Part Two: The Buccaneer

Vintage_Books will post her questions later, please post your comments, if you have read Part Two.

- TT

I was surprised by the level of violence that the people who just sort of happened to join these ships participated in. Also, it seemed to me that Dampier had lots of good ideas but not the leadership ability to convince the others to follow them (for example, when he wanted to canoe along the river part way across the isthmus and no one agreed and then they crossed and recrossed it numerous times with many dangerous outcomes). However, then at the end I saw that he and the captain got together to convince everyone to sail all the way to Asia. So, I guess he did gain leadership ability as he went on.
--BJ

I wouldn't say I was surprised by the 'level' of violence as I'd known that they would be very violent indeed however I just never thought of the actual acts being imposed upon the victims. I think that sort of thing no one would like think of... normally anyway...

Reading of the medical treatments and the worm in Dampier's leg kind of disgusts me and I'm so very glad that I'm living in the 21st century! Btw, what is that condition with worms in your leg? how can the worm be so long?

I haven't quite finished part 2 yet but it appears Dampier did not have much power (persuasive or otherwise)... what is exactly his position in the rank of buccaneers?

After reading Part Two my impressions of William Dampier are that I am more convinced than ever that he was a thieving, murdering, plundering, selfishly ambitious pirate whose only desire was to obtain wealth by any and every means. He was morally bankrupt and totally without scruples. I have absolutely no admiration for him whatsoever. So he was observant, intellectually curious and could write about what he observed. These hardly outweigh the blackness of his heart!

My initial impression that he was somehow a cut above his pirate companions is wholly unfounded. He was a mover and shaker in their enterprises and was wholehearted in his participation in all they undertook. He may have had an “exquisite” mind from an intellectual point of view but he also had a “wicked”, murdering, heart.

- TT

TT I wholeheartedly agree that Dampier was a total scoundrel, but I think there was more to it than simple greed. I could understand greed, though not approve of it. I think his real reasons for pirating are even worse than greed.

I'm almost finished with Part 2 and I'm more and more convinced that Dampier had few redeeming qualities. After his harrowing experiences crossing the isthmus of Panama the first time, where he and his cohorts faced life threatening danger and starvation, he could hardly wait for the group to recover before he was ready to go at it again. From chapter six:

"Despite all the hardships and disappointments, Dampier was leaving the Pacific with some regret. He tried to peruade his companions to attempt to capture a Spanish ship carrying treasure from the mines. His 'sacred hunger' for gold was undiminished, but he 'found them all tired without life or soul to undertake anything.'"

The threat of starvation, facing scurvy on long cruises, and many failed attempts at piracy and the dangers involved, never discouraged him one whit.

If Dampier was only interested in riches for the sake of exploration, there were certainly easier ways to go about it. I think Dampier became a pirate, and continued to be a pirate even after he had gained his wealth (he had already purchased an estate in England, and basically squandered much of his wealth in Virginia) purely because he enjoyed the murdering and thieving life of a pirate. Wealth and exploration were secondary to the crimminal life he was enjoying. He was a murdering, thieving pirate because he liked it.

I do find it interesting how he is rarely lumped into the same category as his fellow pirates (by the authors and his own accounts) the others are always "baser men" or some such -

Fancy that - murder, plunder, pillage, torture are all ok *if* you keep a book of the pretty flowers you trample along the way. I do find it interesting how at every turn he participated but it is chalked up as a necessity to fit in, yet exploration was his goal.

I agree with Lorrie and TT that he was just as into the plunder and piracy as anything else. I think the exploration/documentation was almost an aside for him to pass the long sick days at times and make a record that favored his higher qualities. -good PR

Arrggghhhhh Mateys! Bein' down in the ship's stores, methinks did see some of them stowaways drinkin' our water and naught and tried to ketch them, I did, while Yer First Mate took over the ship. They's stowaways be reading these here threads, but are clever by half an' not gettin' caught stowin' in me Greatest of Ships yet.

Me eye be keepin' a lookout for them.

In these mean times, here be the questions started for Part TWO with more be comin for ye to think on shortly:

QUESTIONS, PART TWO, answer as many questions as you like.

On pages 98-99:
Do you think it's possible to travel by sea with Buccaneers during this time period and not participate in pirate activities?

On pages 102-103:
The ingenuity of William, the Moskito Indian is surprising in his amazing cleverness during the 1680's.

