crazietalk.net

Somehow, I think pirates deserve their own thread.

Something the rest of you might enjoy - http://knitlikeapirate.com/

Do buccaneers count?

Do you want to include Pops?

Lavabe wrote:Do buccaneers count?

Buccaneers technically were not pirates. They were more nearly privateers, kind of a semi-legalized breed of pirate. They were nevertheless very cool.
I wrote my MA thesis about the intersection of buccaneering, sugar plantations, and commercial/capitalist development in the seventeenth-century English West Indies.

Here's a political story about pirates:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/0 ... sh-pirate/


From what I read, they are poised to gain a seat or two in the European parliament.

wilson wrote:I wrote my MA thesis about the intersection of buccaneering, sugar plantations, and commercial/capitalist development in the seventeenth-century English West Indies.

I seriously wanna get tossed with you.

Lavabe wrote:Do you want to include Pops?

Pops should always be included.

Miles wrote: I seriously wanna get tossed with you.

Right back atcha. Once you get to Charlotte, it shouldn't be that hard. We'll make it happen.

Miles wrote:

wilson wrote:I wrote my MA thesis about the intersection of buccaneering, sugar plantations, and commercial/capitalist development in the seventeenth-century English West Indies.

I seriously wanna get tossed with you.

Do the two of you need some privacy?

South Park struck gold with their pirate episode.

wilson wrote:Buccaneers technically were not pirates. They were more nearly privateers, kind of a semi-legalized breed of pirate. They were nevertheless very cool.
I wrote my MA thesis about the intersection of buccaneering, sugar plantations, and commercial/capitalist development in the seventeenth-century English West Indies.

So the garb in your avatar was technically that of a pirate or a buccaneer?

Fashion-wise, was there a difference between a 19th century pirate and a buccaneer? It would seem that the buccaneers had more fashion sense.

Lavabe wrote:
Fashion-wise, was there a difference between a 19th century pirate and a buccaneer? It would seem that the buccaneers had more fashion sense.

Interesting that you should phrase your question thusly. There was definitely a difference between the garb of a 19th-century pirate and a buccaneer. By far the most notable pirates of the 19th century were the Barbary pirates, who marauded along the northern coast of Africa from the mid-11th century until 1815 (with some lower grade activity until about 1830). The Barbary pirates were Muslims, so their attire was of course different than the more well known 18th-century pirates (think "Aladdin" extras...billowy pants or even robes, flowing sashes, turbans, scimitar-style swords, etc.). Interesting historical note: the early 18th-century American efforts to eradicate the Barbary pirates, a hallmark of the Jefferson presidency, were essentially the nascence of the United States Marine Corps. To those of you who know it, the line in the Marine Hymn about "the shores of Tripoli" refers to this.

The popular image of 18th-century pirates, at least vaguely in line with my avatar, doesn't cover the gamut of their probable true outfits, though some of them would have looked roughly like I do in that pic. They would have, of course, been much dirtier, but you get the idea. Some pirates, especially captains and other high-ranking officers, were well known for their signature attire. For instance, the famous captain Jack Rackham, aka "Calico Jack," wore a patchwork coat of flamboyant, brightly-colored squares of cotton fabric. The popular understanding of calico is a brightly colored, usually patterned, cotton from the Indian subcontinent...a cousin to madras, which did in fact originate in Madras, but in fact, true calico was/is rather drab, generally undyed and unfinished coarse cotton fabric.
These pirates who lend us today's popular image (the "Golden Age" Atlantic pirates) died out by 1725 or so (literally), so the answer to your original question (the long answer to which I've just provided) is yes. 18th-century pirates and buccaneers, however, would have been essentially indistinguishable on appearances alone. In fact, buccaneers were only classified as such when they were operating as privateers. This meant that they carried a "letter of marque and reprisal," a document from some government signifying that the crew in question had been authorized to plunder and maraud in that government's name. Most (if not all) of the buccaneers at least periodically encountered periods when no government would issue them a letter of marque (often owing to diplomatic agreements not to do so). They almost always responded simply by "going pirate."

Now you know.

wilson wrote:

Lavabe wrote:Do buccaneers count?

Buccaneers technically were not pirates. They were more nearly privateers, kind of a semi-legalized breed of pirate. They were nevertheless very cool.
I wrote my MA thesis about the intersection of buccaneering, sugar plantations, and commercial/capitalist development in the seventeenth-century English West Indies.

