When slaves and free men were shipwrecked together(economist.com)
economist.com
When slaves and free men were shipwrecked together
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683979-what-happened-when-slaves-and-free-men-were-shipwrecked-together-lu00e8se
141 comments
Linked + google earthed and zoomed in:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,...
I like how the island is in a teeny little spot of hi-res imagery in a low-res ocean.
Why does an island which is barely long enough to support a runway need a runway?!
Because flying a three-man team to such an island is often much cheaper/easier/safer/faster than boating them in. And when people are hurt, getting them out by plane is the only life-sustaining option. Broken bones do not do well in small boats. (See the OP for issues surrounding getting people in and out of this place by boat.)
A more extreme example would be oil rigs (tiny island) that are serviced more often by helicopters than boats.
A more extreme example would be oil rigs (tiny island) that are serviced more often by helicopters than boats.
Because even small islands in the Indian Ocean have strategic value (especially one with a permanent source of water). And because flying in is a lot easier than getting there by sea.
Such runways are built in order to provide an emergency landing zone for trans-oceanic flights.
> One of [the women]—oddly, on an island with no men—held an eight-month-old baby boy.
What oddly? There were men on there just a year prior, in August of 1775:
> Why had only seven castaways survived, when 14 had been spotted weeks before? It seems the newly marooned sailor had tried his luck as a latter-day Castellan. With the help of the now-natives, one assumes, he had salvaged whatever could still be used from L’Utile’s wreck and built his own Providence. Sails were improvised from birds’ feathers. Unlike Castellan, the unnamed sailor had taken some of the slaves: the last three men and three women. Also unlike his predecessor, he failed to reach Madagascar.
The article even speculates that the white sailor was the father.
I'm also not sure why it says "14 spotted weeks before" - according to the article, over a year had passed since the 14 were spotted.
What oddly? There were men on there just a year prior, in August of 1775:
> Why had only seven castaways survived, when 14 had been spotted weeks before? It seems the newly marooned sailor had tried his luck as a latter-day Castellan. With the help of the now-natives, one assumes, he had salvaged whatever could still be used from L’Utile’s wreck and built his own Providence. Sails were improvised from birds’ feathers. Unlike Castellan, the unnamed sailor had taken some of the slaves: the last three men and three women. Also unlike his predecessor, he failed to reach Madagascar.
The article even speculates that the white sailor was the father.
I'm also not sure why it says "14 spotted weeks before" - according to the article, over a year had passed since the 14 were spotted.
I think the "oddly" was meant to be from the perspective of those who first encountered the women, not from the perspective of the writer or the reader. Maybe it would be clearer as "surprisingly" or "at first surprisingly".
I find it incredible that they maintained a fire for 15 years, just from wood from the shipwreck.
It is indeed incredible, given the tiny wood supply, but maintaining a fire continually has historically been a very common practice. Simply put -- starting a fire is a pain. The easiest way to light your own fire was off your neighbor's fire; the easiest way to light a fire when traveling was to preserve a smoldering ember of your previous fire and carry it with you.
Yes, but like the parent comment I would not expect a single ship's wood, of which a portion was used to make a 33-foot raft and some must have been lost to sea or be in unreachable locations to be sufficient to keep the fire going for 15 years. I suspect there were other sources, such as the shrubbery, or dried seaweed, or something. That they would have any original wood left to burn at that time to even make it look like they've been using it as a primary source for 15 years seems amazing to me.
It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped wooden boat in my fire stove so I know how much fire you get out of a boat.
The boat in question was a 15 meter long oak on oak boat. It lasted 2 winters for 2 homes with a fire stove, and we didn't even burn it all.
There's an amazing amount of wood in a boat, particularly around the keel. The framing, keel and other structural elements are made of really heavy timber. On top of that good wooden boats are (were..) built of slowgrown oak that is incredibly dense. One large piece would last for 6-8 hours in my stove and give off a lot of heat.
It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a 25-30 meter boat would last for 15 years if you the goal was primarily to keep the fire going, only getting it really big/hot when needed.
The boat in question was a 15 meter long oak on oak boat. It lasted 2 winters for 2 homes with a fire stove, and we didn't even burn it all.
