thwart.
    - tempestn 11y ago
      If it was intended that way it's an extremely poor choice of words given the very likely confusion in a nautical setting.
  - kstrauser 11y ago
    That makes a lot more sense than anything I could come up with. Thanks!
  - dx211 11y ago
    A contemporary account states "Il y a eu de si violents coups de talon que la barre du gouvernail a fait sauter le tillac de sa chambre, malgré six barreaux en plusieurs endroits, et qui fit déterminer Mr. de Castellan a L’aller couper luy meme." which roughly translates to "There were such violent blows to the rudder, the tiller burst through the deck of its room, despite six bars holding it in place, and Mr. Castellan made the decision to cut it." (From the document linked at the bottom of this page: http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang=fr http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang...)
    - gvb 11y ago
      That makes even more sense. The waves would be slamming the ship onto the bottom which would be attempting to drive the rudder through the ship every time. This would threaten to break the ship up very rapidly. By cutting the rudder free, it would no longer be breaking the ship up, but it would leave a major hole where the rudder post came in, resulting in scuttling the ship.
      - dx211 11y ago
        I think the part about "scuppering" is just some nautical-sounding nonsense that the author of the article threw in. If you read the account I linked to above, it's saying they jettisoned the masts, then cut the rudder, then threw the cannons overboard, but despite these the ship eventually broke apart. Like you say, it sounds like they were trying to stabilize it to reduce the damage, but my impression is they were trying to make it lighter and less top-heavy rather than intentionally sink it.
        Angostura 11y ago
        In British English if something is 'scuppered (often someone's chances) it is destroyed or sunk. I assume the author was going for this verb usage.
  - Angostura 11y ago
    In British English, 'scupper' can act as a verb effectively a synonym of 'scuttle'. The Economist used British English.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Fascinating tale. But why no pictures at all? Just a drawing. Here's google maps' view: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.887665,54.518924,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s51527737!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FiMhyFUkn4LJgwo9p8DjAUZt0vlqw-WwVhSy_sTrUodfRWDx5vbsokN0DWBptPTKfGrd8C4cokaPA8UYgxRRoPlzLlFJcuQ%3Dw203-h134!7i1000!8i661!4m2!3m1!1s0x223214bebf13fbd7:0x7691448fcb61642d?hl=en
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  Linked + google earthed and zoomed in: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,54.5226545,1845m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x22326be19257779f:0xa87dedc462b1ef20 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,...
  - scoot 11y ago
    Why does an island which is barely long enough to support a runway need a runway?!
    - enraged_camel 11y ago
      Such runways are built in order to provide an emergency landing zone for trans-oceanic flights.
    - oska 11y ago
      Because even small islands in the Indian Ocean have strategic value (especially one with a permanent source of water). And because flying in is a lot easier than getting there by sea.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Because flying a three-man team to such an island is often much cheaper/easier/safer/faster than boating them in. And when people are hurt, getting them out by plane is the only life-sustaining option. Broken bones do not do well in small boats. (See the OP for issues surrounding getting people in and out of this place by boat.) A more extreme example would be oil rigs (tiny island) that are serviced more often by helicopters than boats.
partisan 11y ago
This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it. It's sobering when we consider sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile to our existence.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it. The very bare minimum of basics - hardly any water, and hardly any food. But it did sustain over a dozen people for over a dozen years, with basically scraps of the ship they came in!
- freshyill 11y ago
  The basics for life, provided you are a nesting seagull.
- beat 11y ago
  The floor of a deep sea trench provides the basics for life, too (and is covered with living things), but we would die instantly if left there. "Basics for life" and "basics for human life" are two very different things.
- jdhzzz 11y ago
  That is a difference of degree not kind. Without modern technology (shelter, heat, clothing, potable water, easily obtainable food) I'd quickly perish where i sit as would most others of our species. Sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile to our existence is only a variant of sending people to Antarctica or undersea for months (years?) at a time.
- Retra 11y ago
  They did not plan to live on that island. If they had, they would probably have done fine.
eevilspock 11y ago
> the crew was disinclined to work, all but 20 preferring the more leisurely task of bird-hunting to manual labour. > The problem of the slothful crew could be overcome with the help of the Malagasy slaves. “The slaves toiled with great zeal in this work,” > On September 27th 1761, two months after the shipwreck, it was the 123-strong white crew who boarded the Providence—including around 100 who had played no part in its construction. And whites waited 15 years before finally going back to rescue the slaves. Only 7 of the original 160 black slaves had survived. And people wonder why black Americans today are so angry and distrustful?
- pc86 11y ago
  I'm curious what exactly you think a French ship sailing from Madagascar in 1761 has to do with African Americans in 2015.
  - cmdrfred 11y ago
    Because that narrative allows for blaming others for personal failings.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      While the GP's offhanded connecting of the dots between a slave ship and African-Americans might be unnecessary, implying that the plight of minorities in the United States stems solely from their personal failings is no less simplistic or naive than the original statement. Socioeconomic status and race are a whole lot more complicated than "minorities need to work harder", which is what "personal failings" typically translates to. Entrenched poverty and the effects of legalized second-class citizenship don't simply disappear in 60-70 years.
      - cmdrfred 11y ago
