Ever since his own story made it into the newspapers, Monet had been casually buying a copy of the "New York Post" these days. Even though he knew the contents well, taking a look still managed to satisfy his vanity. However, today, as he glanced at a news article in the paper, he couldn't help but become infuriated. The title of the article was "Shameful Chinese People!"
The article claimed that the Titanic had carried 2,224 passengers, but only 710 had survived, resulting in a survival rate of merely 31.7%, with male survival rate being as low as 20%.
Among these 2,224 passengers, there were 8 Chinese individuals, and astonishingly, 6 of them managed to survive, yielding a remarkable survival rate of 75%. The reason behind this high survival rate, as alleged by the article, was that they had disguised themselves as women by wearing headscarves and concealed themselves in lifeboats, shamelessly depriving women and children of their chances to survive. In contrast, the noble English and American gentlemen selflessly gave way to women and children. There were even suspicions that these 8 Chinese individuals were actually stowaways who hadn't bought tickets at all!
However, in reality, these 8 Chinese individuals were employees of the British Donaldson Line. Due to a strike in the United States, they were dispatched to the SS Anat, which was anchored at the New York Harbor, to tend to the boilers (this ship was originally used for transporting tropical fruits). The company had purchased a collective third-class ticket for them and arranged for them to transfer ships immediately upon arriving at the New York Harbor, thus avoiding the "Chinese Exclusion Act" of 1882. (At that time, many European companies preferred to hire Chinese employees due to their lower wages, their cooperative behavior, and their strong work ethic.)
Furthermore, they didn't disguise themselves as women or secretly hide in a lifeboat. Instead, five of them survived by using a damaged lifeboat that no one else had boarded. One person, similar to Ruth, clung to a piece of wreckage until the rescue boat arrived.
As for why the British and American media chose to defame the Chinese people, the reason was rather straightforward: the Chinese were easy targets at the time, bearing the blame for such a significant incident was necessary, after all.
Firstly, the British were certainly not suitable, as they had to be portrayed as gentlemen.
Then, the Italians had the backing of their government, not to mention the tradition of the Mafia.
The Irish were also not a viable option, as they were engaged in a movement for independence against the British, and the newspapers wouldn't dare provoke them.
The black population might have fit the criteria, but the problem was that there was only one black person on the ship at the time, and they had died.
So, in the end, it fell upon the Chinese, who had the highest number of survivors and were the most vulnerable targets for defamation.
Even more disheartening, a Chinese writer named Hong Hao contributed to the slander in the magazine "West Wind," publishing an article titled "National Shame on the Titanic." The article initially promoted the valor and chivalry depicted by the Western media and then blindly followed their description of the six Chinese survivors. This resulted in unjustly condemning these innocent compatriots, all as a means to support his theory of China's supposed "negative traits."
It took a century for this injustice to be rectified. A young British man created a documentary titled "THE SIX," finally clearing the century-old injustice from their names.
Though Monet was aware of this incident, he found himself in a position of limited influence and uncertain knowledge about the whereabouts of the SS Anat. Nonetheless, he resolved in his heart to seize an opportunity to gather evidence and reveal this truth to the world, thus helping these six Chinese survivors clear their names in their lifetimes.
With this complex sentiment in mind, Monet returned to the "New York Post." His appearance surprised the editor-in-chief, Mr. Russell, as he believed Monet had settled his payment, implying there was no need for him to return.
However, Monet mysteriously addressed him, saying, "Mr. Editor-in-Chief, I thought of a brilliant idea yesterday that could earn you a substantial amount of money!"
"Why wouldn't you pursue this idea for yourself, Mr. Monet?" Russell retorted unmoved.
Monet shrugged, replying, "Because I lack the necessary capital for it; otherwise, I would have pursued it myself."
"How much capital is required?" Russell asked casually.
Monet pondered for a moment and then replied, "Um, it would probably take around ten thousand dollars, but I assure you that you can make at least fifty thousand dollars!"
"Oh? Mr. Monet, why are you so confident?" Russell asked curiously.
"It's quite simple, really. I just need to show you, and you'll understand. But before that, you have to promise to give me five hundred dollars once you adopt this approach!"
Upon hearing that he didn't need to pay upfront and considering their previous collaboration, Russell's impression of Monet was still positive. So, he reluctantly said, "Well then, Mr. Monet, show me the source of your confidence!"
Monet reached into his pocket and pulled out a book, handing it to Russell. "Take a look at this book. It will explain everything!"
Russell took the book and saw that its title was "The Wreck of the Titan or Futility." It had been published in 1898, and the author was a British man named Morgan Robertson.
Until that moment, Russell didn't understand Monet's intention. But when he read the book's synopsis, he was utterly astonished. The book recounted the process of a luxurious giant ship named the "Titan" colliding with an iceberg and sinking. What was even more incredible was that the details described in the book were nearly identical to the sinking of the "Titanic."
For instance, both ships sank on their maiden voyages, during the month of April, on routes from England to the United States. The high casualty rate among passengers was attributed to the lack of lifeboats. Not to mention, the similarity in ship names was uncanny.
Staring in disbelief, Russell turned to Monet and asked, "Mr. Monet, is it possible that you've authored this book?"
"Of course not. Do you think I could write so many words, typeset, print, and bind a book in just a few days?"
In fact, even if Monet hadn't explained, Russell would have understood the underlying truth. After all, he was in the publishing business. His earlier question was driven by sheer amazement!
Once he regained his composure, Russell realized the enormous business opportunity presented by this situation. If he were to spread this story in the newspaper, the curious public would surely rush to buy it. Selling tens of thousands of copies shouldn't be a problem. Hence, Monet's claim of earning fifty thousand dollars seemed quite reasonable. As for why Monet himself wasn't doing this, it was probably due to his lack of distribution channels and printing costs.
However, Russell still had a lingering question, so he asked Monet, "Mr. Monet, now that I know about this book, aren't you worried that I won't pay you?"
PS: "The Wreck of the Titan or Futility" is a real book, not a fabrication.
Hello everyone,
If you enjoy reading this novel and want to read 5 Chapters ahead of schedule, then please join my Patreon.
Or Consider donating! at Paypal or Ko-fi.
Your support is greatly appreciated
why would they look for scapegoats? wasn't it because of an iceberg? seems like the mc is just looking for excuses, and 70 years is too late for truth to be uncovered, it's likely falsified to suit the current political situation at the time, "they used an broken raft" how would they know that after 70 years? and the mc seems to be putting them on an pedestal, like they were infallible pilers of paragon, that wouldn't have taken an raft for their own survival, if it wasn't an "broken raft that no one wanted". the stats doesn't lie, an disproportionate survival rate, and i doubt the other men would just sink with the ship, instead of using an supposed "broken raft".
ReplyDelete