To what extent is the pirate myth of popular culture based on reality?

[Keshik]

Good Aaaaaarrticle.

 

[Dell19]

Thats terrible

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Indeed, you might even say that its arrrrrrrrful (awful)!

 

[Yeeek]

It is that they were. Dont lose the perspective. In despite of the myth and the propaganda, pirates and privateers were not more than criminals, the first terrorist, worse than current terrorist indeed since a terrorist massacres civils and such because an ideal at least, while pirates did it mostly for money.

I don't like to put privateers and pirates in the same bag. Pirates are in my mind criminals while privateers were basically mercenaries. I know the difference is small but its still there.

If you look at Robert Surcouf's bio he was definitly a person with an idea. Pride and wealth was not his only interests.

 

[Plotinus]

Although I'm not sure why having an ideal or a principle makes someone better than someone who's just in it for the money. Personally I'd think that a pirate who robs or kills for financial gain is preferable to a terrorist who kills out of fidelity to some "principle", because whilst both are bad, the pirate is at least sane.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

You can ask a judge, any sane criminal gets worse condemns what a crazy one.

Well i dont know what is worse indeed, it is a matter of opinion. Idealists at least think that they are doing "good" (allthough many times that results in more victims) while regular criminals simply dont care.

 

[Yeeek]

Read a book about Surcouf The kind of privateers i was refering to were not doing it for their own agenda, in Surcouf's case we are talking about France's interest at the time.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, doing something in the interest of a country is definitely lower down the scale of morality and general comprehensibility than doing something for the sake of money or pretty much anything else, really. A "country" is just an abstraction. From that point of view, I wouldn't see much difference between a pirate working as a privateer and one working simply as a thief.

 

[Kosez]

First of all, grat article. I only wish it is not last of that kind. I've got tired of all those which is the best... and name the worst... threads.

About morality and pirats.
Morality is in the eye of one who judges it, and is thus very relative. I wouldn't say it is immoral to convert to piracy in order to survive, I also have doubts about immorality of robing treasure ships full of gold stolen in cruel and immoral ways from rightful proprietors (i.e. South American Indians), even if this roberry was not commited in order to secure one's survival.

I imagine majority of men that went for piracy did it because they wanted to get rich in a fast and easy way. But who could blame them, the whole western culture is based on our desire to get rich.

Is it more immoral to attack unprotected cargo ship than to rainsack colonies or villages, as European soldiers did. We also should not forget, pirates and navies sometimes cooperated quite well. England had no peritcular interest in fighting the pirates in 16th and early 17th century, they became a problem only when England also aquired some colonies in New World and started a wide scale trade with those colonies.

As someone said earlier, one's pirate is another's fighter for freedom, it goes the same for a lot of things, including terrorism. This is history for, so we can learn that where the smoke is there is also a fire.

Have a nice weekend.

P.S.: I have a feeling there are loads of misspellings in my post. Sorry for it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

About morality and pirats.
Morality is in the eye of one who judges it, and is thus very relative. I wouldn't say it is immoral to convert to piracy in order to survive, I also have doubts about immorality of robing treasure ships full of gold stolen in cruel and immoral ways from rightful proprietors (i.e. South American Indians), even if this roberry was not commited in order to secure one's survival.

This is a common Hollywoodiense myth. As the article says, Pirates didnt attack big galeons loaded with gold and such from his righteous proprietors. Galeons (at least the spanish ones) loaded with gold and silver (silver mostly) extracted from Peru and New Spain mines, traveled inside a large convoy called "la flota de las indias" with heavy escort and were well beyond the possibilities of the pirates. This fleet traveled twice nearly every year along more than 200 years. IIRC in all this time it was attacked succesfully only in an ocassion by Drake, when coming back after attacking Cadiz he found accidentally the fleet berthed in Vigo. I dont know as it was in other countries cases but surely it was similar.

Pirates attacked common civilians merchants. To justify this since a moral POW is equivalent to justify the Twin Towers attacks or some street robbery in New York because North America was stolen of the Indians.

 

[shortguy]

Piet Heyn also successfully attacked the treasure fleet in 1627-ish.

EDIT: 1628.

 

[Kosez]

This is a common Hollywoodiense myth. As the article says, Pirates didnt attack big galeons loaded with gold and such from his righteous proprietors. Galeons (at least the spanish ones) loaded with gold and silver (silver mostly) extracted from Peru and New Spain mines, traveled inside a large convoy called "la flota de las indias" with heavy escort and were well beyond the possibilities of the pirates. This fleet traveled twice nearly every year along more than 200 years. IIRC in all this time it was attacked succesfully only in an ocassion by Drake, when coming back after attacking Cadiz he found accidentally the fleet berthed in Vigo. I dont know as it was in other countries cases but surely it was similar.

Pirates attacked common civilians merchants. To justify this since a moral POW is equivalent to justify the Twin Towers attacks or some street robbery in New York because North America was stolen of the Indians.

I understand what you wan't to say, and I agree to some extent.
I know about treasure fleets and I also know who was the main pray for pirates, but that was not my point.
All I wanted to say, there are allways two sides of a medal, and every person sits on both sides. Conquistadors were robbing Indians, when they grew old they turned into merchants, and were robbed by pirates.
There is no such thing as absolute good or absolute evil, it is just another Hollywood myth

A more modern example: pirates of Indian ocean, that are still attacking ships today (actually their numbers have been growing). From perspective of a sailors and owners of ships they are evil. But from perspective of those pirates, you will see that they are just common people trying to survive this crazy times, they countries are rich but 90% of people are extremely poor, and no matter what you do, you never get a break. So I can understand why they turned to piracy. And I don't think it is so very immoral to steal a ship's cargo, although I think murdering people on ships cannot be justified no matter what.

Basically, I want to point out, that we judge pirates, terrorists, thiefs, etc..., from a black&white perspective, but we do not want to contemplate upon reasons that forced them into doing it. Surely a life of a pirate or a terrorist is not so attractive that people would do it just because it's fun. Don't you think so?

 

[7ronin]

ISurely a life of a pirate or a terrorist is not so attractive that people would do it just because it's fun. Don't you think so?

"A pirate's life is not an easy one," W.S. Gilbert from the Pirates of Penzance.