Pirates as terrorists

[Black Hearted Pearl]

[Captain Jim]

One man's patriot, another man's terrorist. Very few truly evil people out there, most just caught up in one misunderstanding after another.

[Jolly Roger the Red]

The truly brave spit into the wind and don't care what happens!

[Skull pyrate Carter]

If you actually know you're history, our country was founded by terrorists. read up on the history of our forefathers and the constitution ( a good pic is "a country with no name") But look at Shay's Rebellion and such. hence the saying: "Treason when successful is not treason but heroism and patriotism. Hence there is no such thing as successful treason."

I'm just saying.

[Durty Mick Moon]

One man's patriot, another man's terrorist. Very few truly evil people out there, most just caught up in one misunderstanding after another.

Wise words indeed Captain Jim :)

[Pirate Petee]

Aye, we be terrorizing da hell out o some tea.

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah but the big difference (and reason why I don't think pirates were "terrorists" in the modern sense) is that terrorism today has more to do with slaying innocent civlians in the name of religion, whereas pirates practiced a FAR more localized form of commercial terrorism, and not typically against the general public. (Except when the buccaneers sacked ports).

Pirates terrorized, but they weren't terrorists as we know the word today. Make sense?

[Captain Jim]

"Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor."

~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."

~Sir Peter Ustinov

"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."

~Martin Luther King III

Just some thoughts to make ye think...

[Pirate Petee]

Aye, if I recall there were some religious motivated pirates. Anyway true, killing numerous innocent civilians, is not patriotic, it’s not fighting for freedom and in no way justifiable. Its pathetic and cowardice.

[Coastie04]

Yeah but the big difference (and reason why I don't think pirates were "terrorists" in the modern sense) is that terrorism today has more to do with slaying innocent civlians in the name of religion, whereas pirates practiced a FAR more localized form of commercial terrorism, and not typically against the general public. (Except when the buccaneers sacked ports).

Pirates terrorized, but they weren't terrorists as we know the word today. Make sense?

I'd have to disagree with this. Many terrorists as we know them today are politically motivated as well. Take the IRA for example. Although they've gone under the radar a bit since 9/11, they are politically motivated terrorists (or freedom fighters, revolutionaries, etc). Many pirates had political ties and motivations. Drake is a good example of this. Also, privateers (similar enough to pirates for this example: many 'terrorists' today are sanctioned by some form of government) use many of the same tactics as pirates and attack innocent merchantmen who happen to be sailing under an 'enemy' flag. Though more localized, this is more a matter of logistics and technology. Back then, pirates couldn't just hop on a flight from the American colonies to Britain to blow up a dock. However, that's a matter of tools, not tactics. The tactic of terror, while not the only trick used of course, was definitely employed when possible.

Coastie

[Jack2]

I think a good number of "ordinary" pirates in a crew just had no other way of making a living. People who had other motivations such as politics or religion could make use of this need to further their own agendas.

Jack II

[blackjohn]

While I have no idea if this holds water, I remember reading once in a philosophy book a particular take on rebels versus revolutionaries. Rebels, it said, are fighting against a system with no regards as to replacing the system. Revolutionaries, it claimsed, a fighting the system to replace it, with a notion toward improvement. Pirates... rebels, or revolutionaries.

As for terrorism, it's just a tool. Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? Probably not. I seriously doubt anyone was terrified by the act. To put it another way, if I said, "tonight's is the night Petee. Everyone here at the Pub is going to dress like indians and throw Saabs into the harbor" how many people would be able to dress convincingly as indians? Even given a couple months? I believe, and maybe historians have said this, that the indian get-up was not meant to be convincing.

[Pirate Petee]

As for terrorism, it's just a tool. Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? Probably not. I seriously doubt anyone was terrified by the act. To put it another way, if I said, "tonight's is the night Petee. Everyone here at the Pub is going to dress like indians and throw Saabs into the harbor" how many people would be able to dress convincingly as indians? Even given a couple months? I believe, and maybe historians have said this, that the indian get-up was not meant to be convincing.

I don't know, they way alot you are period buffs, we might be able to pass it off. I can see it now. "Nope, Those moccasins arn't accurate."

I'm just kidding. When I said that we terrorized the hell out of some tea, I was just giving Carter a hard time about his comment that said" Our country was founded by terrorists."