There's an amazing amount of wood in a boat, particularly around the keel. The framing, keel and other structural elements are made of really heavy timber. On top of that good wooden boats are (were..) built of slowgrown oak that is incredibly dense. One large piece would last for 6-8 hours in my stove and give off a lot of heat.
It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a 25-30 meter boat would last for 15 years if you the goal was primarily to keep the fire going, only getting it really big/hot when needed.
"It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped wooden boat in my fire stove"
Well played, sir.
Well played, sir.
Definitely (but not as well as this[1], which is pure gold). I left it open that I could be wrong, and I'll graciously accept the word of someone with real boat burning experience that my expectations are way off. ;)
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079
The orders of magnitude don't look so bad.
Some quick Googling puts the weight of three masted schooners at 300-400 tons; a cord of firewood weighs 2 tons, so that's between 150 and 200 cords of firewood. Some of that was reused in the escape-raft and some of it was presumably unrecoverable, but if they were able to recover 25% of it, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 cords of firewood, or around 3 cords per year of the 15 years.
3 cords is a reasonable amount for a house to use for heating in a heating season in the US. That's less than a year, but you're probably burning it faster than you would if you were carefully husbanding a fire and occasionally using it for cooking or warmth or light.
So it's totally plausible (which is good, considering it happened), but the numbers are close enough that I couldn't guess whether you'd expect the average shipwreck in similar circumstances to run out of wood after ten years or have enough for a hundred, without having more information about the burn rate in this particular situation or how much wood they actually were able to recover.
Some quick Googling puts the weight of three masted schooners at 300-400 tons; a cord of firewood weighs 2 tons, so that's between 150 and 200 cords of firewood. Some of that was reused in the escape-raft and some of it was presumably unrecoverable, but if they were able to recover 25% of it, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 cords of firewood, or around 3 cords per year of the 15 years.
3 cords is a reasonable amount for a house to use for heating in a heating season in the US. That's less than a year, but you're probably burning it faster than you would if you were carefully husbanding a fire and occasionally using it for cooking or warmth or light.
So it's totally plausible (which is good, considering it happened), but the numbers are close enough that I couldn't guess whether you'd expect the average shipwreck in similar circumstances to run out of wood after ten years or have enough for a hundred, without having more information about the burn rate in this particular situation or how much wood they actually were able to recover.
Bear in mind that the ship was likely made of heavily pitched timber, which will have had a very high energy density. Also, ships are big. You'd be surprised how much lumber goes into one. For instance, the hull would be feet thick towards the keel.
Remote islands are usually filled with several tons of bird droppings
One word: driftwood.
Another long running fire (1,545 years!) still burns today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazd_Atash_Behram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazd_Atash_Behram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_temple
> It was Castellan who had made the decision to scupper L’Utile by cutting her rudder in the hope that more men might be saved.
Why would that improve their chances? That intuitively seems like a bad idea, but the people who know what they're doing thought otherwise.
Why would that improve their chances? That intuitively seems like a bad idea, but the people who know what they're doing thought otherwise.
That sentence as written is nonsensical. I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper" (a hole in the side wall at deck level to drain water off the deck).
The principle of scuttling the ship is to remove the buoyancy so that the ship settles firmly on the bottom (which is shallow because it is grounded) and does not get pounded to bits as the waves pick it up and slam it back down. This helps keep the ship intact and allows the people more time to get off.
The principle of scuttling the ship is to remove the buoyancy so that the ship settles firmly on the bottom (which is shallow because it is grounded) and does not get pounded to bits as the waves pick it up and slam it back down. This helps keep the ship intact and allows the people more time to get off.
A contemporary account states "Il y a eu de si violents coups de talon que la barre du gouvernail a fait sauter le tillac de sa chambre, malgré six barreaux en plusieurs endroits, et qui fit déterminer Mr. de Castellan a L’aller couper luy meme." which roughly translates to "There were such violent blows to the rudder, the tiller burst through the deck of its room, despite six bars holding it in place, and Mr. Castellan made the decision to cut it."
(From the document linked at the bottom of this page: http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang...)
(From the document linked at the bottom of this page: http://www.histoire-genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang...)
That makes even more sense. The waves would be slamming the ship onto the bottom which would be attempting to drive the rudder through the ship every time. This would threaten to break the ship up very rapidly.
By cutting the rudder free, it would no longer be breaking the ship up, but it would leave a major hole where the rudder post came in, resulting in scuttling the ship.
