Part Three: The Traveller

On thing I noticed was that Dampier often spoke of how he admired the societies that shared all equally and disliked those which did not. Although the pirates did share among themselves, they certainly did not feel bad about the stealing from others to enrich themselves. So I thought that his egalitarian attitudes did not fit in with his actions. However, when he and the small group were travelling the 120 miles across water in the canoe with outriggers, he did seem to feel some remorse for the pirate activites. Of course, he thought he was going to die. But he did seem somewhat changed to me after that trip. (But then his plans to make money on his "painted prince" seemed a little off base -- how is that egalitarian?)
--BJ

I was surprised to read that when Dampier gained his freedom and was put ashore on the Nicobar Islands the he “kneeled down and gave thanks to God Almighty for his deliverance.” This comes as somewhat of a shock as there was no indication that Dampier was at all religious or of a devotional turn of mind.

However, it seems that he had repented of his evil way of life. He said: “I made very sad reflections on my former life and looked back with horror and detestation on actions which before I disliked, but now I trembled at the remembrance of.”

He also said: “I had long before this repented of that roving course of life.”

After reading that my respect for Dampier has risen considerably!

- TT

I'm a little behind in my reading and have only read the first half of part three. My initial impression is that the focus of the book seems to have changed dramatically and I'm a little confused by it. This section seems to be less blood thirsty and violent. Dampier has developed a new interest in industry such as setting up factories and forts in areas where it may prove profitable rather than the pillaging that he was formerly involved in. He is very anxious to "escape", leading one to believe that he was an unwilling pirate which is not the feeling one gets from earlier sections of the book.

Questions arise because of this change. Is it because the authors themselves are focusing on different aspects of the story? Is it because Dampier has attained the wealth he desired and is looking for ways to invest in a lucretive and legal enterprise? Or is Dampier finally just tired of the pirating life? Or is it that there is just a limited amount of information available from this period of Dampier's adventures? I feel a certain amount of dissatisfaction with this section because the information seems somewhat limited and contridictory to the earlier parts of the book.

#2 billiejean

IMO Dampier really does admire the egalitarian features of those societies and undoubtedly was one of the reasons he was attracted to piracy in the first place there egalitarian system. Although his activities were illegal by British law because none of his captains had a letter of marque giving them permission to attack ships of the enemies of Great Britain, piracy was accepted and some of the most famous English explorers were "legal" pirates.

He genuinely likes his "painted prince" and probably will try to convince him to be agreeable to his idea of putting him on display. However, at heart Dampier is a pragmatist--he needs money to live in England and his painted prince provides him an easy way to get it.

#3 TT

I never doubted that Dampier believed in God -- I loved the way the comparison between Catholics and Protestants was put--one worships idols the other pays attention to his religion as it suits his purpose. I also believe that his "confession" was genuine. I said before, he was never that enthusiastic about the 'bloody' aspects of pirating--it was a means to an end, to get money. I think he lost his tolerance for it as he learned to appreciate the humanity of the people they were attacking--especially the native populations. I think now we will see much more emphasis on the exploring and recording aspects of his life--his true calling. But he is still a pragmatist--note his desire to use his friend as an object to display in order to get money.

Pragmatists don't lack core values--they just don't let them get too much in the way of achieving their goals!

And most of us are probably pragmatic at times--it's very "human!"

>6 MusicMom41: MM. I think you may be mistaken in thinking that the painted prince was a friend - I think he was a slave. Treating a slave in this way is not reprehensible in the context of slavery and the times. Slavery is another matter altogether, but it was not considered wrong in England at that time.

However, I agree with your assessment of his character as a pragmatist.

- TT

#7 TT

You are undoubtedly right about him being a slave--Dampier seemed to enjoy his company and took good care of him--but to be a "friend" there would have to be some sense of "equality" between them and since Dampier seems to have no qualms about putting him on display in order to earn money that is obviously lacking. It will be interesting to see what happens with this scheme.

The painted prince is Dampier’s slave, but he seems to feel real affection for him. When the prince & his mother were sick, Dampier cared for them “like his own brother & sister”. It is odd that he can feel this affection for the painted prince, and still treat him like a relic on display.

There was an interesting part about the Australian Aborigines (p 174-175), where the published description of the Aborigines is negative, “yet the unpublished draft of Dampier’s book painted a different picture”. It was more objective and didn’t have any of the negativity of the published work. I wondered why the publishers would have changed Dampier's descriptions. Surely not to maintain negative images of indigenous people?

