Buccaneer Vs. Pirates

Pirates have taken over the Young Turks.  It has been interesting to hear all these stories about pirates off the coast of Africa.  

During yesterday's show Cenk asked about Buccaneers and what the difference with Pirates are.

The answer is there is no difference between a Buccaneer and a Pirate.

A Buccaneer was a Spanish term for pirates in the Caribbean, while Pirates was an English term.  

The history of Buccaneers -

When Spain was colonizing Central America, they released a number of pigs, goats, and chickens on islands throughout the Caribbean, so they would multiply. That way when their ships were sailing between the new world and Spain, they would be able to make quick stops to replenish their food stocks with fresh meat.  Actually it was pretty smart.

Over the years a number of Europeans ended up on these islands, sailors who found sea-life was not for them, colonists, or who knows. Some of the more enterprising individuals among these started hunting the game and preparing meat for when ships would come by, and at first the ships paid.  The pig meat was called bucca, and so these men were called "Buccaneers".

Later as the Buccaneers started charging more for the meat, the ship's captains started to say "hell no; the animal's are free, and so why pay?" and so they stopped paying.  This put the Buccaneers in a tough situation, and so they decided, well we'll just take the ships, and thus the Buccaneers became a term for pirates.  

And that is today's history geek lesson.
 

< Bush's pardon speaks volumes | One other Note On Heidi Klum and Bill O'Reilly >
 Display:
Bounty hunters were paid a dollar for every pirate they killed. Proof was provided by bringing in a severed ear. Thus: buck-an-ears.

by ashbul on 11/26/2008 03:25:23 PM EST

True story, except for the "true" part.

by Erik on 11/27/2008 11:38:21 AM EST

Next shopping trip, see if you can locate some of this "bucca". I'm sure it will be a cinch to find, right there at the meat counter between the macca and the jacko.

by ashbul on 11/28/2008 03:56:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The thing with Manatee was that (at least when they were common) they were really easy to hunt and kill. Lots of meat that was not much able to fight back (as a pig certainly can). I presume that the taste was pretty bad as well. So the folk who survived on this were considered the laziest scoundrels who would stoop to anything.

It is not hard to imagine folk so down on their luck that they turn to crime much as the Somali Pirates have done. But not before being labled, in English, by more successful official Pirates with letters of Mark, who were financed by Private funds and hence Privateers, those financed by nothing but cheap rations would be Buccaneers.

by FreeDem on 11/27/2008 09:47:28 PM EST

i was just taking a gander at the constitution, and it looks like congress isn't living up to yet another constitutional duty.

Under section 8- powers of congress

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

hmmm...the forefathers were fucking badasses, and genuises at that man...i give them passes for being racist slave owners, because on paper, they knew what the fuck they were doing.

chris

by chrisandyasemin on 11/27/2008 11:45:19 PM EST

After reading that story, I'm starting to understand our forefathers more and more, and I think They were fucking insanely organized prophetic political/societal geniuses, because Thomas Jefferson would "appear" to be paradoxical based on that story, because he didn't himself abolish slavery.  I understand why he didn't, not from that story, but by the way slavery is described in the first scripting of the constitution.  They never intended for it to be permanent.  It was supposed to be up for question again in 1888, and this reason is likely because they understood that in the first stages of a nation, you NEED an extreme imbalance of power to kick start the wealth, because if there is no wealth, then what is the country worth right?  But then they realized that once this nation got to be wealthy, the slaves might not want/need to be slaves anymore, thus the 1888 marker.  That's why I'm starting to rethink their status man.  If before you've assumed I tossed the term "racist" around just because I'm black, I think this will change your mind.  I think they didn't necessarily have anything against blacks, they were just the other, and slaves were necessary for non-industrialised societies to start up.  I don't think it's pretty, but this is pre-first world country, we're talking pre cotton gin here.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 11/28/2008 12:42:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: