Be careful that a certain political group thinks that there is something offensive about her and want to dismantle this part of history!
Thought I would liven up this thread
Thought I would liven up this thread
Another black eye for Baltimore
- Thread starter DAVA390
- Start date
The boat was built in 1988; so, is that really "history?" There may lie her true vulnerability. We have a replica of the Pilgrim at Dana Pt., plus a statue of Dana himself in the park there. She was the brig that sailed from Boston to the coast of California between San Francisco and San Diego to trade for hides, about which Dana wrote his famous book Two Years Before the Mast. Turns out he did not go back on that same boat, if I remember correctly. But in any event, that really is "history" even though the boat itself is not from the period, nor even built in the US.
https://www.ocean-institute.org/general-information/about-pilgrim
Last edited:
I guess I'm a bit confused about this comment. What is offensive about her history? Is she celebrating the role of privateers in defeating the British Navy in the war of 1812? The participation of Baltimore in the slave trade in the 18th century?
Not sure it really does as it is not a reproduction of any historical boat. It was built as a monument to history, but it is not historical, except in concept.
The Pride is a very accurate replica of a Baltimore Clipper, a speed-boat in her time and probably the pinnacle of ship design during the age of sail. There we few tall ships then or now that could outrun her. Even today when she races the bay during the Great Schooner Race she is a top finisher, typically only beat by the pilot schooner Virginia which is a rocket. The ship Amistad is said to be a knock-off of a Baltimore Clipper.
I read a lot of sailing literature of various types, which regrettably leaves me at times not remembering where I've picked up some interesting information. But regarding Clipper ships, I do recall an account where the owners evidently did not like them so much b/c overall they were not profitable to operate. They were truly fast and sleek but as a consequence could not, or did not, carry big (heavy) payloads. So, there you are. They evidently were not quite fast enough to outperform, economically, slower ships that could carry more cargo per voyage. From the perspective of commerce, they might have been a "doomed" design.
Last edited:
It represents a time in history. Which in itself I believe is history.
My original post basically had nothing to do with this craft. It was a knock on the politically correct tearing apart our history.
Please don't start asking about which part of History I am referring to.
I'm quite sure you know which part I'm talking about.
Yes, which is why I stated is was a monument to history, not actually history its self. The reason this point matters, is because there is no specific loss of history, by it becoming inactive, or going away completely, not that I don't care, or would rather not see that. In otherwords, it does not have any specific historical significance. Yes, as a monument, it reminds us of a specific era, but as a specific boat, it does not carry specific historical significance. That being said, if you are going to build a boat like that, it should have been built to carrying passengers or charter groups, so that it could be self sustaining. Privatize its operation, instead of costing the public money. There are people who really don't care about stuff like that, why should they be "made" to pay for it? Let those who want it, pay for it.