>9 bookgirl271:, bookgirl271 - I think the publishers changed some of the descriptions in Dampier's books to give the people what they wanted and were interested in -a sensationalised story. The general public probably weren't interested in the scientific data that Dampier collected so much as they were interested in outlandish descriptions of indigenous people - how they looked, what they wore, etc. I think travel stories back then were the celebrity magazines of today. Just think about all the rubbish celebrity magazines publish that is sometimes based on fact but then twisted to make it more interesting. It's all just fascination about the unknown in order to escape from everyday life.

#5 That was a good point about the way the British system provided for legal piracy. I had forgotten about that. :)
--BJ

Pragmatist extraordinaire would describe our lad to the ground, I think. He was a person we'd call spiritual today, I think, instead of religious; I don't think that distinction existed in the seventeenth century.

His attitude towards his slaves was bewildering to us in this time because we're indoctrinated with an anti-slavery attitude that brooks no shades of gray, only the thundering commandment to see slavery as The Ultimate Evil. In times gone by, that attitude wasn't the prevailing norm, so a more nuanced view of the interpersonal relationships of slaves to masters was possible.

Don't mistake me...I am not in any way suggesting that slavery was acceptable even then. It must be said, though, that attitudes of the day allowed for different sorts of relationships than we in the 21st century can ever really understand fully.

> 12 Well said Richard "Dear".

- TT

Why thank you Milord! High praise indeed.

Lawsy me. I am behindhand on my reading of posts in this group. Much to catch up with.

# 10 - good point Elee, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I found a good web site for pictures of modern Hanoi (Chachao from chapter XV, that Dampier was so enthralled with). If you click on each picture it brings up a different series of pictures. Here's the link:

http://www.jorgetutor.com/vietnam/hanoi/hanoi.htm

Good gracious! Hanoi has a Temple of Literature! How extremely civilized, don't y'all think?

Look at this! Cool picture!!

>17 richardderus: Rich: Is it me, or did I miss seeing the books in the Temple of Literature!

Brilliant pic! BTW - what does the symbolism of the little red cross in the square box on a white background mean?

- TT

#17 richardderus

Wow--I tried to check out your Temple of Literature and got a note: FORBIDDEN you can't access this picture on this server!

Do I have cooties? ;-)

I'm forbidden as well. I must have cooties too. People with cooties are cool!
;-)

Huh! I can't think what changed...posted it and it worked fine, and now nothing! Freaky.

Oh well. I still like the Temple of Literature IDEA even if we hoi polloi are too cootie-ridden to view the Sacred Precincts.

What are cooties?- they sound like some sort of nasty infection!

I think they're bugs, like lice. It's something that kids say (or used too). When I was a kid, if a boy touched you, you'd say something like "Eww boy cooties!". It must be an American thing.

Milord, the cootie is what YOU have and WE don't, no matter who "you" and "we" are...it's an American silliness, as loriephillips points out, but a playful and useful way of shifting blame for something onto others, as well.

You, Milord, could therefore say, "Ewww Yank cooties!" about the whole stupid Iraq mess. I, as a card-carrying, I-am-now-and-have-always-been Liberal (not a party here in the USA, but the capital letter plays on American political commentator Rush Limbaugh's loathing of those to the left of Attila at his most Hunnish), could also say, "Ewww Republican cooties!" about the same thing.

Well put, richard. Accusing someone of having cooties is a form of social rejection. Dampier had cooties. Pirate cooties, ewwww!

#25 loriephillips

Maybe that explains how such an intelligent man who accomplished so much in his life that contributed to our understanding of the world and helped with the navigation of it remained so unknown until Diana Preston wrote this wonderful book!

#26 MusicMom41

I think that you make a good point, actually. I NEVER write in my books, but I have written all over this one because I wanted to be able to reference different things that interested me. My note at the end of the prologue reads, "Dampier became largely forgotton--maybe because his contribution was out weighed by his unprincipled deeds as a pirate?" Your post made me realize that a simpler way of putting it is that he was largely forgotton because he had cooties! Maybe he really was a social reject.

# 27 You have a good point there, lorie; I think Dampier was a social reject because of his piracy in his younger years.

#3 TT, the fact that he was praising God was indeed falling out of the air (is that an English expression?), but I consider it normal for everyone living in that age.

#4 lorie, I feel the same about the change, even after finishing the whole book. I think Dampier grew older and wiser but also have the feeling the writers want him to do so.

Greetings!

I have fallen behind in my reading of our book, but I am now about half way through the Traveller section - at the point where things are about to get very interesting for me (i.e. Dampier reaches Australia!).

I just finished this section this morning. I continue to be amazed at all of the things he experienced, discovered, and wrote about!