With current reality television shows such as "Survivor" do you think a modern day person would survive as well as well in the same circumstances as William did during the 1680's?

On page, 114, bottom:
William Dampier noted the Indians loss of freedom seemed to resonate during their every day activities. How do you think Dampier's capture of Indians and persons of usefullness was in contrast to his diary observation and entry?

Found a nice video of the Galapagos:

http://www.darwinadventure.com/videos/video2.html

Enjoy!

Well, I guess that I will attempt a short answer to the above questions.
1. I think that maybe a specialized person like a doctor or possibly a navigator who is essential to the enterprise could travel without participating. On the other hand, treating the pirates so they can continue to steal and directing the ship toward the intended destinations could be seen as participating in the activities. So maybe the answer is really "no."
2. I don't watch the show Survivor. I do think that people today can survive in quite hostile environments. However, for the technology that was available at the time, no, I don't think that a modern person could do as well. But my idea of camping is a barbecue and then a motel.
3. I totally agree that Dampier's ideas and his actions conflicted during his buccaneer days as I mentioned in the Traveller thread. For someone so smart, he definitely could compartmentalize his thoughts.
--BJ

First of all, I love this book. It's endlessly fascinating and the pages turn at a nice clip. I think if you joined the Buccaneers, you participated in all activities, otherwise what was the point! They knew what they were getting into!
As far as us modern day light-weights, I'm not sure very many of us could cut it. The intense hunger, lack of medical supplies and rampant filth would sink me for sure. Although, life on the island of Mindanao, has a certain appeal. Pagally, anyone?

Just a few quick thoughts--I'm just getting caught up on my reading and my family (we are visiting them in Chicago--so my time is "not my own") are clamoring for me to get ready to go on our next "excursion".

I still think Dampier was more into the seeing new things rather than the piracy--note the choice he made when the large group split: he went with the group that was going to places they hadn't already visited rather than the ones going after more treasure where they had already been. I feel Dampier has a certain detachment about the piracy--he, of course, would like some money as he is always broke--but he sees the necessity of the piracy in order to keep the crew happy because he can't go where he wants to go without them. He is not morally repulsed by what happens (at least most of the time) but I don't detect any particular eagerness for mayhem and murder. He also tries to help keep peace on board and definitely shows no sign of wanting to be in any way in charge--although he would be a natural and intelligent leader. My thought: he's an amoral pragmatist. He would make a good politician. ;-)

BTW I am enjoying this book and annoying my family by having my nose buried in it! I loved the part in the Philippines--I lived on a very small island in the Leyte Gulf for a year when I was a child.

>9 loriephillips:: thanks for the video lorie - nice song!

- TT

My gosh--I've been gone for over a week, and am quite behind in my reading. Had a very sick kitty and actually had to say goodbye to her last week. She always lounged on the half-wall by my computer desk, so I've been subconciously avoiding it. When I read, she sat in my lap, so I've been avoiding that as well. Hope to be caught up in a few days...

#14 I am sorry about your kitty.
--BJ

Sorry about your kitty, robbie.

- TT

>14 robbieg_422: robbie, I add my condolences on the loss of your friend.

MISTER Tortoise! Blackhearted evil awful Dampier was a man WITHOUT REDEEMING QUALITIES?!? The fact that "he was observant, intellectually curious and could write about what he observed" truly ought to go some way towards "outweigh{ing} the blackness of his heart"! Dare ye forget that the wind and tide charts the man created ex nihilo were used exclusively until the 20th-century technology his observations helped found (in the broadest interpretation of "help" I admit) enabled us to do better?! Really, what's a few slaughtered prisoners among friends?

Dampier wouldn't fit around the Thanksgiving table of the typical Murrican householder. But as a man of his time, he was no more (and no less) reprehensible than the corporate titans who bestride our (diminished, IMHO) globe and are lionized for "cost-cutting" (read: firing people who have families, bills, illnesses) in order to accomplish far MORE greedy and self-serving aims than any served by Dampier's piracy.

I think there was a point in there somewhere, did I make it or lose it?

>17 richardderus: richard

I think you make your point very well. Corporate piracy, all in the name of greed no matter the consequences. Things really haven't changed in any major way since Dampier's era, same story with minor changes in plot details!