        That is not what I meant. Of course racists exist in modern society. I had a few African American roommates years ago. They would espouse beliefs that the slave trade is the reason they were in the position they were in financially. They were all enrolled in college, did not work and everything was paid for by their parents. I was washing dishes and going hungry. Now I own a house and was told by one of them it was due to my 'white privilege'. It's utter bullshit. Poverty is the problem, racism is the smokescreen the powerful hide behind while they run off with all the money.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
> One of [the women]—oddly, on an island with no men—held an eight-month-old baby boy. What oddly? There were men on there just a year prior, in August of 1775: > Why had only seven castaways survived, when 14 had been spotted weeks before? It seems the newly marooned sailor had tried his luck as a latter-day Castellan. With the help of the now-natives, one assumes, he had salvaged whatever could still be used from L’Utile’s wreck and built his own Providence. Sails were improvised from birds’ feathers. Unlike Castellan, the unnamed sailor had taken some of the slaves: the last three men and three women. Also unlike his predecessor, he failed to reach Madagascar. The article even speculates that the white sailor was the father. I'm also not sure why it says "14 spotted weeks before" - according to the article, over a year had passed since the 14 were spotted.
- schoen 11y ago
  I think the "oddly" was meant to be from the perspective of those who first encountered the women, not from the perspective of the writer or the reader. Maybe it would be clearer as "surprisingly" or "at first surprisingly".
lazyant 11y ago
I find it incredible that they maintained a fire for 15 years, just from wood from the shipwreck.
- saalweachter 11y ago
  It is indeed incredible, given the tiny wood supply, but maintaining a fire continually has historically been a very common practice. Simply put -- starting a fire is a pain. The easiest way to light your own fire was off your neighbor's fire; the easiest way to light a fire when traveling was to preserve a smoldering ember of your previous fire and carry it with you.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Yes, but like the parent comment I would not expect a single ship's wood, of which a portion was used to make a 33-foot raft and some must have been lost to sea or be in unreachable locations to be sufficient to keep the fire going for 15 years. I suspect there were other sources, such as the shrubbery, or dried seaweed, or something. That they would have any original wood left to burn at that time to even make it look like they've been using it as a primary source for 15 years seems amazing to me.
    - jkot 11y ago
      Remote islands are usually filled with several tons of bird droppings
    - madaxe_again 11y ago
      Bear in mind that the ship was likely made of heavily pitched timber, which will have had a very high energy density. Also, ships are big. You'd be surprised how much lumber goes into one. For instance, the hull would be feet thick towards the keel.
    - mixmax 11y ago
      It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped wooden boat in my fire stove so I know how much fire you get out of a boat. The boat in question was a 15 meter long oak on oak boat. It lasted 2 winters for 2 homes with a fire stove, and we didn't even burn it all. There's an amazing amount of wood in a boat, particularly around the keel. The framing, keel and other structural elements are made of really heavy timber. On top of that good wooden boats are (were..) built of slowgrown oak that is incredibly dense. One large piece would last for 6-8 hours in my stove and give off a lot of heat. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a 25-30 meter boat would last for 15 years if you the goal was primarily to keep the fire going, only getting it really big/hot when needed.
maceo 11y ago
This article is full of misnomers. First of all, the "slaves" were actually kidnapped Africans. They had yet to do a day of forced labor and had not yet undergone the years of conditioning it took to turn a free man into a slave. Second, the "free men" were actually slave traders. Yes, there was a ban on slave trading at the time, but that didn't stop them. If you're interested in learning about what happens when kidnapped Africans and free men come into contact, study what happens when slave ships came into contact with pirate ships. As a general rule, pirate ships were egalitarian, as it helped preserve social harmony on the ship. And the composition of the crew was usually multiracial. Over 60% of Blackbeard's crew was black. Oftentimes, when the pirates took control of a slave ship, they would take the goods they wanted, free and arm the kidnapped Africans, and let the ship go on its way.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Well, if you want to get into misnomers, calling all the "free men" slavers may be going a bit far. The vessel was not nominally a slave ship, it was a side business of the captain, and speculating on whether the other crew and/or passengers that signed on to a ship sailing in seas where slave trading was banned knew that slaves would later be brought on board at a separate port is hard to do accurately without a lot more information.
  - senthil_rajasek 11y ago
    Ignorance is not a defense. Also, it would still be considered aiding and abetting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Ignorance is a defense against aiding and abetting. You can't abet something if you don't know about it. You can unknowingly aid it, but any legal system that prosecutes people for their role crimes they had no knowledge of is not a just system. Some non-enslaved/kidnapped people of the ship may have had no knowledge of the cargo, or if they did, may not yet have had an opportunity to notify authorities at a port after learning. Calling them slave traders before they've had an opportunity to show their side one way or another is no different than calling the kidnapped people slaves before they've been actually put into slavery. To be clear, I believe most the people on the ship probably would not raise any alarm over the situation, at least not enough to cause legal trouble, but if you are going to be pedantic about terminology in this way, it only makes sense to do the same in all cases brought forth, unless you are using terminology to manipulate the perspective (this is not an accusation). Note: Edited slightly for clarity and typos.
amelius 11y ago
Sounds like a good plot for a movie :)
adrianh 11y ago
Here's a French documentary about the island, with plenty of video footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U
CurtMonash 11y ago
When I saw the headline (including the publication) I expected a reference to The Admirable Crichton. But the story didn't really support that, and the tone was too somber anyway.

247 points by I-M-S 11y ago

> It was Castellan who had made the decision to scupper L’Utile by cutting her rudder in the hope that more men might be saved. Why would that improve their chances? That intuitively seems like a bad idea, but the people who know what they're doing thought otherwise.

Jtsummers 11y ago
I think that was meant to provide access to men trapped in the ship, which was not going to go anywhere with or without the rudder.
gvb 11y ago
That sentence as written is nonsensical. I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper" (a hole in the side wall at deck level to drain water off the deck). The principle of scuttling the ship is to remove the buoyancy so that the ship settles firmly on the bottom (which is shallow because it is grounded) and does not get pounded to bits as the waves pick it up and slam it back down. This helps keep the ship intact and allows the people more time to get off.
- munificent 11y ago
  > I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper" When used as a verb, "scupper" means to destroy or thwart.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    If it was intended that way it's an extremely poor choice of words given the very likely confusion in a nautical setting.
- kstrauser 11y ago
  That makes a lot more sense than anything I could come up with. Thanks!
- dx211 11y ago
  A contemporary account states "Il y a eu de si violents coups de talon que la barre du gouvernail a fait sauter le tillac de sa chambre, malgré six barreaux en plusieurs endroits, et qui fit déterminer Mr. de Castellan a L’aller couper luy meme." which roughly translates to "There were such violent blows to the rudder, the tiller burst through the deck of its room, despite six bars holding it in place, and Mr. Castellan made the decision to cut it." (From the document linked at the bottom of this page: http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang=fr http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang...)
  - gvb 11y ago
    That makes even more sense. The waves would be slamming the ship onto the bottom which would be attempting to drive the rudder through the ship every time. This would threaten to break the ship up very rapidly. By cutting the rudder free, it would no longer be breaking the ship up, but it would leave a major hole where the rudder post came in, resulting in scuttling the ship.
    - dx211 11y ago
      I think the part about "scuppering" is just some nautical-sounding nonsense that the author of the article threw in. If you read the account I linked to above, it's saying they jettisoned the masts, then cut the rudder, then threw the cannons overboard, but despite these the ship eventually broke apart. Like you say, it sounds like they were trying to stabilize it to reduce the damage, but my impression is they were trying to make it lighter and less top-heavy rather than intentionally sink it.
      - Angostura 11y ago
        In British English if something is 'scuppered (often someone's chances) it is destroyed or sunk. I assume the author was going for this verb usage.
- Angostura 11y ago
  In British English, 'scupper' can act as a verb effectively a synonym of 'scuttle'. The Economist used British English.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Fascinating tale. But why no pictures at all? Just a drawing. Here's google maps' view: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.887665,54.518924,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s51527737!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FiMhyFUkn4LJgwo9p8DjAUZt0vlqw-WwVhSy_sTrUodfRWDx5vbsokN0DWBptPTKfGrd8C4cokaPA8UYgxRRoPlzLlFJcuQ%3Dw203-h134!7i1000!8i661!4m2!3m1!1s0x223214bebf13fbd7:0x7691448fcb61642d?hl=en