By cutting the rudder free, it would no longer be breaking the ship up, but it would leave a major hole where the rudder post came in, resulting in scuttling the ship.
I think the part about "scuppering" is just some nautical-sounding nonsense that the author of the article threw in. If you read the account I linked to above, it's saying they jettisoned the masts, then cut the rudder, then threw the cannons overboard, but despite these the ship eventually broke apart. Like you say, it sounds like they were trying to stabilize it to reduce the damage, but my impression is they were trying to make it lighter and less top-heavy rather than intentionally sink it.
In British English if something is 'scuppered (often someone's chances) it is destroyed or sunk. I assume the author was going for this verb usage.
In British English, 'scupper' can act as a verb effectively a synonym of 'scuttle'. The Economist used British English.
> I think they meant "scuttle" (intentionally sink), not "scupper"
When used as a verb, "scupper" means to destroy or thwart.
When used as a verb, "scupper" means to destroy or thwart.
If it was intended that way it's an extremely poor choice of words given the very likely confusion in a nautical setting.
That makes a lot more sense than anything I could come up with. Thanks!
I think that was meant to provide access to men trapped in the ship, which was not going to go anywhere with or without the rudder.
[deleted]
This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it. It's sobering when we consider sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile to our existence.
> This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it.
The very bare minimum of basics - hardly any water, and hardly any food. But it did sustain over a dozen people for over a dozen years, with basically scraps of the ship they came in!
The very bare minimum of basics - hardly any water, and hardly any food. But it did sustain over a dozen people for over a dozen years, with basically scraps of the ship they came in!
That is a difference of degree not kind. Without modern technology (shelter, heat, clothing, potable water, easily obtainable food) I'd quickly perish where i sit as would most others of our species. Sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile to our existence is only a variant of sending people to Antarctica or undersea for months (years?) at a time.
The floor of a deep sea trench provides the basics for life, too (and is covered with living things), but we would die instantly if left there. "Basics for life" and "basics for human life" are two very different things.
The basics for life, provided you are a nesting seagull.
They did not plan to live on that island. If they had, they would probably have done fine.
Here's a French documentary about the island, with plenty of video footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U
This article is full of misnomers.
First of all, the "slaves" were actually kidnapped Africans. They had yet to do a day of forced labor and had not yet undergone the years of conditioning it took to turn a free man into a slave.
Second, the "free men" were actually slave traders. Yes, there was a ban on slave trading at the time, but that didn't stop them.
If you're interested in learning about what happens when kidnapped Africans and free men come into contact, study what happens when slave ships came into contact with pirate ships. As a general rule, pirate ships were egalitarian, as it helped preserve social harmony on the ship. And the composition of the crew was usually multiracial. Over 60% of Blackbeard's crew was black. Oftentimes, when the pirates took control of a slave ship, they would take the goods they wanted, free and arm the kidnapped Africans, and let the ship go on its way.
First of all, the "slaves" were actually kidnapped Africans. They had yet to do a day of forced labor and had not yet undergone the years of conditioning it took to turn a free man into a slave.
Second, the "free men" were actually slave traders. Yes, there was a ban on slave trading at the time, but that didn't stop them.
If you're interested in learning about what happens when kidnapped Africans and free men come into contact, study what happens when slave ships came into contact with pirate ships. As a general rule, pirate ships were egalitarian, as it helped preserve social harmony on the ship. And the composition of the crew was usually multiracial. Over 60% of Blackbeard's crew was black. Oftentimes, when the pirates took control of a slave ship, they would take the goods they wanted, free and arm the kidnapped Africans, and let the ship go on its way.
Well, if you want to get into misnomers, calling all the "free men" slavers may be going a bit far. The vessel was not nominally a slave ship, it was a side business of the captain, and speculating on whether the other crew and/or passengers that signed on to a ship sailing in seas where slave trading was banned knew that slaves would later be brought on board at a separate port is hard to do accurately without a lot more information.
No, not at all. Freedom does not occur in isolation.
Commemorating the end of WW2, German president Joachim Gauck said, "On May 8, 1945, we were liberated — by the people of the Soviet Union." The crew on the slave ship were not "free men," even if they were well-meaning.
