What is it that you think pirates do, exactly? They use terror as a tool to extract money. Kidnapping, destroying ships…pirates use violence on seas and in ports to inspire fear in coastal communities to get the population to give the pirates what they want. It isn’t as if they simply board a ship and say ‘give us all your money.’ They blow up boats. They kill. They sack small coastal towns. Pirates are a huge ongoing concern for many governments. You are minimizing their impact to that of floating bank robber.
I think I’d rather be taken prisoner by Somali pirates then watch the last two Pirates of the Carribean movies again, so I disagree with the OP.
Lots of bank robbers use terror as a tool to extract money to, and also kill and blow up things. I don’t think that’s a particularly useful definition of a terrorists.
I think the difference is more in the goals, pirates and bank robbers are seeking some direct personal gain, while terrorists are in service to a larger cause, trying to extract political concessions and the like from their victims for a large class of people that the terrorist associates with.
I think the general understanding of the term “terrorist” is someone who uses terror as a tool to create political change (whether it be religiously motivated or otherwise). Expanding the definition to include those who use “terror as a tool to extract money” renders the term almost useless - what, are muggers terrorists now as well? Because I guarantee you that the person being held up at gunpoint is experiencing feelings of extreme terror.
Or consider your criteria of violence. Are gangs terrorists? They certainly kill, often in an organized manner. Innocent folks living in towns with significant gang violence are absolutely living in a state of fear. Are mafias terrorist organizations? They are an ongoing concern for many governments. They blow things up and kill people. Again, they induce terror (in victims, bystanders, and people living in their areas of domination) as well.
Calling the Somalian pirates terrorists, when there isn’t much clear ideological motivation for their actions beyond greed and sociopathic disregard for other human beings, is to dilute the meaning of the word “terrorist.” At this rate, we might as well label anyone who engages in criminal activity leading to fear a terrorist.
I understand your point, but I still think pirates can be classified as terrorists. Hear me out.
While terrorists usually have some type of larger political goal than money, their actions can still broadly be seen as extortion. Pirates are also much broader in scope than simple theft; they attack the international community as well, while using corruption and graft within a specified port of call for safe havens from international police. Their focus may be narrower, but ISTM their tactics and target base correlate with terrorism.
What’s the scope of mugging? One or two people per night, or an entire coastline?
I really don’t see it. Just because Pirates have somethings in common with terrorists doesn’t mean that pirates=terrorist. Plenty of criminal organizations use corruption and graft to obtain shelter from authorities (and not all terrorist do so). As for “attacking the international community”, terrorists in general don’t really attack the “international community”, Hamas generally just attacks Israel, the Tamil Tigers just attacked the Singalese (sp?), etc. And plenty of crooks rob from multiple different countries.
No, I was more trying to point out that their tactics, scope and targets are all the same. They do the exact same thing terrorists do, only the motivation is different. Should motivation be the difference in how they’re defined?
I agree, actually that pirates are not quite terrorists…but that is not the meaning of the quote. Here:
PLEASE NOTE: This is not the person CG is speaking of, but one of her commentors, but as she specifically quoted this person in her entry, I think it’s safe to say that she agrees.
That being said: this person seems to admire these guys!
Here is the other quote that really stuck in my craw:
Gawdalmighty! I think James Bond is pretty fucking sexy but IRL if someone went around like that I’d think he was a womanizer at best and a murderer at worst. How about Jason Bourne? Who else…oh! Batman! Fucking psycho if I ever saw one but I love him.
Does she not understand fiction? We romanticize almost everything!
And CG, you know I wouldn’t start a fight in her blog. I did like this one though:
I think their motivation does make the difference in how they’re defined. But even without that, I think that their tactics, scope and targets are only the same if you look at all three in a very broad sense, in which case lots and lots of things also have the same tactics, scope and targets and the word “terrorist” looses much or all of its meaning.
Yes, actually. That is precisely how terrorist is defined: by their motivations. A terrorist uses violence and intimidation to effect a social or political change. A bandit, on the other hand, uses violence and intimidation to increase his personal wealth. A dictator uses violence and intimidation to maintain political control. All three are thugs and murderers, because thuggery and murder refer to specific actions. Terrorism, banditry, and dictator…ry? all refer to goals. There can be overlaps: a dictator may start as a terrorist before he gains political control of a region, or a terrorist may engage in banditry in order to fund his terrorism. But generally speaking, these are distinct categories. A pirate is simply a bandit who operates on the ocean. While there may be specific exceptions, generally speaking, a pirate is not a terrorist.
Yeah, she added that after I’d gone around with her for several posts.
I’m going to have to side with the folks saying pirates aren’t terrorists. Pirates are robbers and kidnappers, with a goal of personal enrichment. Terrorists are extortionists with political aims. There can be overlap, sure, but Pirates take action for the direct, material benefits of that action, and Terrorists take action for the fear that action will engender.