mmanfrin 11y ago
Linked + google earthed and zoomed in: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,54.5226545,1845m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x22326be19257779f:0xa87dedc462b1ef20 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,...
- scoot 11y ago
  Why does an island which is barely long enough to support a runway need a runway?!
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    Such runways are built in order to provide an emergency landing zone for trans-oceanic flights.
  - oska 11y ago
    Because even small islands in the Indian Ocean have strategic value (especially one with a permanent source of water). And because flying in is a lot easier than getting there by sea.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Because flying a three-man team to such an island is often much cheaper/easier/safer/faster than boating them in. And when people are hurt, getting them out by plane is the only life-sustaining option. Broken bones do not do well in small boats. (See the OP for issues surrounding getting people in and out of this place by boat.) A more extreme example would be oil rigs (tiny island) that are serviced more often by helicopters than boats.

partisan 11y ago

This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it. It's sobering when we consider sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile to our existence.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
> This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it. The very bare minimum of basics - hardly any water, and hardly any food. But it did sustain over a dozen people for over a dozen years, with basically scraps of the ship they came in!
freshyill 11y ago
The basics for life, provided you are a nesting seagull.
beat 11y ago
The floor of a deep sea trench provides the basics for life, too (and is covered with living things), but we would die instantly if left there. "Basics for life" and "basics for human life" are two very different things.
jdhzzz 11y ago
That is a difference of degree not kind. Without modern technology (shelter, heat, clothing, potable water, easily obtainable food) I'd quickly perish where i sit as would most others of our species. Sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile to our existence is only a variant of sending people to Antarctica or undersea for months (years?) at a time.
Retra 11y ago
They did not plan to live on that island. If they had, they would probably have done fine.

eevilspock 11y ago

> the crew was disinclined to work, all but 20 preferring the more leisurely task of bird-hunting to manual labour. > The problem of the slothful crew could be overcome with the help of the Malagasy slaves. “The slaves toiled with great zeal in this work,” > On September 27th 1761, two months after the shipwreck, it was the 123-strong white crew who boarded the Providence—including around 100 who had played no part in its construction. And whites waited 15 years before finally going back to rescue the slaves. Only 7 of the original 160 black slaves had survived. And people wonder why black Americans today are so angry and distrustful?

pc86 11y ago
I'm curious what exactly you think a French ship sailing from Madagascar in 1761 has to do with African Americans in 2015.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  Because that narrative allows for blaming others for personal failings.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    While the GP's offhanded connecting of the dots between a slave ship and African-Americans might be unnecessary, implying that the plight of minorities in the United States stems solely from their personal failings is no less simplistic or naive than the original statement. Socioeconomic status and race are a whole lot more complicated than "minorities need to work harder", which is what "personal failings" typically translates to. Entrenched poverty and the effects of legalized second-class citizenship don't simply disappear in 60-70 years.
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      That is not what I meant. Of course racists exist in modern society. I had a few African American roommates years ago. They would espouse beliefs that the slave trade is the reason they were in the position they were in financially. They were all enrolled in college, did not work and everything was paid for by their parents. I was washing dishes and going hungry. Now I own a house and was told by one of them it was due to my 'white privilege'. It's utter bullshit. Poverty is the problem, racism is the smokescreen the powerful hide behind while they run off with all the money.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

> One of [the women]—oddly, on an island with no men—held an eight-month-old baby boy. What oddly? There were men on there just a year prior, in August of 1775: > Why had only seven castaways survived, when 14 had been spotted weeks before? It seems the newly marooned sailor had tried his luck as a latter-day Castellan. With the help of the now-natives, one assumes, he had salvaged whatever could still be used from L’Utile’s wreck and built his own Providence. Sails were improvised from birds’ feathers. Unlike Castellan, the unnamed sailor had taken some of the slaves: the last three men and three women. Also unlike his predecessor, he failed to reach Madagascar. The article even speculates that the white sailor was the father. I'm also not sure why it says "14 spotted weeks before" - according to the article, over a year had passed since the 14 were spotted.