The last paper I ever wrote at Duke was about buccaneer culture and democracy, focusing specifically on their treatment of homosexuals and blacks. I'll never forget the look I got from the checkout kid at the Carolina library when I walked up with "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition".

Lavabe wrote:Do buccaneers count?

The Bucs are rumored to be wearing these uniforms several times this year. I wish they'd go back to them full time.

Kind of hard to top G&S:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO2yqiQwDxI

wilson wrote:These pirates who lend us today's popular image (the "Golden Age" Atlantic pirates) died out by 1725 or so (literally), so the answer to your original question (the long answer to which I've just provided) is yes. 18th-century pirates and buccaneers, however, would have been essentially indistinguishable on appearances alone. In fact, buccaneers were only classified as such when they were operating as privateers. This meant that they carried a "letter of marque and reprisal," a document from some government signifying that the crew in question had been authorized to plunder and maraud in that government's name. Most (if not all) of the buccaneers at least periodically encountered periods when no government would issue them a letter of marque (often owing to diplomatic agreements not to do so). They almost always responded simply by "going pirate."

Now you know.

Talking about pirate fashion sense, check out this Smithsonian Press Release regarding one article of pirate attire:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/news/pres ... newskey=15

wilson wrote:

Lavabe wrote:
Fashion-wise, was there a difference between a 19th century pirate and a buccaneer? It would seem that the buccaneers had more fashion sense.

Interesting that you should phrase your question thusly. There was definitely a difference between the garb of a 19th-century pirate and a buccaneer. By far the most notable pirates of the 19th century were the Barbary pirates, who marauded along the northern coast of Africa from the mid-11th century until 1815 (with some lower grade activity until about 1830). The Barbary pirates were Muslims, so their attire was of course different than the more well known 18th-century pirates (think "Aladdin" extras...billowy pants or even robes, flowing sashes, turbans, scimitar-style swords, etc.). Interesting historical note: the early 18th-century American efforts to eradicate the Barbary pirates, a hallmark of the Jefferson presidency, were essentially the nascence of the United States Marine Corps. To those of you who know it, the line in the Marine Hymn about "the shores of Tripoli" refers to this.

The popular image of 18th-century pirates, at least vaguely in line with my avatar, doesn't cover the gamut of their probable true outfits, though some of them would have looked roughly like I do in that pic. They would have, of course, been much dirtier, but you get the idea. Some pirates, especially captains and other high-ranking officers, were well known for their signature attire. For instance, the famous captain Jack Rackham, aka "Calico Jack," wore a patchwork coat of flamboyant, brightly-colored squares of cotton fabric. The popular understanding of calico is a brightly colored, usually patterned, cotton from the Indian subcontinent...a cousin to madras, which did in fact originate in Madras, but in fact, true calico was/is rather drab, generally undyed and unfinished coarse cotton fabric.
These pirates who lend us today's popular image (the "Golden Age" Atlantic pirates) died out by 1725 or so (literally), so the answer to your original question (the long answer to which I've just provided) is yes. 18th-century pirates and buccaneers, however, would have been essentially indistinguishable on appearances alone. In fact, buccaneers were only classified as such when they were operating as privateers. This meant that they carried a "letter of marque and reprisal," a document from some government signifying that the crew in question had been authorized to plunder and maraud in that government's name. Most (if not all) of the buccaneers at least periodically encountered periods when no government would issue them a letter of marque (often owing to diplomatic agreements not to do so). They almost always responded simply by "going pirate."

Now you know.

See what you get for asking a historian a question? Damned historians.

colchar wrote: See what you get for asking a historian a question? Damned historians.

Hey, you know what? I may as well put all of that marginally useful knowledge to work every once in a while.

wilson wrote:

colchar wrote: See what you get for asking a historian a question? Damned historians.

Hey, you know what? I may as well put all of that marginally useful knowledge to work every once in a while.

I loved reading it, thanks for the incredibly long answer.

rockymtn devil wrote:

wilson wrote:

Lavabe wrote:Do buccaneers count?

Buccaneers technically were not pirates. They were more nearly privateers, kind of a semi-legalized breed of pirate. They were nevertheless very cool.
I wrote my MA thesis about the intersection of buccaneering, sugar plantations, and commercial/capitalist development in the seventeenth-century English West Indies.

The last paper I ever wrote at Duke was about buccaneer culture and democracy, focusing specifically on their treatment of homosexuals and blacks. I'll never forget the look I got from the checkout kid at the Carolina library when I walked up with "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition".

Were the buccaneers good to homosexuals and black people?