[maceo]

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.

[kbenson]

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.

[maceo]

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.

[senthil_rajasek]

Ignorance is not a defense. Also, it would still be considered aiding and abetting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

[kbenson]

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.

[senthil_rajasek]

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.

[placeybordeaux]

Of course the captain of the ship should be held responsible. An ignorant ship hand should not.

[lotharbot]

> "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....

[senthil_rajasek]

>"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.

[baddox]

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).

[maceo]

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).

[SixSigma]

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.

[Aloha]

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.

[maceo]

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.

[sirclueless]

> 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.

[aschampion]

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.

[mirimir]

I also recommend Of Captain Mission by Daniel Defoe.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7779/7779-h/7779-h.htm

[maceo]

Thanks, added to my reading list.