[blackjohn]

teehee

We'd spend so much time arguing about authenticity that we'd never get around to dumping the stuff in the harbor.

[Mission]

While I have no idea if this holds water, I remember reading once in a philosophy book a particular take on rebels versus revolutionaries.  Rebels, it said, are fighting against a system with no regards as to replacing the system.  Revolutionaries, it claimsed, a fighting the system to replace it, with a notion toward improvement.  Pirates... rebels, or revolutionaries.

There's an absolutely wretched POS book (IMO) by Frank Sherry called Raiders and Rebels that seeks to make the case that pirates were advancing an agenda of freedom from tyranny and a load of similar tripe.

From my research, the facts seem to indicate differently. It was far more financially renumerative to be a pirate than a sailor. It was also far more risky on many levels. I've no doubt that there were some people who appreciated the freedom offered by a pirate's life as opposed to a RN sailor, but human nature leads me to believe that most of them just wanted to make a quick buck. If they had a philosophical stance, it was probably just a convenient way to justify making a quick buck.

I would be very skeptical of someone explaining Golden Era piracy in terms of rebellion and revolution. One of the favorite examples used by folks propigating this stuff is Captain Misson. However, I find that most of the rabid people I've talked who support the "pirates as rebels" theory have done precious little true source research and don't realize that Misson is a literary confection designed to roil the politically active European culture.

Golden Era pirates were criminals - they may (or may not) have justified this in their minds through some convoluted explanation. This doesn't change the fact that the end goal of pyracy was to steal goods, use them or, more likely, sell them to a fence and thereby make a quick buck.

_________

"It is scientific to say what is more likely and less likely and not to be proving all the time what is possible and impossible." -Richard Feynman

[Phillip Black]

There's an absolutely wretched POS book (IMO) by Frank Sherry called Raiders and Rebels that seeks to make the case that pirates were advancing an agenda of freedom from tyranny and a load of similar tripe.

From my research, the facts seem to indicate differently. It was far more financially renumerative to be a pirate than a sailor. It was also far more risky on many levels. I've no doubt that there were some people who appreciated the freedom offered by a pirate's life as opposed to a RN sailor, but human nature leads me to believe that most of them just wanted to make a quick buck. If they had a philosophical stance, it was probably just a convenient way to justify making a quick buck.

I would be very skeptical of someone explaining Golden Era piracy in terms of rebellion and revolution. One of the favorite examples used by folks propigating this stuff is Captain Misson. However, I find that most of the rabid people I've talked who support the "pirates as rebels" theory have done precious little true source research and don't realize that Misson is a literary confection designed to roil the politically active European culture.

Golden Era pirates were criminals - they may (or may not) have justified this in their minds through some convoluted explanation. This doesn't change the fact that the end goal of pyracy was to steal goods, use them or, more likely, sell them to a fence and thereby make a quick buck.

Mission - I have read Raiders and Rebels as well, but I thought it was rather good. In a similar theme is a book by Marcus Rediker called "Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age." Being that this book was written post 9/11, he takes a fair amount of time to make comparisons of pirates as terrorists, but also places the same emphasis on the idea that although pirates were criminals they were also rebelling against a corrupt authority.

It's easy to condemn pirates of the golden age as bloodthirsty, greedy simple-minded criminals when examined from a modern western educated perspective. Certainly there were many awful criminal pirates in history, Captain Edward Low comes to mind off-hand, but there were also many who just were trying to make a better life for themselves and escape the rigid class system in place with what limited abilities they had. A navy or merchant sailor only made around $1750/year in modern equivalent money in those days, were regularly shorted rations and abused. I think that if we paid our navy sailors today that little and abused them, they might become pirates as well.

Perhaps the strongest case for pirates not being simple criminals but rebels against a cruel and unfair system is how piracy ended. Only when merchants and navies began treating their sailors better than the pirates, were they able to eliminate them. I've only read about 7 or 8 books on the subject so far, but from what I can gather, they were rebelling agains a corrupt authority through criminal means. They're still criminals, but I do believe they chose that life because they were placed between a rock and a hard place so to speak.

[Mission]

I'm not condemning pirates; I find them as fascinating and colorful as anyone on this board. But neither am I going to paint them in rosy hues just because I want them to be something that evidence says they are most likely not.