Commemorating the end of WW2, German president Joachim Gauck said, "On May 8, 1945, we were liberated — by the people of the Soviet Union." The crew on the slave ship were not "free men," even if they were well-meaning.
Ignorance is not a defense. Also, it would still be considered aiding and abetting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting
Ignorance is a defense against aiding and abetting. You can't abet something if you don't know about it. You can unknowingly aid it, but any legal system that prosecutes people for their role crimes they had no knowledge of is not a just system.
Some non-enslaved/kidnapped people of the ship may have had no knowledge of the cargo, or if they did, may not yet have had an opportunity to notify authorities at a port after learning. Calling them slave traders before they've had an opportunity to show their side one way or another is no different than calling the kidnapped people slaves before they've been actually put into slavery.
To be clear, I believe most the people on the ship probably would not raise any alarm over the situation, at least not enough to cause legal trouble, but if you are going to be pedantic about terminology in this way, it only makes sense to do the same in all cases brought forth, unless you are using terminology to manipulate the perspective (this is not an accusation).
Note: Edited slightly for clarity and typos.
Some non-enslaved/kidnapped people of the ship may have had no knowledge of the cargo, or if they did, may not yet have had an opportunity to notify authorities at a port after learning. Calling them slave traders before they've had an opportunity to show their side one way or another is no different than calling the kidnapped people slaves before they've been actually put into slavery.
To be clear, I believe most the people on the ship probably would not raise any alarm over the situation, at least not enough to cause legal trouble, but if you are going to be pedantic about terminology in this way, it only makes sense to do the same in all cases brought forth, unless you are using terminology to manipulate the perspective (this is not an accusation).
Note: Edited slightly for clarity and typos.
Notice the "Also" in my original comment. It is meant to be read as 2 distinct sentences.
I am not a lawyer but I do know that people are held responsible for the personal belongings they carry, say on a plane. I know that I cannot carry a prohibited item on a plane and claim that I didn't know how it got there. Which is probably why they make you say that your bag was not touched by any strangers before you board your flight.
The captain of a ship should be held responsible for the ship and it's cargo.
I am not a lawyer but I do know that people are held responsible for the personal belongings they carry, say on a plane. I know that I cannot carry a prohibited item on a plane and claim that I didn't know how it got there. Which is probably why they make you say that your bag was not touched by any strangers before you board your flight.
The captain of a ship should be held responsible for the ship and it's cargo.
Of course the captain of the ship should be held responsible. An ignorant ship hand should not.
> "I do know that people are held responsible for the personal belongings they carry"
Actually there's strong legal precedent in the opposite direction. From page 14 of [0], "a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists". This sentiment is common in US law -- you can claim to not know how something got into your possession, and if that claim is reasonably credible, you'll typically be let off the hook.
[0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....
Actually there's strong legal precedent in the opposite direction. From page 14 of [0], "a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists". This sentiment is common in US law -- you can claim to not know how something got into your possession, and if that claim is reasonably credible, you'll typically be let off the hook.
[0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....
>"a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists"
I read the above line several times carefully.
Here is the meaning I made out of that sentence, one cannot claim that they knew exactly how they got a certain object and then say at a later time that they did not even know such an object exists.
This is a different scenario than accepting responsibility for your personal belongings (say while flying) and then claiming that you don't know how it got there.
In the former case there is evidence that you got that object.
To summarize, my understanding of in flight carry on rules are you are aware of the things you are carrying and would be held responsible if you are later caught with a prohibited item.
I read the above line several times carefully.
Here is the meaning I made out of that sentence, one cannot claim that they knew exactly how they got a certain object and then say at a later time that they did not even know such an object exists.
This is a different scenario than accepting responsibility for your personal belongings (say while flying) and then claiming that you don't know how it got there.
In the former case there is evidence that you got that object.
To summarize, my understanding of in flight carry on rules are you are aware of the things you are carrying and would be held responsible if you are later caught with a prohibited item.
> "one cannot claim that they knew exactly how they got a certain object and then say at a later time that they did not even know such an object exists"
But it can happen in the opposite order. I recall at least one professional athlete [0] getting caught with drugs in his bag at the airport, and having the charges dismissed because (supposedly) his friend had used his bag and left the drugs in it, without his knowledge. The claim "I didn't know that existed" (ie, drugs in the bag -- knowing drugs exist in general is not the same as knowing drugs exist within your bag) is compatible with the later claim "given that it does exist, I'm certain as to where it came from" (knowing someone else had used that bag during the prior week).