Thanks to all for your kind words regarding the loss of my kitty:)

I still am not caught up in reading, but have to agree with TT about Dampiers lack of redeeming qualities. Corporate titans are greedy and ruthless, yes, but do not (usually, as far as we know...), resort to cold-blooded murder or stand by as 60 women aboard a ship are ravished, or murdered, or thrown overboard, or whatever happened to them. Even if Dampier wasn't an active participant, he stood by and watched it happen, and didn't abandon his way of life anytime soon after, so he must not have felt too bad about it. Failure to act or to defend those who cannot act or defend themselves shows poor character.

Having an admirable quality or two among several bad ones isn't that uncommon, probably, for many murderers. Hitler, I would suppose, was observant, intellectually curious and could write about what he observed. Those qualities, as good as they are, are not in themselves REDEEMING, in that they do not make up for the bad. They are there, but they are seperate, and do not a respectable man make....Now, if somewhere down the line (like further than I've read), Dampier Acknowledges his actions and is truely repentant of them, accepting the consequences; that would be a REDEEMING quality. So far, he is just omitting the ugly things from his writings; sort of "if we don't talk about it, we won't have to feel bad about it...".

I'm not comparing Dampier to Hitler; he's just the first example for making my point that popped into my head (that's not true. The first example was actually John Wayne Gasy, and that he was probably a very good clown, but then I realized there is no such thing, and remembered that clowns scare me...alot.)

Further, being no less or no more reprehensible than someone else (or a group of someone elses) does not excuse behavior either. "because everyone's doing it now", doesn't make his doing it then acceptable (does that sentence even make sense?? I'd better quit now...)

>17 richardderus: Richard Dear, I was being very moralistic and speaking only from a moral point of view - of course I admire his intellectual accomplishments. See my further comments in thread three. You too Robbie.

- TT

The title of the book sums up Dampier well. He had qualities that I really admire: intelligence, a sense of adventure, a desire to learn. But he also had qualities that I dislike: selfishness, brutality, violence. In one paragraph he is off exploring the jungle and writing great descriptions about what he sees, and I can relate to that sense of excitement and exploring. In the next paragraph (or chapter), Dampier is taking part in some barbaric and violent scheme, and I am appalled at his selfishness.

I guess it shows his humanity. People aren't either completely good or completely bad, there are shades of dark and light in us all.

oh Robbie G....so sorry about your cat...i have been virus-plagued of late and my old Kitty has been sneezing...but the vet said she is okay (maybe the air in the house is too dry, dunno)...anyway, my condolence...

i haven't been posting here lately....was gonna jump ship but, nah...just gotta get me Reading Legs on and catch up with the schedule....give me a day or two

this is still a humdinger of a Read!!!

;-p

Thanks Jude...and so glad you decided not to jump ship; you would be missed:) Hope you're feeling better.

Happy Thanksgiving!

No, i did not Jump Ship....water is too cold! and i finally finished Part 2:The Buccaneer...don't know why but the going was so slow in this part...maybe all the violence, the to(ing)-and fro(ing)...up the Coast and round the Bend(s) made me seasick....the only redeeming bit was the part about the Galapagos Islands and the amazing wildlife!!! oh, welll..now i can get back on track....but not dis-tract...
;-p

When I was reviewing the pages listed with the questions, I noticed the footnote regarding "the noble savage."
Noble Savage. That is a good way to describe Dampier. He is a man with noble intentions in documenting and exploring the natural world, but as a buccaneer did not sail through his adventures without blood on his hands.
I think it's interesting that more than once his crew was involved in some heinous act, which Dampier seemed to have purposely left out of his journal. Maybe his omissions show us he wasn't in agreement with how far the pirates were taking things.

I think bookgirl271 hit the nail on the head.

What I read in this part of the book is totally different from what is sketched about Dampier in the prologue. He now clearly seems to be a pirate. Maybe a clever one, partly because he is writing all his adventures down. But he's not too much different from the others.

I think it was hard in those times to travel without being a pirate. I've the feeling that you should be a pirate yourself or else someone will piratise (is that a word?) you.

I don't think we would survive in the same circumstances as William. We are too much used to hygiene and will get ill quite easily. But on the other side, many European people travel the world and live among less sophisticated tribes all over the globe. And they survive, so why shouldn't we? It's also part of character; in his time not everybody was like William Dampier and could survive and most likely it is the same nowadays.

Dampier was always writing that freedom was a great good and that everybody should live according to their own moral, religion, etc. But on the other hand he captures the people he thhinks he needs.