schoen 11y ago
I think the "oddly" was meant to be from the perspective of those who first encountered the women, not from the perspective of the writer or the reader. Maybe it would be clearer as "surprisingly" or "at first surprisingly".

lazyant 11y ago

I find it incredible that they maintained a fire for 15 years, just from wood from the shipwreck.

saalweachter 11y ago
It is indeed incredible, given the tiny wood supply, but maintaining a fire continually has historically been a very common practice. Simply put -- starting a fire is a pain. The easiest way to light your own fire was off your neighbor's fire; the easiest way to light a fire when traveling was to preserve a smoldering ember of your previous fire and carry it with you.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Yes, but like the parent comment I would not expect a single ship's wood, of which a portion was used to make a 33-foot raft and some must have been lost to sea or be in unreachable locations to be sufficient to keep the fire going for 15 years. I suspect there were other sources, such as the shrubbery, or dried seaweed, or something. That they would have any original wood left to burn at that time to even make it look like they've been using it as a primary source for 15 years seems amazing to me.
  - jkot 11y ago
    Remote islands are usually filled with several tons of bird droppings
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Bear in mind that the ship was likely made of heavily pitched timber, which will have had a very high energy density. Also, ships are big. You'd be surprised how much lumber goes into one. For instance, the hull would be feet thick towards the keel.
  - mixmax 11y ago
    It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped wooden boat in my fire stove so I know how much fire you get out of a boat. The boat in question was a 15 meter long oak on oak boat. It lasted 2 winters for 2 homes with a fire stove, and we didn't even burn it all. There's an amazing amount of wood in a boat, particularly around the keel. The framing, keel and other structural elements are made of really heavy timber. On top of that good wooden boats are (were..) built of slowgrown oak that is incredibly dense. One large piece would last for 6-8 hours in my stove and give off a lot of heat. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a 25-30 meter boat would last for 15 years if you the goal was primarily to keep the fire going, only getting it really big/hot when needed.

maceo 11y ago

This article is full of misnomers. First of all, the "slaves" were actually kidnapped Africans. They had yet to do a day of forced labor and had not yet undergone the years of conditioning it took to turn a free man into a slave. Second, the "free men" were actually slave traders. Yes, there was a ban on slave trading at the time, but that didn't stop them. If you're interested in learning about what happens when kidnapped Africans and free men come into contact, study what happens when slave ships came into contact with pirate ships. As a general rule, pirate ships were egalitarian, as it helped preserve social harmony on the ship. And the composition of the crew was usually multiracial. Over 60% of Blackbeard's crew was black. Oftentimes, when the pirates took control of a slave ship, they would take the goods they wanted, free and arm the kidnapped Africans, and let the ship go on its way.

kbenson 11y ago
Well, if you want to get into misnomers, calling all the "free men" slavers may be going a bit far. The vessel was not nominally a slave ship, it was a side business of the captain, and speculating on whether the other crew and/or passengers that signed on to a ship sailing in seas where slave trading was banned knew that slaves would later be brought on board at a separate port is hard to do accurately without a lot more information.
- senthil_rajasek 11y ago
  Ignorance is not a defense. Also, it would still be considered aiding and abetting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Ignorance is a defense against aiding and abetting. You can't abet something if you don't know about it. You can unknowingly aid it, but any legal system that prosecutes people for their role crimes they had no knowledge of is not a just system. Some non-enslaved/kidnapped people of the ship may have had no knowledge of the cargo, or if they did, may not yet have had an opportunity to notify authorities at a port after learning. Calling them slave traders before they've had an opportunity to show their side one way or another is no different than calling the kidnapped people slaves before they've been actually put into slavery. To be clear, I believe most the people on the ship probably would not raise any alarm over the situation, at least not enough to cause legal trouble, but if you are going to be pedantic about terminology in this way, it only makes sense to do the same in all cases brought forth, unless you are using terminology to manipulate the perspective (this is not an accusation). Note: Edited slightly for clarity and typos.

amelius 11y ago

Sounds like a good plot for a movie :)

adrianh 11y ago

Here's a French documentary about the island, with plenty of video footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U

CurtMonash 11y ago

When I saw the headline (including the publication) I expected a reference to The Admirable Crichton. But the story didn't really support that, and the tone was too somber anyway.