In the context of this thread, it's quite possible for (some of) the crew of a ship to be in the dark as to what cargo might be onboard, and therefore to not knowingly possess contraband or be involved in slave trading. "Ignorance of the law is no defense; ignorance of crime is one." [1] As kbenson rightly pointed out, it's not "aiding and abetting" if you don't know crime is happening; it's only "aiding and abetting" if you're trying to help someone commit a crime. As the link you yourself posted says, "It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed" -- not merely that he helped someone who happened to have committed a crime, but that he intentionally, knowingly, chose to participate in crime.
[0] http://espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1906525
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40709114/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/i...
But it can happen in the opposite order. I recall at least one professional athlete [0] getting caught with drugs in his bag at the airport, and having the charges dismissed because (supposedly) his friend had used his bag and left the drugs in it, without his knowledge. The claim "I didn't know that existed" (ie, drugs in the bag -- knowing drugs exist in general is not the same as knowing drugs exist within your bag) is compatible with the later claim "given that it does exist, I'm certain as to where it came from" (knowing someone else had used that bag during the prior week).
In the context of this thread, it's quite possible for (some of) the crew of a ship to be in the dark as to what cargo might be onboard, and therefore to not knowingly possess contraband or be involved in slave trading. "Ignorance of the law is no defense; ignorance of crime is one." [1] As kbenson rightly pointed out, it's not "aiding and abetting" if you don't know crime is happening; it's only "aiding and abetting" if you're trying to help someone commit a crime. As the link you yourself posted says, "It is necessary to show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being committed" -- not merely that he helped someone who happened to have committed a crime, but that he intentionally, knowingly, chose to participate in crime.
[0] http://espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1906525
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40709114/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/i...
Hmmm... I read the espn article and nowhere it says that the drug possession charges were dismissed.
So my statement that passengers are held responsible for thier possessions in their carry on still holds.
So my statement that passengers are held responsible for thier possessions in their carry on still holds.
> "nowhere it says that the drug possession charges were dismissed"
Type "Carmelo Anthony drug charges dropped" into google [0].
Your statement is mostly correct, but the ways in which it's wrong are significant and relevant for this thread. As kbenson and I have both pointed out, ignorance is a valid defense in US law, and was a valid defense in many legal traditions of the past. You may have heard the phrase "harboring a known fugitive" -- someone who provides shelter to someone they know is running from the law can be held culpable for aiding and abetting, while someone who provides shelter to somebody who happens to be running from the law (unknown to them) is treated as a victim. The generalization holds -- a person who knowingly helps someone pull off a crime is culpable, while a person who happens to help someone but didn't know they were helping a criminal is innocent.
Without more detail, we don't know how much of the crew of the ship in question might fall into either category.
[0] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets...
Type "Carmelo Anthony drug charges dropped" into google [0].
Your statement is mostly correct, but the ways in which it's wrong are significant and relevant for this thread. As kbenson and I have both pointed out, ignorance is a valid defense in US law, and was a valid defense in many legal traditions of the past. You may have heard the phrase "harboring a known fugitive" -- someone who provides shelter to someone they know is running from the law can be held culpable for aiding and abetting, while someone who provides shelter to somebody who happens to be running from the law (unknown to them) is treated as a victim. The generalization holds -- a person who knowingly helps someone pull off a crime is culpable, while a person who happens to help someone but didn't know they were helping a criminal is innocent.
Without more detail, we don't know how much of the crew of the ship in question might fall into either category.
[0] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets...
Age of Sail pirates were fascinating in many ways. Some of them had workers' comp, equal pay and voting rights for blacks and other minorities, constitutions designed to limit autocratic power on the ship (unlike legitimate merchant ships), and fairly flat payouts of booty (one documented ship gave the Captain two shares while the lowest crew members got one share).
Right, and many of the pirates become pirates because they were fleeing the autocracy of legitimate merchant ships.
And the newfound freedom of pirates was a direct threat to the state. It's no wonder that in a span of 50 years, as mercantilism developed, pirates went from being knighted (Francis Drake), to being the worst kind of criminals (Blackbeard).
