Talk:Barbary pirate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Etimology
- The name apparently derives from Barbarossa, which means red beard'
I doubt it, I think that the original word is Berber, that may come from Latin barbarus. -- Error 05:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article states that the "pirates" are better described as "privateer". Under what nation or state were they commissioned?
All those states were totally or partially connected to the Ottoman Empire during the era. Most of the pirates (privateers) were serving as the navy man of the empire. That is why they are know as the "Turks". barfly 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RickK
Please tell me what your problem is with my comment, rather than just deleting everything I write. You are Stupid!!!
- I can't speak for Rick, but I removed it because it's an irrelevant political remark. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article. Rhobite 06:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think it is very noteworthy. It proves that the Barbary pirates were seen as so much of a threat, that the USA established a fleet in a sea where they had no territories, as opposed to the Atlantic or Pacific where they did, and were able to convince the government of their country to fork out for it. - ~~R Bell
-
-
-
- That's how you see it, but not how I see it. If I put it in as such, I would have phrased it differently, probably referring to expansionism etc. Can you explain how it was an inaccurate statement?
- - Raymond Bell
-
-
This article is pure PC nonsense. These pirates enslaved christians and justified it by reference to the koran and the crusades. Indeed, Jefferson when he attempted to negotiate with representatives of the barbary states employed the argument that (a)the US was in no-sense a "christian nation" and (b) that the United States did not nor could it have participated in the crusades. These are pertinent facts for anyone who wants to understand this entry.
[edit] Sale corsairs
The article does not mention the term "Sale corsairs" which seems to be commonly applied to these pirates. Back in England in those days the town was often spelled "Sally".
[edit] Barbary Pirates in the North Atlantic
I added what I know of the subject from my time in School.
Here are the links with the information that can be confirmed: (Some sites in Danish.)
http://www.tiems.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=61&index=1
http://www.tourist.fo/ew/media/Brochures/Faldari%20English.pdf
http://www.greenland-guide.dk/leif2000/news.htm
http://www.randburg.com/fa/torshavn.html
http://www.geocities.com/f18islands/suduroy.html
http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C6/COM-0546.html
Note about Mogens Heinesøn: He is well-described in Faroese litterature, and by a couple of Danish and Norweigan authors, but there is little information to be found about him on the net. Swedish author Frans Bengtson may have borrowed a story of Mogens Heinesøn as a galley slave in his book "The Long Ships". Anonymous.
- Edited for clarification. There were other pirates in the North Atlantic besides the Barbary pirates. Magnus Heinesøn is also spelled different in Faroese, Danish, and Norweigan, which explains some of the difficulties in Googling for references.
- Different spelling include: Mogens/Magnus; Heinesøn/Heinesen/Heineson/Heinasen/Heinason.
- More sources: (Sites in Danish and Norweigan.)
- http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/1589
- http://www.dokpro.uio.no/wergeland/WIV2/WIV2018.html
- http://www.norden.no/foroyar/nyheter.html
- http://ffav.dk/tiltok.htm
- Anonymous.
What is the basis for this?: "and members of certain families still have a distinct Middle Eastern appearance." Anyone in the Faroe Islands who do not have blue eyes and blond hair are claimed to look "Middle Eastern", there's no logical or genetic basis for this. - Habib--83.72.194.208 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ---
- According to local history, Iceland was at one time nearly depopulated by the depredations of the Barbary Pirates.The last incursion is said to have taken place during the Napoleonic wars.
Basic knowledge of Icelandic history is enough to recognize this as nonsense. Rewrote the paragraph completely, hope it turns out useful. - Oskar Gudlaugsson (*April 15)
- Very nice - thanks! - DavidWBrooks 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
--- Much of the article seems to have been written from a American perspective. Is a rewrite without the anti-european, pro 'war on terror' perspective possible ? A view of the barbary pirates from a native of North Africa would also be interesting. - 217.43.21.35, 11 June 2006
- Feel free to add useful content. Me, I think the date of first tribute in 1784 is a little early; if it's correct, it would have had to have been the Continental Congress, as the U.S. Constitution that created today's Congress didn't take place until 1787. In any case, there should be more background information about the system of tribute and ransom employed by the Barbary pirates. Wesley 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find it highly unsettling that people are apparantly ready to delete information that that they find inconvenient at the drop of a hat. The Barbary Pirate raid on Iceland is indisputable historical fact, and I have reinstated the information with multiple online sources. I would ask people to please *try* to maintain a NPOV before going bananas with the edit function again. Misereor 23:00, 5 August 2006 (GMT)
[edit] Which Tripoli?