As I understand it, terrorists operate on two levels. Yes, they are trying to inspire direct terror. But they are also trying to force governments to become more repressive in order to elevate dissatisfaction with those governments, which wins them more support amongst the people. For example, the US did exactly the kind of thing bin Laden wanted when it invaded Iraq, and al Qaeda was much more successful in recruiting in Iraq thereafter, at least so I’ve gathered.
Pirates don’t want government crackdowns; they want profit. Thugs, but not terrorists.
Of course it doesn’t help her point, that alot of the “arrr shiver-me-timbers”-style pirates that have been so romanticized over the year WERE black. Seeing as the Caribbean at the time was one of the largest slave-based economies in the world, and pirate crews accepted escaped slaves.
Though racism has alot to with the fact that popular culture has forgotten that fact, as the western world like their romantic anti-heroes to look like Clark Gable or John Depp.
Alright. I understand the distinction being made. I’m still not entirely sure I agree with it but it makes more sense. Sorry about the hijack.
It’s less racism and more the romanticizing of pirates in popular culture over the last century or so. In 1724 A General History of Pirates (that’s the abbreviated title) by Charles Johnson was published and it covers what we today think of as the golden age of piracy. Bartholomew Roberts, Edward Teach, Anne Bonny, and many other pirates we know and love are written about in A General History and it was an immediate bestseller with multiple printings. You can see the influence of this book in just about every work of fiction including Peter Pan and Treasure Island. That said, the pirates in A General History were portrayed as being fairly bad people. They were largely murderers, rapist, and thieves.
On the flip side pirates have been celebrated depending on what side they’re on. Francis Drake did his share of pirating against the Spanish and returned to England a hero. It was pirating as Spain and England were at peace at the time. Henry Morgan pirated against Spain and committed some pretty brutal acts against them and was rewarded with a governorship of Port Royal, Jamaica. So we’ve got a complicated set of feelings towards pirates even before contemporary times and that’s before we even introduce the concept of privateers!
Fast forward about a century and a half and we’ve got R.L. Stevenson’s Treasure Island. Blind Mr. Pew, Billy Bones, and Long John Silver weren’t very nice people at all. Silver is a complicated fellow though. He’s a charming man more apt to try to talk people over to his side but when that fails he’s got no problem murdering them without remorse.
His crimes are also relatively minor. Sparrow steals a ship from the British but he’s not exactly murdering and raping his way through the Caribbean. There is also some serious romanticizing of pirates in history for the masses. For example they tend to mention the democratic nature of some pirate ships or the workman’s compensation they might receive for injuries sustained during the course of their piratical activities but they leave out the more horrific ways they gather their booty.
It’s not a matter of racism I think it’s just a matter of one group being romanticized and in the distant past and the other being an immediate threat.
Odesio
Interesting aside to the pirate-vs-terrorist debate. Modern-day pirates maybe not be accurately described as terrorists, pirates (or at least privateers) “back in the day” certainly could. They had very definite political motivations not just financial ones.
True enough.
I think the funny thing is many pirates (of the kind and time we typically think of ) had quite a sophisticated and democratic code for how they operated. Many were from the naval ships of power in those days. Those navies were SO BAD in how they treated the lower ranks that many said “fuck it, I’d rather be a pirate and face death if I get caught”.
I don’t have a cite, but I am paraphrasing from a few expert/talking heads I’ve seen on learning type channels over the years.
"You know what I’m interested in hearing? **Alternate **points of view! You know what I’m not interested in hearing? Outright denial of race and class issues! If you can’t figure out the difference, please rethink your phrasing before you comment here. Also, be fucking respectful, it’s not that goddamn hard. White, comfortably middle-class people are expected to check their privilege at the door, or at the very least to not get **nasty **when called on it. "
My ironometer broke on this…
That woman believes that the only reason us Imperialist White Powers are against Somali Pirates is because they are black.
She also, based on another post of hers, appears to believe that the majority of men are rapists, or at least condone it.
This woman is a fringe lunatic, rebelling against the wind. You’re better off avoiding her.
Most of them were from merchant ships. One of the problems working on a merchant ship is that the owners wanted to keep the number of sailors low in order to maximize profits, which, in turn, meant that the workload for the sailors was pretty heavy. Also, punishment in the Royal Navy was pretty brutal by our standards but there were rules dictating the severity of punishments that could be doled out. There were no such standardized regulations on merchant vessels and you might get a captain that really behaves like a tyrant. Pirates would often be especially hard on merchant captains.
In 1720 one Captain Mackra put up a good fight against the pirate Captain England. Mackra’s forces had managed to kill around 90-100 pirates and only suffered 24 wounded and 16 dead on his own side but was still defeated though he escaped. The pirates put a price of 1,000 dollars on his head and demanded that Mackra come aboard their ship with the promise that they would do no bodily harm to him. Mackra agreed because his men were pretty much at the pirates mercy. Cpt. England told Mackra that there wasn’t much he could do to protect him because the pirates were mighty pissed off that so many were killed and it looked like they were going to kill him despite their promises. That is until a peg legged pirate who had previously sailed under Mackra spoke out and said he was a good and fair captain. Luckily for Mackra this worked out for him and he wasn’t hacked to pieces.
Odesio