Most of the source material that supports the idea that pirates were rebelling against societal norms that I know of is fictional (the stories of Captains Misson, Lewis and Cornelius have all been proven more or less fictional). Some historical evidence also points to the fact that life on a pirate ship was every bit as difficult as it was on RN vessels. Many pirate captains were very strict and the punishments meted out were harsher than on a Naval vessel.

I'd be cautious of any book by Marcus Rediker. He knows a lot of history, but he has a definite agenda in his books...he admittedly leans heavily towards Marxism and has a tendancy to use information that supports that from what I've read.

Most of the books available on piracy are not source material. If I were you, I'd stick with The General History of the Most Notorious Pyrates, attributed to Daniel Defoe and/or Captain Charles Johnson (excepting the three stories mentioned above which have been more or less proven to be false) and The Buccaneers of America by Esquemeling. David Cordingly also writes some pretty good stuff based on source material, but it is not true source. If you can lay your hands on pirate trial reports, those are also good. You may even find some material to support your notions there, although a man is apt to say a lot of things to keep his neck out of the noose.

As for the end of piracy...it still hasn't ended. There are a lot of factors that figure into the end of the Golden Era. Yours might be one, although I consider it highly unlikely. More likely, it could be due to two facts: 1) In the early/mid 18th century the caribbean island govenors started cracking down on piracy and 2) The british fleet making a concerted effort to better police Europe, the Caribbean and the American colonies. Those are things of which we have proof .

_________

"It is scientific to say what is more likely and less likely and not to be proving all the time what is possible and impossible." -Richard Feynman

[Phillip Black]

Sorry! I'm not saying you don't like pirates! I know we all do, else we wouldn't be here!

I didn't notice the "agenda" you speak of in Marcus Rediker's book(maybe I was just too enraptured with the stories about pirates), but I've read two books by Cordingly and I'm just finishing the General History by Captain Johnson or Daniel Defoe (depends on which theory you subscribe to). I really enjoyed reading the general history because every book I've read up until now used only the past tense when talking about notorious pirates, but Captain Johnson's accounts use present tense! It's been a great, although somewhat slow-going read, as it takes me longer to read the old english.

I also wholeheartedly agree that life on a pirate vessel must have been difficult, even more difficult than on a merchant or navy vessel and the punishments harsher (usually torture, death or marooning...). However, There is also evidence that any captain or quartermaster found to be abusing that power would be removed by the crew, especially if said captain was found to be lacking in the plunder providing department. So, while life may have been hard for them, there was at least some control over their destiny, even if it was illusory.

The hanging of pirates took place throughout the golden age of piracy and the punishments meted out to pirates that were apprehended changed little during that time, but the prospects did. The golden age of piracy was most profitable because there were few warships to enforce, and even those that were in the area often surrendered or fought poorly due to lack of morale, and most merchant ships surrendered without a fight and even had large groups, if not the whole crew, desert to become pirates. This, it would seem, is because the pirate life, albeit a criminal and tough one, was a better alternative to service on a merchant ship or for the crown (Although this can be contended with the idea that they were threatened into service of pirates as many were). So when the pay and conditions improved for the common sailor, he had a reason to not be a pirate if fate should cause them to encounter one. While the "cracking-down" on pirates by the royal navies and governors most definately eliminated the majority of piracy, I don't think it would have been effective without the underlying societal changes taking place.

Perhaps you can shed some light on this, but I found it really interesting that pirates had workers compensation and a democratic voting sytem in place. Surely, that had to be unique among the world at that time. I guess it is just hard for me to condemn a pirate as a common criminal because of those factors. They may not have been rebels and revolutionaries in the sense that they changed the world for the better,but certainly they were pioneers of democracy and equality, or at the very least extraordinary criminals!

Thanks for the suggestions on the books as well. I love reading about pirates lately,(can't get enough), any suggestions you have would be very much appreciated!

[Mission]

Well, we know of four pirates out of hundreds who had articles outlining behavior and treatment on a pirate vessel. Others may or may not have had such articles. It is pretty cool, though. I'd have to research it, but I'm not sure we could say they were the first to do so. It was the age of enlightenment...

I don't know about the "underlying social changes" you suggest. Can you provide evidence? I'd sure like to read about this from source materials.

Books?

Angus Konstam is also good (not source).

One of my favorite curio pieces is a rather lurid, alleged piece of source material containing short accounts of people who were prisoners of pirates. It's called Captured by Pirates, edited by John Richard Stephens.

For general knowledge of Treasure Hunting in general and the Spanish Fleet in particular, I highly recommend Treasure of the Atocha by R. Duncan Mathewson III. It's a very detailed account of Mel Fisher's hunt for the Atocha off the Florida Keys. I found it fascinating personally.

[Phillip Black]

The books I've read thus far on the subject:

Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates by David Cordingly

Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age by Marcus Rediker

Raiders and Rebels: The Golden Age of Piracy by Frank Sherry

A Nation of Pirates : English piracy in its heyday by C. M. Senior

The Golden Age of Piracy, by Hugh F. Rankin

A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates by Captain Charles Johnson (unfortunately, I haven't been able to get my hands on the Dover edition yet.)

The Pirates

by Douglas Botting (This was a cool little harcover Time-Life Book I managed to find at a used book store)

There were a few others...which I can't remember off the top of my head. The other David Cordingly book, the fiction short story collection by Howard Pyle(this one recently became public domain) etc. I'm very much looking forward to Angus Kongstam's book, it's on my wishlist with a host of others. I've just started getting into pirates, so I'm still new. Despite the few books I've read on the subject, I've come across a host on contradictions already, so who knows what is really true.

You pose some very interesting points, and I suppose that I've come to conclusions about the era a little earlier than I should. Rest assured I'll be re-thinking these things while I continue to read more!

As for underlying social changes in the era, I can't remember exactly which book or books , but I remember reading that in the latter part of the golden age of piracy, conditions aboard ships and for sailors improved and it may have been a factor in the reduction of piracy. In the end, I suppose the cessation of collusion between colonial governors and pirates was a determining factor as you said.

Anyway, thanks for adjustin' me course!

[Mission]

Don't thank me too quickly...you may actually be right and I wrong. (Although I do believe the things I've said.)

You've read a lot for someone who's new. Kudos. I'd treat Pyle's stuff as fact and fiction combined. He seems to be one of the big sources of a lot of the pirate myths that have become "fact". I've heard good things about Botting, but I've never read anything by him.

As for underlying social changes in the era, I can't remember exactly which book or books , but I remember reading that in the latter part of the golden age of piracy, conditions aboard ships and for sailors improved and it may have been a factor in the reduction of piracy.  In the end, I suppose the cessation of collusion between colonial governors and pirates was a determining factor as you said.

Where's Foxe? He'd be a more authorative source for this info than I am. I honestly don't know. I do know it was a period of political and societal unrest on the mainland and that there were all these political pamphlets being published from reading up on the controversy over whether Defoe wrote Pyracy or not. (Apparently not, BTW.)

You might just check out piratesinfo.com, Phillip. They dip more deeply into the scholarly well than we do at this site. You'll find a much more spirited debate over this issue if you search for info on Captain Misson, rebels, and such like. Pay particular attention to posts by Foxe and Tony Malesic. Pay no attention at all to posts by dt. (Tell him I said that. )

_____________________

"The best we can say of any account is not that it is the real truth at last, but that this is how the story appears now." -Joseph Freeman

[Phillip Black]

You might just check out piratesinfo.com, Phillip. They dip more deeply into the scholarly well than we do at this site. You'll find a much more spirited debate over this issue if you search for info on Captain Misson, rebels, and such like. Pay particular attention to posts by Foxe and Tony Malesic. Pay no attention at all to posts by dt. (Tell him I said that.  )

Ha! Thanks for the tip, I'll definately check the site out. And I'll make sure to tell "dt" what you said if I post!

Botting was a very interesting read, I discounted the book at first as just a lot of pretty pictures seeing as it was a Time Life book, but it turned out to be quite good. If you can find it, I recommend it. It was one of a series called "the Seafarers." I haven't read any of the others though...

Well, I'm actually very glad for your point of view, because I've been reading a whole lot, but not discussing it. Thanks!

[Fox]

Folks like Mission will tell you that I've always had a hard time swallowing the "life was terrible in the Navy, pirates were just trying to escape an unjust system" bollocks. They would be entirely correct, I do have a hard time swallowing it. It is certainly possible, even likely, that some pirates took to piracy for politically motivated reasons (including the whole unjust society/brutal navy malarky), but the evidence for any kind of mass motivation of that nature is entirely absent - despite what Rediker likes to have us believe.

On the subject of the "brutal navy", does anyone know of any actual period source supporting the idea that the RN was considered brutal by contemporaries? OK, one might find odd examples of brutality, but they would be just that - odd examples. Somewhere I've got figures of volunteers and pressed men in the RN for the late 17th-mid 18th centuries and I'm sure that in all cases the number of volunteers each year was higher than the number of pressed men, though I can't find my notes at the moment so I might be wrong*. However the noted diarist, artist and merchant seaman Edward Barlow wrote:

...their Majestie's ships are better victualled than most merchant ships are, and their pay surer, and there they have no damage to pay; and if they lose a leg or an arm they have a pension for it, and their work is not so hard, neither do they wear out so many clothes; all of which things they find in merchant ships.

As Barlow noted, there was a pension for injured seamen. The Chatham Chest had been founded a century before Morgan's men received compensation for their injuries on the Panama expedition. A succession of hospitals were run for the benefit of men who had suffered injury or illness in the Navy, culminating with the Greenwich Hospital which was partly built with the funds captured from Kidd.

Similarly, at least as early as the Commonwealth of 1649-60 the seamen on Navy ships had the right to protest their officers (provided that protests were made at the appropriate time and did not involve actually disobeying orders), and if their protests were considered just then the Admiralty might well take action against officers who were unfair to their men - even going so far as removing them from their posts. OK, so it was a slower system than the pirate way, but that's bureaucracy for you. The point is though that pirates were not "the first true democracy", they didn't work out "the world's first compensation system" (giving today's litigious society, is that necessarily a good thing anyway?), and it's really unlikely that they were fleeing from a brutal and oppressive Royal Navy.

Far more likely is that they were fleeing unemployment, seeking riches, or at least a living, and they stole most of their ideas of democracy from ideals already familiar in the Navy and aboard privateers. They might have improved some, but that's not the same as inventing them.

* Appendix III of NAM Rodger's excellent "The Wooden World" gives numbers of men of 5 ships between 1755 and 1761. 15% of the men were press-ganged, 25.9% were turned over from other ships, and 55.6% were volunteers. In each of the five ships the number of volunteers was at least nearly twice the number of pressed men, in some cases much higher: HMS Ambuscade for example had, between 1755 and 1761, 4.1% pressed men and 60.1% volunteers.

[Phillip Black]

Well cheers to that mate! Wow! Thanks for the insight! I guess I took a lot for granted while reading Marcus Rediker's book, and also Frank Sherry poses the same ideas albeit less strongly.

Those are very interesting figures about the percentages on board the RN ships. The quote too, is rather enlightening. I also never heard of the compensation systems and hospitals in place for seamen...This give me great pause for thought.

Well, you and Mission have made a believer out of me, I need to get back to the books! I've just added "Wooden World" to my Amazon wishlist. I think I've been too narrowly focused on only pirate related books and need to widen my library to history on the whole period.

Unfortunatley, I've only bought a few books on the list above. most, including Rediker, Sherry, and a few others were the few books available on the subject from my local libraries. Can't wait for Christmas!

Thanks for your patience!

[blackjohn]

Wait a minute! A serious discussion? In Pirate Pop? How'd that happen?

Fwiw, I don't recognize an agenda in Rediker's books. He is a social and labor historian, so he is going to see things from a social and labor historian's point of view. Foxe is a RN historian, and that colors his views. No suprises there.

I have three of Rediker's books here in front of me. Just for fun, I'm going to leaf through them and look for examples of bollocks and malarky.

If anyone would anyone like to start (or rekindle?) this Rediker bashing/adulation in Captain Twill I'd be happy to follow along.

There's an interesting table in Appendix E of Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, a list of 60 ships that had mutinies, dating between 1700 and 1750. Not one has the Red-man listed as a ship of the RN. Four were privateers, the rest merchants. Of the four privateers, two turned to piracy. Of the merchants, 17 turned to piracy.