I believe the Tripoli which was a port for the Barbary pirates was Tripoli, Lebanon, not Tripoli, Libya. The link at the beginning of this article points to Tripoli, Libya. I will attempt to research this before changing it.
L. Greg 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe you are incorrect; the Encyclopedia Britannica is very clear that they operated out of North Africa, based in what is now Libya and Algeria. After all, "Barbary" comes from Barbary states, which extended west (not east) from Egypt, thus ruling out Lebanon. Interesting thought, though: I didn't even know there was a Tripoli, Lebanon! - DavidWBrooks 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Historiographical Lexicon
I don't have time to go into detail on this right now because I'm studying for my University Final on the subject but a couple of erratum have come to my attention.
Firstly, the Barbary "Pirates" are more correctly called Corsairs. In addition to it being the traditional name I've always heard them called, it more aptly describes their political situation. For clarification on what I'm talking about:
Pirate: Someone who robs or plunders for personal gain
Corsair: A pirate with a letter of Marque or other form of permission or patronage from a Government Body or Monarch
Privateer: A war-time Corsair
The Barbary Corsairs were not private individuals but more like guerrilla seamen for their nations. Additionally the Barbary states had at most times official support and patronage from the Ottoman Empire, reinforcing the corsair-nature of their activities.
My second big point is that The Ottoman Empire is referred to in this article as Turkey and the Ottomans as Turks. This is not correct. Yes the Ottoman empire began in turkey and the Original Sultans were turkish, but they have been more properly referred to as Ottomans since Osman in the middle ages. Besides this, by the period this article is concerned with, the Ottomans had incorporated so many nations and come to comprise such a vast Diaspora, including Sultans of numerous ethnicities, that you cannot properly refer to any aspect outside of turkey as Turkish.
I encourage anyone to consult modern historiographical practices on this subject and update the article accordingly, or as I said, I'll return when I have time to do it myself
Charon96 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spanish Expedition on Algiers in 1775
In 1775 the Spanish under Charles III sent his navy and 22,000 men to Algiers to end the razzias on the Spanish coast, well before the 1781 US expedition.
--81.202.158.49 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] After 1815
I tagged this section as having a POV problem. It reads overwhelmingly like an account copied from a 19th century text, with all the biases and assumptions inherent in that. The fact that, unlike the rest of the article, the text is whole, without any citations (and hardly any wiki links) makes me wonder if this isn't the case after all. Ford MF (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the only change needed is to replace "universally" with "by the Christian powers". I will make that change and remove the tag. If I may say so, I see a lot more bias inherent in your comments (that if Whites were mistreated by non-Whites, they probably deserved it, the wicked racist imperialists) than in the text you are complaining about. Luwilt (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] raids on North America?
The current revision claims that they raided North America. Which part, precisely? Florida? Newfoundland? New England? Or did they attack ships sailing from North America, but not the continent itself? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A silly question...
The article talks about Barbary corsairs "preying on Christian and other non-Islamic shipping" in the Western Mediterranean. What other religions are we talking about here - buddhism ?Boulet rouge (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That`s a good point. Afaik: Islamic pirates also where a danger to "pagan" Africans, and also in the Read Sea to the nonwestern christians of Ethiopia.
- Which brings us to another aspect, There is written in the head of the article that the piracy started during the crusades, when in fact these kind of piracy was part of the expansion of Islam from the beginning. I mean that`s how they get fe to Spain in the first place, it started with short raides - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw. 62.178.137.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jefferson report to Sec. State John Jay and Continental Congress
Unfortunately, the citation of the previously posted quote, like that of Michael Oren's comments (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html) and more modern usages of the quote, contain no sources/footnotes to the original report from Jefferson.
In searching Jefferson's letters (at least those online), the only letter in 1786 regarding the Barbary Pirates is to John Adams, and is contained at the following two links: 1. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=46&division=div1; 2. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl46.htm
I have found another "second hand" citing of the Ambassador's response to Jefferson, but in a much earlier text; The Atlantic Monthly from October 1872 (http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?ammem/coll=moa&root=/moa/atla/atla0030/&tif=00419.TIF&view=50&frames=1).
Although I have updated the quote in the article to reflect the earliest source, I am still looking for the original document from Jefferson to Sec. State Jay. Studentofthe193 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)