And the newfound freedom of pirates was a direct threat to the state. It's no wonder that in a span of 50 years, as mercantilism developed, pirates went from being knighted (Francis Drake), to being the worst kind of criminals (Blackbeard).
Obviously I don't know about this crew but lots of slave ships were crewed by press ganged seamen who were themselves kidnapped from English ports and forced to serve for three years. It was the desperate rise of press ganging that was behind the anti-slave trade movement in England.
Trying to put history in the terms of today is a futile effort.
The tales of piracy aside, In 1761 the kidnapped Africans would be universally regarded as slaves, and the sailors manning the vessel as free men.
The tales of piracy aside, In 1761 the kidnapped Africans would be universally regarded as slaves, and the sailors manning the vessel as free men.
Yea sure, those terms were used by Westerners in 1761. I bet the Africans would have seen it differently.
Nevertheless, it is our duty to correct the terms they used to better reflect the reality. And this is common practice. If it weren't, Socrates would be remembered as a corrupter of the youth and Galileo as a heretic.
Nevertheless, it is our duty to correct the terms they used to better reflect the reality. And this is common practice. If it weren't, Socrates would be remembered as a corrupter of the youth and Galileo as a heretic.
> Yea sure, those terms were used by Westerners in 1761. I bet the Africans would have seen it differently.
Why do you suppose the Africans would see it differently? They were in fact confined to belowdecks in anticipation of being sold into slavery by white men. Do you think they weren't cognizant of this? Do you think they would have rejected the institution of slavery on the basis that they were getting the short end of the stick? Slavery exists to this day and is generally recognized where it is seen. Attitudes towards it vary, but it's not a matter of belief or conjecture.
> Nevertheless, it is our duty to correct the terms they used to better reflect the reality. And this is common practice. If it weren't, Socrates would be remembered as a corrupter of the youth and Galileo as a heretic.
Socrates is remembered as an instigator of rebellion, and Galileo as a heretic in the eyes of the church. As it so happens, predominant Western culture cares much more about Socrates' other contributions to culture than his relationship with Athenian politics, and regards heresy as something of an unreasonable charge.
I really fail to see what the big deal is. Certainly attitudes towards slavery have changed dramatically over the years. Much as attitudes towards many historical facts of life have changed. That doesn't make them cease to be facts. Are you objecting to the article's use of "free men" and "slaves" as primary identifiers? The point of the article appears to be primarily about race and the institution of slavery, when in isolation shipwrecked on an island. The labels are not false, neither are they inappropriate in a historical context.
Why do you suppose the Africans would see it differently? They were in fact confined to belowdecks in anticipation of being sold into slavery by white men. Do you think they weren't cognizant of this? Do you think they would have rejected the institution of slavery on the basis that they were getting the short end of the stick? Slavery exists to this day and is generally recognized where it is seen. Attitudes towards it vary, but it's not a matter of belief or conjecture.
> Nevertheless, it is our duty to correct the terms they used to better reflect the reality. And this is common practice. If it weren't, Socrates would be remembered as a corrupter of the youth and Galileo as a heretic.
Socrates is remembered as an instigator of rebellion, and Galileo as a heretic in the eyes of the church. As it so happens, predominant Western culture cares much more about Socrates' other contributions to culture than his relationship with Athenian politics, and regards heresy as something of an unreasonable charge.
I really fail to see what the big deal is. Certainly attitudes towards slavery have changed dramatically over the years. Much as attitudes towards many historical facts of life have changed. That doesn't make them cease to be facts. Are you objecting to the article's use of "free men" and "slaves" as primary identifiers? The point of the article appears to be primarily about race and the institution of slavery, when in isolation shipwrecked on an island. The labels are not false, neither are they inappropriate in a historical context.
For a more (leftist) perspective on the motley composition of pirate crews, The Many-Headed Hydra by Linebaugh and Rediker has an entire section on pirating, as well as discussions of other slaving ship wrecks and anti-slavery mutinies.
I also recommend Of Captain Mission by Daniel Defoe.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7779/7779-h/7779-h.htm
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7779/7779-h/7779-h.htm
Thanks, added to my reading list.
When I saw the headline (including the publication) I expected a reference to The Admirable Crichton. But the story didn't really support that, and the tone was too somber anyway.
Sounds like a good plot for a movie :)
eevilspock(2)
Here's google maps' view: