Pirates as terrorists

[blackjohn]

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.

I pretty much am in agreement. That's why, if I felt inclined to label them, I'd call the rebels more than revolutionaries (see my post above). Did they really replace the old system with anything new or lasting? No. Did they experiment with democratic self-rule? I believe the historical facts point to yes. Was democratic self-rule a new idea? No. Was it the first time workers rebelled against authority and put their new found freedom to a test? No.

I think it's safe for me to say blah blah blah at this point, since I feel like I'm just rambling on here. However, I will leave you with this. Do you think many of them thought they'd actually strike it rich? These guys are experienced sailors. They knew what cargo merchant ships were carrying.

[Phillip Black]

As far as striking it rich goes, tales of Thomas Tew and Henry Avery coming away with the Moguls riches must have at least turned some of their heads! But, I'll admit that they probably didn't expect to become pirate king/princes or anything like that.

Oh, and ramble on! I'm enjoying this discussion!

[Mission]

This is unfounded speculation, but I'd be willing to wager that most sailors, who were usually, what?, about 14-20 and would be more interested in the sort of life that a pirate could lead when he was onshore than the sort of life he would lead as a RN sailor on shore. Again, mere guesswork.

I just can't believe most people who chose the more weighty philosophical route of "freedom from the chains of society" when they could look take the "Well, what's in it for me?" route. It's that live in the moment, forgo planning and all all that stuff to which society would have us subscribe.

However, this is not historically based, it's conjecture.

[blackjohn]

According to the Red-man... mean age of common seamen 27.6, officers and skilled workers 32.4, unskilled (including occupation unknown) 28.5... also worthy of note, he gives a overall percentage literacy rate of 75.4 in the merchant shipping industry.

[Phillip Black]

These are good points! No doubt the average sailor was just looking for what was in it for him, and the pirate life looked better.

Captain Johnson's General History lists rosters of crew, with ages, that were tried and convicted/acquitted for piracy, and they match up very nicely to what Rediker reported(no doubt at least one of his sources...). However, what does the age factor mean?

My assumption is that sailors who chose to be pirates seemed to be mostly older and at the end of their useful life as a sailor. Perhaps after years of hard labor as a sailor and nothing to show for it, it was a last desperate attempt to get rich quick? Afterall, you have to play the lottery to win it!

[Sir Eric]

Great discussion!

Okay, had to dig out my notes myself on this. It would seem that unemployment played a huge part in pirate activity (at certain moments in history) from what I've gleaned out of my research.

Now, this is according to Cordingly, (say THAT five times fast) who is not a primary source, but the data he collected is indeed from primary sources... and since I don't have time to go dig around the Admiralty Court Archives this week...

73% of pirates convicted by the Admiralty courts between 1600 and 1640 described themselves as former mariners or sailors.

98% of pirates convicted in the 1720's claimed they were formerly of the Merchant or Royal navies, or described themselves as "privateers." (Cordingly, Under The Black Flag, p. 10)

These numbers corrolate to cessation of hostilities between England and Spain, first in 1603, and again in 1715. (Cordingly, p. 192)

So one might infer that not having a war to fight (and the privateering benifits associated with it) sailors turned to piracy to make a living.

As to the "terrorist" lable... that's pure semantics. Not all criminals are terrorists, not all terrorists are criminals. Terrorism does not always rely on idealistic, religous or political motivation. (Just ask any kid who has to deal with a bully at school) That's kinda the realm of eye of the beholder and a syndrome called "Interest Induced Bias." To a certain point of logic, if you meet your ends by the use of terror, you're a terrorist. Certainly, pirates terrorized their victims once in a while.

As to underlying social changes... I think it's safe to assume that the social changes that affected those on land would have affected those at sea. The ideas of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Restoration, (the 3 "arrrrrs" of history) the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, industrial revolution (started earlier than you might think)I think it's safe to say, all played a part in pirate life, thought we might not know exactly how.

[blackjohn]

As to the "terrorist" lable... that's pure semantics. Not all criminals are terrorists, not all terrorists are criminals. Terrorism does not always rely on idealistic, religous or political motivation. (Just ask any kid who has to deal with a bully at school) That's kinda the realm of eye of the beholder and a syndrome called "Interest Induced Bias." To a certain point of logic, if you meet your ends by the use of terror, you're a terrorist. Certainly, pirates terrorized their victims once in a while.

I agree completely. Did pirates use the threat of fear to force ships to surrender? Yes. Does the military use the threat of fear to force people to lay down their arms? Yes.

As to underlying social changes... I think it's safe to assume that the social changes that affected those on land would have affected those at sea.  The ideas of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Restoration, (the 3 "arrrrrs" of history) the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, industrial revolution (started earlier than you might think)I think it's safe to say, all played a part in pirate life, thought we might not know exactly how.

Once I had the pleasure to spend 10 days at sea on a survey ship. What leisure activity occupied most of my free time? Drinking. Oh, no, wait! Sorry. Reading. A friend on mine was in the USN. The man she married she met onboard her ship. One of the things she found interesting about him was that wherever he was, he had a book, either reading it, or in his pocket. I suspect our would-be pirates had access to books, and some of the books of the time were filled with revolutionary new ideas.

[Sir Eric]

I suspect our would-be pirates had access to books, and some of the books of the time were filled with revolutionary new ideas.

It wouldn't surprise me if here and there a pirate read (or had read to him) a little John Locke. :)

[Mission]

According to the Red-man... mean age of common seamen 27.6, officers and skilled workers 32.4, unskilled (including occupation unknown) 28.5... also worthy of note, he gives a overall percentage literacy rate of 75.4 in the merchant shipping industry.

Interesting. I had always understood it was much younger than that. What time period is that for?

Sir Eric's points are excellent and provide a much more palpable explanation for why piracy arose than any we've come up with yet. It sort of a combination of financial need and opportunity available.

The discussion on literacy is fascinating, I would have presumed it to be much less prevalent, although John's points on sailors and books is a good one. I know a guy who's a sailor and that holds true. I wonder how available books were outside the UK?

Still, it sort of points to the idea (in my mind) that pirates would probably have no more inclination towards a socialist system than anyone else at the time. I suppose they would have the added advantage of being a part of a smaller community that could proceed more agilely in that direction, however. I still think it would be the exception to find a socialist-minded philosophy at work among a pirate crew rather than the rule.

[blackjohn]

According to the Red-man... mean age of common seamen 27.6, officers and skilled workers 32.4, unskilled (including occupation unknown) 28.5... also worthy of note, he gives a overall percentage literacy rate of 75.4 in the merchant shipping industry.

Interesting. I had always understood it was much younger than that. What time period is that for?

If memory serves, it was for the time period 1700-1750.

Sir Eric's points are excellent and provide a much more palpable explanation for why piracy arose than any we've come up with yet. It sort of a combination of financial need and opportunity available.

And I believe it is really a large part of what Rediker is trying to point out.

Still, it sort of points to the idea (in my mind) that pirates would probably have no more inclination towards a socialist system than anyone else at the time.

Eh. I wonder how much of what we as individuals are willing to believe/accept is a function of our own socio-economic background. That is to say, is it easier for me to accept "socialist" pirates because I was raised in a blue-collar middle-class family with my dad very active in the steelworkers' union?

[Phillip Black]

I am shocked at the high rate of literacy among seamen. I never thought it would be that high...Thanks for that info!

Just about every book that I've read, including Captain Johnson's General History, makes allusions to privateering being a gateway to piracy. Put quite simply, the pay on board a privateer was so much better than standard merchant service, that when a war ended or a truce was called a sailor had to take a significant pay-cut, or become self-employed, as it were...

Sir Eric, I think you are dead on about the use of the word terrorist. It's such a poorly defined word that it leaves a lot of room to be used subjectively or with bias as you said.

BlackJohn, I find the ideas of sailors reading to be an intriguing one, but were books cheap enough and readily available enough for the common sailor to own one? Wasn't this during the same age that books were chained to the shelves in libraries much like our computers are today?

[blackjohn]

My pleasure. I'd like to point out that we could use more dissenting views here so this doesn't become too one-sided.

While I don't have figures with me regarding numbers of books published during the period, I wouldn't be suprised if the numbers were larger than one would expect. Think about it. You've got guys like Exquemelin and Dampier getting "adventure" books published. Red Maria would probably be able to give us some notion of how common they were. Also, it's a book. One book could be shared among the crew.

[Phillip Black]

My pleasure. I'd like to point out that we could use more dissenting views here so this doesn't become too one-sided....Also, it's a book. One book could be shared among the crew.

Cheers to that! I don't consider it dissenting, but just clarifying!

That is true, one book could no doubt be easily shared among the crew and even read aloud. Afterall, it's not like they had much of a choice in the matter, living together on a ship in close quarters!

And, considering the literacy rate was so high, books couldn't have been too rare I guess.

[blackjohn]

And, considering the literacy rate was so high, books couldn't have been too rare I guess.

Remember, those literacy figures are a conglomerate of the entire crew, including officers. I believe the figures for the seamen were around 65%, maybe a little lower.

[Sir Eric]

It was common practice for the "common" people to gather at chocolate houses, tea houses and other social gathering places to discuss the news and trends of the times... and indeed, to read outloud to each other popular literature of the day. No reason to doubt men at sea (pirates or no) would do the same thing... if you're stuck without wind for days on end, seems to me a natural way to pass the time. Books may have been expensive and hard to come by, but pamphlets and other periodical type writings were pretty popular, and contained LOTS of social commentary. Heck, a pirate could easily have read (or heard) mussings from Voltaire, Robspierre, Prime Minister Walpole or any other "illuminary" right beside critical commentary by the editors.

One note... don't confuse "social change" with the idea of "socialism." Socialism is a political viewpoint, (or practice) where social change is an ever-present and ongoing fact of life. Luther nailing his thesis on the church door was not a "socialist" act, but it led to social change. 9/11 created social changes.

Although, there probably were some socialist pirates... and I suspect they were all probably Dutch.

[blackjohn]

When I go ashore, the second place I'm visiting is the coffeehouse!

Hmmm... wikiit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_house#History

[Mission]

My pleasure.  I'd like to point out that we could use more dissenting views here so this doesn't become too one-sided.

No, we'll make it the other sided. Where the heck is Ed? I need some backup here.

I don't know if books were common. I really only know what I read about Defoe and General History of Pyracy. That book sold very well, in fact I think it sold out, and went through several printings. I'm quite certain from what I read that books were more or less luxuries at that time, however. It seems to me that General History was considered remarkable in that it sold well when it cost so much relative to the average person's salary. I'd have to find The Canon-isation of Defoe to give you the reference, though. However, the dearness of books might explain the prevalence of pamphlets.

Defoe has been credited with writing literally hundreds of pamphlets (some disagreeing with each other in basic philosophy ). Pamphlets would have been less expensive to publish, I suppose. The pamphlets are remarkably political in nature and many do indeed support a socialist doctrine.

Now, my view of socialism may not be the same as Sir Eric's, and it may not be the technical definition, but here it is in all it's Mission/rationalist wonder. It's the notion that the government, large institutions or society at large should be responsible for taking care of the individual. The tale of Captain Misson is a flagrant example of this philosophy. (Note: I'm really not attempting to turn this into a political discussion. That will probably lead nowhere good.)

At my core, I find it hard to believe that most people would be as interested in becoming a pirate as a way to promote a philosophical view as much as a way to fill their belly. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs belongingness (which I'd guess is the lowest spot we could place rebellion in the hierarchy) is quite a ways up from physiological and safety needs.

If you read the source accounts, you'll find that many and probably most pirate sailors had a decided lack of both these things with fair regularity. (You try having nothing to eat but your shoes for dinner and see how you feel about societal structure.)

[blackjohn]

If Ed doesn't show I'll switch sides.

[Sir Eric]

Mission, I think you and I are actually on the same page. I don't believe for a moment that anyone read The Social Contract and said "Diderot and Locke are right! To hell with the Aristocracy and this silly form of government! A pirate's life for me!"

I would think for most people (not all) that piracy would be a last resort ... after all, it wasn't exactly a mystery what happened to pirates if they got caught ... so there would have to be some kind of desperation behind turning to a life of crime, murder and other nastyness. I cannot argue that point.

But, looking at the literacy rates listed in this thread and knowing that there most certainly were a few educated and enlightened individuals among pirate crews (Dampier, for example, would be a great example of an enlightened, educated man who applied the scientific principal) its fun to wonder what their politics and ideals were. Sure, pirate by neccessity, but what kind of conversations and arguments must they have had... think about it... can you imagine two pirates, one a former silk merchant and the other a former dirt farmer discussing economic politics?

Hrm... I'm seeing a new script begining to form in my head here....

[Mission]

I don't believe for a moment that anyone read The Social Contract and said "Diderot and Locke are right!  To hell with the Aristocracy and this silly form of government!  A pirate's life for me!"

You should put that in your story!

If Ed doesn't show I'll switch sides.

You can just switch sides?! Wowsers. Is a tight mind a closed one?

I wonder how much of what we as individuals are willing to believe/accept is a function of our own socio-economic background. That is to say, is it easier for me to accept "socialist" pirates because I was raised in a blue-collar middle-class family with my dad very active in the steelworkers' union?

This is an excellent point, one which I passed over in my last post to maintain cogency. My dad was journeyman toolmaker who never worked for a union (and thus received less than union wages). My mom has assured me that things were quite tight, but I don't remember them that way. He went on to take over my grampa's business (and take a 30% pay cut in the process - think about that for a minute), but he was able to remove the company from the brink of bankruptcy...only to get kicked out and have to start over. So that could easily color my perspective.

I keep getting this reminder that the observer affects the results over and over and over lately. (Ok, I get it! Enough! )

[Fox]

Ed is away from home at the moment so has very limited internet access and even more limited access to his notes and library.

Its pretty much always been my belief that the various increases in piracy throughout history have been linked to post-war unemployment.

With regards to socialist pirates I have long cherished an ambition to compare the number of post-civil war levellers (or their proteges) acting as buccaneers in the Caribbean in the 17thC. I've never quite got round to it, and am unlikely to do so any time soon so if one of you guys wouldn't mind checking it out and posting the results I'd be very grateful...

Literacy: let us not forget that the late 17th-early 18thC saw a dramatic increase in "popular" writing, and more or less the birth of what we would describe as a novel. Defoe, Swift, and their contemporaries were perhaps fortunate to benefit from a significantly larger readership than their forbears.

[blackjohn]

If Ed doesn't show I'll switch sides.

You can just switch sides?! Wowsers. Is a tight mind a closed one?

Can I just switch sides? Yes, I can. I don't want to cling to ideas, especially these ideas, which are, by nature of their character, rather nebulous.

(We are discussing a relative handful of people, about which very little was written, especially by the people themselves. I'd call that nebulous.)

Is a tight mind a closed one? That, I cannot say for certain. My observations have led me to lean towards "yes" as an answer. Mind you, there's nothing "wrong" with having a closed mind, other than the fact that it will limit one's options.

[blackjohn]

Literacy: let us not forget that the late 17th-early 18thC saw a dramatic increase in "popular" writing, and more or less the birth of what we would describe as a novel. Defoe, Swift, and their contemporaries were perhaps fortunate to benefit from a significantly larger readership than their forbears.

In my copious spare time I did a little research.

Books

England had only two publishing centers, London and Oxford, France had Paris and Lyon; the United Provinces had Amsterdam, Roterdam, Leiden, Utrecht, and The Hague, printing books in Latin, Greek, German, English, French, and Hebrew as well as in Dutch; Amsterdam alone had four hundred shops printing, publishing, and selling books.

In 1701 there were 178 master booksellers in Paris, thirty-six of them printers of publishers.

In 1617 a decree of Louis XIII ordered that two copies of every new publication in France be deposited in the Bibliotheque Royale at Paris... in 1622 this collection had 6,000 volumes; in 1715... [it had] 70,000.

And since I saw this, I figured I'd include it.

In 1711 the total circulation of British newspapers, daily or weekly, was 44,000.

These numbers all taken from Will and Ariel Durant's The Age of Louis XIV.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

SO HERE IS WHERE EVERYONE HAS BEEN!!!

There has just been too much here for me to chime in on stuff that was said earlier... what the hell has this thread been doing in Pirate Pop?

Anywhooo....

I am on the side that says that pirates were just criminals of the day. Out of work when the war was over (didn't someone say that 98% of the pirates were former sailors?) and looking for a simpler way to fast riches.

Which I will say just ties in to the Admiralty Slops Contracts as being a good starting point for a pirate kit!

The high literacy rate IS interesting. But just becuase you can read, doesn't mean that you DO read.

Guess I am going to have to drop by Pirate Pop more often....

GoF

[blackjohn]

Yeah, an interesting discussion tucked in an out of the way place. I was going to hit up a mod to move it, and then thought, naaaa, the quirkiness of the situation somehow appeals to me. I'd go do some research on Ed's levellers idea, but I'm kinda busy. Though I'm not changing a poopy diaper, at least, not right this minute. But I know exactly how you feel. And I'm looking for a post from Ed. I thought it was here, but I guess it's in the place where you actually mentioned having to change a diaper, so... click click there I gooooo...