![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithThis poem came out of the July 2, 2024 Poetry Fishbowl. It was inspired by prompts from siliconshaman and see_also_friend. It also fills the "Spirit Island" square in my 7-1-24 card for the Games and Entertainment Bingo fest. This poem has been sponsored by a pool with fuzzyred. It belongs to the series Peculiar Obligations.
"The Democratic Armada of the Caribbean"
[1600s]
Not long after the Europeans
arrived in the New World,
the pirates followed them.
In the 1500s, pirate havens
began to spring up all around
the islands of the Caribbean Sea.
San Juan, Puerto Rico was
among the first, and key in
smuggling throughout the area.
Portsmouth, Dominica became
a major port of call for the Spanish
and the English, which also made
the town into a prime hub for piracy.
By the 1600s, more had emerged.
Santa Isabel Village located on
Isla de Provedencia was one.
Some even appeared on
the Spanish Main, including
Xcalak and Portobelo.
In 1636, the Caribs drove
the European invaders
from their island Matinino.
After that, they preferred
to trade with the pirates.
Port Morgan, Île-à-Vache
near Hispaniola as well as
Tap House on St. Thomas
began to gain more traffic.
To the north, two towns in
Rhode Island grew popular with
pirates, Providence and Newport.
Tortuga Village on Tortuga Island,
part of the larger Hispaniola, was
the most famous for many years,
despite all of the giant turtles.
It was a golden age for pirates.
Then something interesting happened.
The Religious Society of Friends, who
were pacifists of all rare things, started
reaching out to the pirates in ports.
A few even started to take ship,
speaking of peace, and because
they were skilled at negotiation,
the Friends were ... tolerated.
The founder, George Fox,
annoyed a lot of stuffy people.
Pirates found that amusing,
and the Friends entertaining,
if more than a bit perplexing.
In the 1650s, female Friends
connected with female pirates,
teaming up to advance the rights
of women on an even wider scale.
The female pirates started to provide
escape routes for abused women
in general, frustrating men in power.
Bermuda had been stewing for a while,
and unrest finally erupted into revolt
in 1656 that made it a free pirate island.
Another great pirate haven arose in
Port Royal, Jamaica as people built
taverns, whorehouses, trading posts,
and other maritime attractions.
George Fox began to express
his doubts about slavery.
The pirates listened with
half an ear, because on
the one hand, freedom was
vital to their way of life, but
on the other hand, they were
mostly motivated by money.
The Friends were always
getting into trouble, though,
and pirates appreciated that.
In 1660, female pirates rescued
Mary Dyer from intended execution
and hauled her to the Caribbean
to prevent her from returning
to danger in New England.
It took her well over a year
to forgive them for uprooting her.
More pirate havens emerged as
foreign ships harassed older ones,
like Petit Goâve on Saint Domingue.
The British attempted to take control
of the Cayman Islands in 1670, which
ended with their official establishment
as free pirate islands -- and a lot of
British sailors getting fed to the basks
of truly enormous crocodiles that swam
around the beaches and the rivers
of the islands named for them.
Several Friends, including
William Edmundson and
George Fox, visited Barbados.
When they argued for treating
slaves humanely, the owners
became outraged and drove
the Friends off the island.
The pirates just laughed;
teasing the rich never got old.
Later they found out that George
published his Barbados sermons
in a little book that again urged
people to treat their slaves better.
Someone got hold of a copy
and passed it around the taverns,
spawning all manner of jokes.
A few years after those incidents,
Friend Alice Curwen traveled to
Barbados and pestered one of
the locals, Friend Martha Tavernor,
to release the slaves she owned.
It wasn't quite the catfight that
the pirates typically bet on,
but they bet on it anyway.
Eventually Alice won,
and her allies collected
their bets, and nobody
thought too much of it yet.
In 1683, William Penn
created a new colony
called Pennsylvania,
aimed at fostering love
and a spirit of brotherhood.
He insisted that the settlers pay
Indians a fair price for native land,
treat natives with dignity, and
respect their various cultures.
William even tried to enact
legislation against slavery.
The pirates just chuckled
about it over their rum.
Well, this ought
to get ... interesting.
By the 1690s, some of
the pirates ventured out
on long-distance voyages
from the Americas to raid
East India Company targets
in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea.
The island of Bermuda shifted
its economy to maritime business
and incorporated many former slaves
as blacksmiths, masons, carpenters,
coopers, shipwrights, and sailors.
Then in 1692, disaster struck:
an earthquake and a great wave
severely damaged Port Royal.
Pirates and Friends alike
flocked to Jamaica and
rendered aid to survivors.
They quickly rebuilt the town
on safer ground, leaving only
the docks at sea level, and
renamed it Port Liberty.
Some pirates still shifted
their routes to Nassau on
New Providence Island in
the Bahamas, which was well
placed and hadn't been flattened.
On October 23, 1696 the Friends
in Philadelphia ruled against bringing
in any new slaves, and urged those
who still owned slaves to treat them
well and to take them to Meetings.
By this point the pirates were
used to it, because their crews
were mostly mixed and if you had
Friends then you also had Meetings,
because any two or three of them
would stick together like burrs.
The Delaware River had
long been favored for piracy
because of the heavy trade
that ran up and down it.
In 1699, the Friends and
the Pennsylvania Assembly
negotiated with the river pirates,
giving them Tinicum Island as
well as Tinicum Township, with
the understanding that they could
trade in the state and its towns
but could no longer raid in either.
However, the pirates remained free
to attack any enemies of Pennsylvania.
Everyone was very happy with this deal.
[1700s]
Pirate havens continued to emerge,
with Tylerton on Smith Island off
the shore of Virginia, and Eden on
Ocracoke Island off the shore
of North Carolina which had
a sympathetic governor.
In 1701, the War of
the Spanish Succession
broke out, with France and
Great Britain joining the fray.
This offered plentiful opportunities
for privateers to make a profit.
The Pennsylvania Assembly
passed an Act to prevent
the importation of slaves
in 1713, but they had
a hard time enforcing it.
That still marked a step
toward the end of slavery.
After the Spanish Succession
concluded in 1714, many of
the sailors and privateers
were left unemployed.
Some of these turned
to piracy in the Caribbean
and the eastern seaboard
of North America, others
to the Indian Ocean and
the West African coast.
It made for some unrest,
because they were new to
the area and didn't know
all the local customs yet.
So local pirates took to flying
a black flag with a white dove
if they had a Friend in the crew,
and they taught the newcomers
that you could haul alongside
such a ship and ask for help if
you needed a negotiator or doctor.
Ships with a Friend for a captain
flew a white flag with a white dove
on a red-and-black 8-pointed star,
with similar offers of assistance.
In 1715, another antislavery tract
made the rounds of the Caribbean,
this one with a long list of reasons
why it was such a terrible idea.
In Jamaica, the Maroon War
made it a free pirate island in 1730,
and people banned slavery there.
It became a haven, not just
for raiders of all sorts, but
also for freedmen and
for runaway slaves.
In 1733, a publisher in
Rhode Island released
a testimony on slavery, and
this one circulated widely as
one of the notable conjunctions
between Friends and pirates
on the topic of abolition.
The pirates, who had
been drifting more toward
freedom over money, grew
more convinced that slaving
wasn't any way to make a living.
On November 23 of the same year,
Saint John became a free pirate island.
From there the rebellion spread to
the rest of the Danish West Indies.
Saint Thomas followed suit in
1734. Fighting in Saint Croix,
the largest island, continued
until it broke free in late 1736.
In April 1756, a group of Friends
from Philadelphia established
the Friendly Association for
Regaining and Preserving
Peace with the Indians by
Pacific Measures. They
used trade and health care
to cement alliances with tribes.
Louisiana became more and
more friendly to pirates, with
Saint Malo in St. Bernard Parish
becoming a haven for them.
The Carib War made Saint Vincent
into a free pirate island in 1773.
Then slaves in Tobago revolted,
freeing it in 1770, followed by
Trinidad where a long bloody war
left it free in the summer of 1774.
On April 19, 1775, years of
rising discontent in the colonies
boiled over into open war with
the battles of Lexington and
Concord, Massachusetts.
These marked the start of
the American Revolutionary War.
The American Continental Congress
ratified the Declaration of Independence
on July 4, 1776 but only included some of
the antislavery passages from earlier drafts,
and quite a bit from the Custom of the Coast.
On July 15, 1776 the Congress struck a deal
with a large group of pirates and privateers,
the Democratic Armada of the Caribbean.
They agreed to recognize each other
as nations and to work together as
allies against hostile European forces.
The Americans offered control
of Rhode Island to the Armada,
along with support of its claims
to various other locations, in
exchange for military support.
The Armada was happy to secure
Rhode Island and delighted to attack
every British vessel they could find.
A key feature of the Armada, however,
was that they based their identity on
ships as much as on pieces of land.
On July 8, 1777 the Vermont Republic
became the first state to outlaw slavery.
Then on March 1, 1780 Pennsylvania
passed an act for gradual abolition.
In 1781, the slave ship Zong ran
into trouble, and the crew debated
throwing its human cargo overboard.
Then the pirate ship Black Guillemot
discovered the slave ship and boarded
her, staging the Zong Rescue, in which
they freed all of the African captives.
Luke Collingwood and most of his crew
were either killed on board or thrown
overboard, by pirates or freed Africans.
A majority of the 132 Africans became pirates.
Due in large part to excellent alliances with
the Democratic Armada of the Caribbean
and several Native American tribes,
the Revolutionary War came to
an end on September 3, 1781.
In January of 1791, the island of
Dominica became a free pirate island
and thus outlawed slavery there.
A few months later, Spirit Island,
between Dominica and Martinique,
was set aside for the Carib People.
Pirates being a superstitious bunch,
they just didn't want to mess with it.
Also the island of Hispaniola, previously
divided as French Saint-Domingue and
Spanish Santo Domingo, became
a free pirate island, took the name
of Haiti, and banned slavery.
On February 1, 1793 France
and Great Britain went to war.
Privateers all over the Caribbean
rushed to seek Letters of Marque.
By 1795, the society of pirates
had gained considerable momentum,
with smaller groups joining the Armada
and more islands throwing off overlords.
In that year alone, Grenada, Saint Lucia,
and Curaçao all became free pirate islands
and banned slavery in their holdings.
[1800s]
In 1800, it became
a disownable offense
for Friends to own slaves
anywhere, even down in
the southern slave states.
Friends in those states who
owned slaves were obligated
to move somewhere else that
emancipating slaves was legal.
Some simply took up with pirates,
who generally favored freedom
and whose ships and crews
included many former slaves.
Louisiana became more of
a pirate haven with places such
as Manila Village in Barataria Bay.
The Friends had some successes in
sustaining fair treatment of tribal people.
These alliances helped the growing nation
develop good practices and withstand
pressures from foreign countries.
In 1803, attempts to enslave
free passengers of color from
ships docking in Cuba sparked
a rebellion that ended with Cuba
becoming a free pirate island in 1804.
A population of Taino, who had previously
escaped European invaders and hidden
in the mountains or settled elsewhere,
reappeared and became more willing
to trade with the current residents of
Cuba and the pirates who visited there.
In April of 1816, Bussa's Rebellion
made Barbados a free pirate island,
and they banned slavery there.
Then in 1821, Marcos Xiorro
led a great slave revolt against
the sugar plantation owners and
the Spanish Colonial government.
As a result, Puerto Rico became
a free pirate island, outlawing slavery.
During the 1840s to 1850s, Friends
hired freedom seekers and free blacks
to work on their farms and build cabins.
They encouraged black families
to send their children to school
and participate in community life.
Many of these families prospered
and in time bought their own land.
One such cluster of cabins, which
developed on property owned
by Friend James E. Bonine,
turned into Ramptown.
Eventually that became
a key black owned and
operated town, including
Friends among its residents
as well as closest neighbors.
Ramptown sent out missionaries
to teach other people, particularly
in the Caribbean, how to get along
and establish a healthy municipality.
This improved life and society there.
On April 12, 1861 the American Civil War
broke out over slavery, state rights, and
a bunch of other arguments that people
just couldn't seem to work through.
Then on April 29, 1861 the Union
met with the Democratic Armada
of the Caribbean and made a deal.
They offered the Armada control
of Florida and Louisiana along
with some coastal islands such as
Smith Island off the coast of Virginia
and Ocracoke Island off the shore
of North Carolina, which the nations
had previously been sharing and
sometimes bickering about.
In exchange, the Armada
blockaded the Gulf of Mexico
so that neither merchant nor
military vessels could easily
aid the Confederate States.
At this time, the Armada
also voted to ban slavery
throughout their territory,
rather than individually on
some ships and islands.
Similarly, female pirates
insisted on certain rights
for women of all stations.
On September 22, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln
issued new legislation, and
the Emancipation Proclamation
took effect immediately, freeing
all slaves held within America.
During the American Civil War,
the Bahamas followed by the Turks
and Caicos Islands became members in
the Democratic Armada of the Caribbean.
By this point, most of the islands had
shaken off European control and
taken charge of their own fate.
Despite having developed from
brigands and buccaneers, they
had learned enough skills from
the Friends to create societies
that were stable, comfortable
to live in, and most importantly
not based on enslaving anyone.
In May of 1863, the Civil War ended,
largely due to support from the Armada
which generally opposed slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States
was proposed on January 31, 1864.
It prohibited slavery and included
references to the penitentiary practices
by the Religious Society of Friends, so it
also forbade forced labor without pay.
Instead, prison wages must be saved
for payment upon release, giving
former inmates a temporary means
of support such that they could
secure a home and a legal job.
The Thirteenth Amendment was
ratified on December 6, 1864.
In the late 1800s, pirates
established a new haven
in Galveston town on
the island of Galveston
just off the Texas Shore.
The western states were
developing gradually, and
everyone wanted access
for trade or smuggling.
Texas just grumbled and
let them have it, lacking
the resources to dispute
possession so soon after
the South lost the Civil War.
Europe wasn't any happier,
but by then it was clear that
the pirates of the Caribbean
weren't going anywhere.
The Democratic Armada of
the Caribbean was just too
powerful and appealing for it
to fade away into the waves.
The United States and
the Armada enjoyed
a close if sometimes ...
peppery relationship.
At the turn of the century,
it looked like smooth sailing.
* * *
Notes:
This poem is long, so its map and content notes appear separately.
siliconshaman and see_also_friend. It also fills the "Spirit Island" square in my 7-1-24 card for the Games and Entertainment Bingo fest. This poem has been sponsored by a pool with fuzzyred. It belongs to the series Peculiar Obligations."The Democratic Armada of the Caribbean"
[1600s]
Not long after the Europeans
arrived in the New World,
the pirates followed them.
In the 1500s, pirate havens
began to spring up all around
the islands of the Caribbean Sea.
San Juan, Puerto Rico was
among the first, and key in
smuggling throughout the area.
Portsmouth, Dominica became
a major port of call for the Spanish
and the English, which also made
the town into a prime hub for piracy.
By the 1600s, more had emerged.
Santa Isabel Village located on
Isla de Provedencia was one.
Some even appeared on
the Spanish Main, including
Xcalak and Portobelo.
In 1636, the Caribs drove
the European invaders
from their island Matinino.
After that, they preferred
to trade with the pirates.
Port Morgan, Île-à-Vache
near Hispaniola as well as
Tap House on St. Thomas
began to gain more traffic.
To the north, two towns in
Rhode Island grew popular with
pirates, Providence and Newport.
Tortuga Village on Tortuga Island,
part of the larger Hispaniola, was
the most famous for many years,
despite all of the giant turtles.
It was a golden age for pirates.
Then something interesting happened.
The Religious Society of Friends, who
were pacifists of all rare things, started
reaching out to the pirates in ports.
A few even started to take ship,
speaking of peace, and because
they were skilled at negotiation,
the Friends were ... tolerated.
The founder, George Fox,
annoyed a lot of stuffy people.
Pirates found that amusing,
and the Friends entertaining,
if more than a bit perplexing.
In the 1650s, female Friends
connected with female pirates,
teaming up to advance the rights
of women on an even wider scale.
The female pirates started to provide
escape routes for abused women
in general, frustrating men in power.
Bermuda had been stewing for a while,
and unrest finally erupted into revolt
in 1656 that made it a free pirate island.
Another great pirate haven arose in
Port Royal, Jamaica as people built
taverns, whorehouses, trading posts,
and other maritime attractions.
George Fox began to express
his doubts about slavery.
The pirates listened with
half an ear, because on
the one hand, freedom was
vital to their way of life, but
on the other hand, they were
mostly motivated by money.
The Friends were always
getting into trouble, though,
and pirates appreciated that.
In 1660, female pirates rescued
Mary Dyer from intended execution
and hauled her to the Caribbean
to prevent her from returning
to danger in New England.
It took her well over a year
to forgive them for uprooting her.
More pirate havens emerged as
foreign ships harassed older ones,
like Petit Goâve on Saint Domingue.
The British attempted to take control
of the Cayman Islands in 1670, which
ended with their official establishment
as free pirate islands -- and a lot of
British sailors getting fed to the basks
of truly enormous crocodiles that swam
around the beaches and the rivers
of the islands named for them.
Several Friends, including
William Edmundson and
George Fox, visited Barbados.
When they argued for treating
slaves humanely, the owners
became outraged and drove
the Friends off the island.
The pirates just laughed;
teasing the rich never got old.
Later they found out that George
published his Barbados sermons
in a little book that again urged
people to treat their slaves better.
Someone got hold of a copy
and passed it around the taverns,
spawning all manner of jokes.
A few years after those incidents,
Friend Alice Curwen traveled to
Barbados and pestered one of
the locals, Friend Martha Tavernor,
to release the slaves she owned.
It wasn't quite the catfight that
the pirates typically bet on,
but they bet on it anyway.
Eventually Alice won,
and her allies collected
their bets, and nobody
thought too much of it yet.
In 1683, William Penn
created a new colony
called Pennsylvania,
aimed at fostering love
and a spirit of brotherhood.
He insisted that the settlers pay
Indians a fair price for native land,
treat natives with dignity, and
respect their various cultures.
William even tried to enact
legislation against slavery.
The pirates just chuckled
about it over their rum.
Well, this ought
to get ... interesting.
By the 1690s, some of
the pirates ventured out
on long-distance voyages
from the Americas to raid
East India Company targets
in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea.
The island of Bermuda shifted
its economy to maritime business
and incorporated many former slaves
as blacksmiths, masons, carpenters,
coopers, shipwrights, and sailors.
Then in 1692, disaster struck:
an earthquake and a great wave
severely damaged Port Royal.
Pirates and Friends alike
flocked to Jamaica and
rendered aid to survivors.
They quickly rebuilt the town
on safer ground, leaving only
the docks at sea level, and
renamed it Port Liberty.
Some pirates still shifted
their routes to Nassau on
New Providence Island in
the Bahamas, which was well
placed and hadn't been flattened.
On October 23, 1696 the Friends
in Philadelphia ruled against bringing
in any new slaves, and urged those
who still owned slaves to treat them
well and to take them to Meetings.
By this point the pirates were
used to it, because their crews
were mostly mixed and if you had
Friends then you also had Meetings,
because any two or three of them
would stick together like burrs.
The Delaware River had
long been favored for piracy
because of the heavy trade
that ran up and down it.
In 1699, the Friends and
the Pennsylvania Assembly
negotiated with the river pirates,
giving them Tinicum Island as
well as Tinicum Township, with
the understanding that they could
trade in the state and its towns
but could no longer raid in either.
However, the pirates remained free
to attack any enemies of Pennsylvania.
Everyone was very happy with this deal.
[1700s]
Pirate havens continued to emerge,
with Tylerton on Smith Island off
the shore of Virginia, and Eden on
Ocracoke Island off the shore
of North Carolina which had
a sympathetic governor.
In 1701, the War of
the Spanish Succession
broke out, with France and
Great Britain joining the fray.
This offered plentiful opportunities
for privateers to make a profit.
The Pennsylvania Assembly
passed an Act to prevent
the importation of slaves
in 1713, but they had
a hard time enforcing it.
That still marked a step
toward the end of slavery.
After the Spanish Succession
concluded in 1714, many of
the sailors and privateers
were left unemployed.
Some of these turned
to piracy in the Caribbean
and the eastern seaboard
of North America, others
to the Indian Ocean and
the West African coast.
It made for some unrest,
because they were new to
the area and didn't know
all the local customs yet.
So local pirates took to flying
a black flag with a white dove
if they had a Friend in the crew,
and they taught the newcomers
that you could haul alongside
such a ship and ask for help if
you needed a negotiator or doctor.
Ships with a Friend for a captain
flew a white flag with a white dove
on a red-and-black 8-pointed star,
with similar offers of assistance.
In 1715, another antislavery tract
made the rounds of the Caribbean,
this one with a long list of reasons
why it was such a terrible idea.
In Jamaica, the Maroon War
made it a free pirate island in 1730,
and people banned slavery there.
It became a haven, not just
for raiders of all sorts, but
also for freedmen and
for runaway slaves.
In 1733, a publisher in
Rhode Island released
a testimony on slavery, and
this one circulated widely as
one of the notable conjunctions
between Friends and pirates
on the topic of abolition.
The pirates, who had
been drifting more toward
freedom over money, grew
more convinced that slaving
wasn't any way to make a living.
On November 23 of the same year,
Saint John became a free pirate island.
From there the rebellion spread to
the rest of the Danish West Indies.
Saint Thomas followed suit in
1734. Fighting in Saint Croix,
the largest island, continued
until it broke free in late 1736.
In April 1756, a group of Friends
from Philadelphia established
the Friendly Association for
Regaining and Preserving
Peace with the Indians by
Pacific Measures. They
used trade and health care
to cement alliances with tribes.
Louisiana became more and
more friendly to pirates, with
Saint Malo in St. Bernard Parish
becoming a haven for them.
The Carib War made Saint Vincent
into a free pirate island in 1773.
Then slaves in Tobago revolted,
freeing it in 1770, followed by
Trinidad where a long bloody war
left it free in the summer of 1774.
On April 19, 1775, years of
rising discontent in the colonies
boiled over into open war with
the battles of Lexington and
Concord, Massachusetts.
These marked the start of
the American Revolutionary War.
The American Continental Congress
ratified the Declaration of Independence
on July 4, 1776 but only included some of
the antislavery passages from earlier drafts,
and quite a bit from the Custom of the Coast.
On July 15, 1776 the Congress struck a deal
with a large group of pirates and privateers,
the Democratic Armada of the Caribbean.
They agreed to recognize each other
as nations and to work together as
allies against hostile European forces.
The Americans offered control
of Rhode Island to the Armada,
along with support of its claims
to various other locations, in
exchange for military support.
The Armada was happy to secure
Rhode Island and delighted to attack
every British vessel they could find.
A key feature of the Armada, however,
was that they based their identity on
ships as much as on pieces of land.
On July 8, 1777 the Vermont Republic
became the first state to outlaw slavery.
Then on March 1, 1780 Pennsylvania
passed an act for gradual abolition.
In 1781, the slave ship Zong ran
into trouble, and the crew debated
throwing its human cargo overboard.
Then the pirate ship Black Guillemot
discovered the slave ship and boarded
her, staging the Zong Rescue, in which
they freed all of the African captives.
Luke Collingwood and most of his crew
were either killed on board or thrown
overboard, by pirates or freed Africans.
A majority of the 132 Africans became pirates.
Due in large part to excellent alliances with
the Democratic Armada of the Caribbean
and several Native American tribes,
the Revolutionary War came to
an end on September 3, 1781.
In January of 1791, the island of
Dominica became a free pirate island
and thus outlawed slavery there.
A few months later, Spirit Island,
between Dominica and Martinique,
was set aside for the Carib People.
Pirates being a superstitious bunch,
they just didn't want to mess with it.
Also the island of Hispaniola, previously
divided as French Saint-Domingue and
Spanish Santo Domingo, became
a free pirate island, took the name
of Haiti, and banned slavery.
On February 1, 1793 France
and Great Britain went to war.
Privateers all over the Caribbean
rushed to seek Letters of Marque.
By 1795, the society of pirates
had gained considerable momentum,
with smaller groups joining the Armada
and more islands throwing off overlords.
In that year alone, Grenada, Saint Lucia,
and Curaçao all became free pirate islands
and banned slavery in their holdings.
[1800s]
In 1800, it became
a disownable offense
for Friends to own slaves
anywhere, even down in
the southern slave states.
Friends in those states who
owned slaves were obligated
to move somewhere else that
emancipating slaves was legal.
Some simply took up with pirates,
who generally favored freedom
and whose ships and crews
included many former slaves.
Louisiana became more of
a pirate haven with places such
as Manila Village in Barataria Bay.
The Friends had some successes in
sustaining fair treatment of tribal people.
These alliances helped the growing nation
develop good practices and withstand
pressures from foreign countries.
In 1803, attempts to enslave
free passengers of color from
ships docking in Cuba sparked
a rebellion that ended with Cuba
becoming a free pirate island in 1804.
A population of Taino, who had previously
escaped European invaders and hidden
in the mountains or settled elsewhere,
reappeared and became more willing
to trade with the current residents of
Cuba and the pirates who visited there.
In April of 1816, Bussa's Rebellion
made Barbados a free pirate island,
and they banned slavery there.
Then in 1821, Marcos Xiorro
led a great slave revolt against
the sugar plantation owners and
the Spanish Colonial government.
As a result, Puerto Rico became
a free pirate island, outlawing slavery.
During the 1840s to 1850s, Friends
hired freedom seekers and free blacks
to work on their farms and build cabins.
They encouraged black families
to send their children to school
and participate in community life.
Many of these families prospered
and in time bought their own land.
One such cluster of cabins, which
developed on property owned
by Friend James E. Bonine,
turned into Ramptown.
Eventually that became
a key black owned and
operated town, including
Friends among its residents
as well as closest neighbors.
Ramptown sent out missionaries
to teach other people, particularly
in the Caribbean, how to get along
and establish a healthy municipality.
This improved life and society there.
On April 12, 1861 the American Civil War
broke out over slavery, state rights, and
a bunch of other arguments that people
just couldn't seem to work through.
Then on April 29, 1861 the Union
met with the Democratic Armada
of the Caribbean and made a deal.
They offered the Armada control
of Florida and Louisiana along
with some coastal islands such as
Smith Island off the coast of Virginia
and Ocracoke Island off the shore
of North Carolina, which the nations
had previously been sharing and
sometimes bickering about.
In exchange, the Armada
blockaded the Gulf of Mexico
so that neither merchant nor
military vessels could easily
aid the Confederate States.
At this time, the Armada
also voted to ban slavery
throughout their territory,
rather than individually on
some ships and islands.
Similarly, female pirates
insisted on certain rights
for women of all stations.
On September 22, 1862
President Abraham Lincoln
issued new legislation, and
the Emancipation Proclamation
took effect immediately, freeing
all slaves held within America.
During the American Civil War,
the Bahamas followed by the Turks
and Caicos Islands became members in
the Democratic Armada of the Caribbean.
By this point, most of the islands had
shaken off European control and
taken charge of their own fate.
Despite having developed from
brigands and buccaneers, they
had learned enough skills from
the Friends to create societies
that were stable, comfortable
to live in, and most importantly
not based on enslaving anyone.
In May of 1863, the Civil War ended,
largely due to support from the Armada
which generally opposed slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States
was proposed on January 31, 1864.
It prohibited slavery and included
references to the penitentiary practices
by the Religious Society of Friends, so it
also forbade forced labor without pay.
Instead, prison wages must be saved
for payment upon release, giving
former inmates a temporary means
of support such that they could
secure a home and a legal job.
The Thirteenth Amendment was
ratified on December 6, 1864.
In the late 1800s, pirates
established a new haven
in Galveston town on
the island of Galveston
just off the Texas Shore.
The western states were
developing gradually, and
everyone wanted access
for trade or smuggling.
Texas just grumbled and
let them have it, lacking
the resources to dispute
possession so soon after
the South lost the Civil War.
Europe wasn't any happier,
but by then it was clear that
the pirates of the Caribbean
weren't going anywhere.
The Democratic Armada of
the Caribbean was just too
powerful and appealing for it
to fade away into the waves.
The United States and
the Armada enjoyed
a close if sometimes ...
peppery relationship.
At the turn of the century,
it looked like smooth sailing.
* * *
Notes:
This poem is long, so its map and content notes appear separately.
Re: Hmm ...
Date: 2025-01-20 08:01 pm (UTC)All very credible threats and reasons to go armed. Plus of course, the people you were murdering and robbing to "claim" their land in the first place.
>> Usually the loudest people who shout about the Second Amendment these days seem to feel like they should have guns because machisimo! and dangerous Others! and I have a right to feel safe! <<
That is one group. However, I've noticed that a lot more women get much more interested in guns after surviving rape, domestic violence, etc. Which is why I'm so leery of laws aimed at banning people with "a history of mental illness" from acquiring guns. It sounds appealing, until you consider that the easiest way to disarm a woman is to call her crazy. >_<
>> I do think if using the Second Amendment as an argument, it is good to understand the historical significance. <<
Agreed.
>> We no longer have hostile borders (mostly, I'm not sure how aggressive smugglers are),<<
Oh, the border with Mexico is definitely hostile, but that is more America's fault than Mexico's fault. People are very interested in sealing that border, and routinely murder refugees in pursuit of that.
>>And I really doubt everyone with a gun would want to participate in militia training, or heck, even mandatory firearm training.<<
Definitely not. Because part of the point to gun ownership is being able to stand up to the government at least a little bit, and part of the safety in gun ownership is the surprise factor. Hence the popularity of pre-serial number guns, blacksmithed guns, and 3D-printed guns -- although the latter is often just a fancy way to blow your hands off.
Re: Hmm ...
Date: 2025-01-27 12:20 am (UTC)It was a war fronteir that kept getting stocked with criminals and other undesirables.
>>It sounds appealing, until you consider that the easiest way to disarm a woman is to call her crazy.<<
That is still the most convincing of the pro-gun arguments I've yet heard.
Another point: how do we define 'crazy'? Does it count if you're in remission ,if the issue was only ever temporary, if you're medicated, etc?
Word it the wrong way and everyone who has ever grieved for over two weeks [for example] might be ineligible to own a gun. Ditto for any neurodivergent folks who need meds to manage their whatever.
>>Oh, the border with Mexico is definitely hostile, but that is more America's fault than Mexico's fault.<<
Well, how likely is random violence, how bad does it tend to be when it happens, and who gets dragged in?
>>People are very interested in sealing that border, and routinely murder refugees in pursuit of that.<<
If the violence is largely unidirectional, I personally wouldn't consider that a good reason for the violence-causing group to need additional firepower.
If it's back and forth that would be a better argument, though I am still not completely in favor.
Re: Hmm ...
Date: 2025-01-27 04:11 am (UTC)Plus people who learned the hard way that some nutjobs only take "no" for an answer at gunpoint. Which is still a problem today, and a leading reason why people start getting into guns if they didn't grow up with it.
>> That is still the most convincing of the pro-gun arguments I've yet heard. <<
I'm pro-freedom rather than specifically pro-gun. My stances on freedom diverge from basically everyone I've encountered. Most people aren't comfortable when other people want to make choices that the first person doesn't agree with.
>> Another point: how do we define 'crazy'? Does it count if you're in remission ,if the issue was only ever temporary, if you're medicated, etc? <<
Based on laws and proposals I have seen, everything would count. Which means they could stop anyone from owning a gun, because if a person doesn't enter the mental system willingly you can always force them in.
Furthermore, it wouldn't take long for word of this to get around, and become yet another reason for people to avoid mental care. It's already so expensive most people can't afford it, and very dangerous because you can lose your insurance, house, job, kids, security clearance, or freedom if the wrong people find out or you just get unlucky. I don't blame people for avoiding it, but I'd rather not increase that group. Specifically, what veteran would risk losing their right to protect themselves and hunt food by having any content with mental care? Or most of the people in red states, or wilderness, etc.
>> Word it the wrong way and everyone who has ever grieved for over two weeks [for example] might be ineligible to own a gun. <<
Yeah, removing the grief exception is one of the most evil things the mental industry has done, and that evil club has previously considered homosexuality and transgender to be "disorders." It's painfully obvious that they don't know what they're doing, and they hurt a lot of people. It's hard to imagine anything more destructive to a bereaved person than lying that there's something wrong with them because they're still upset 2 weeks after a shattering loss. That is vicious malpractice on the face of it.
>> Ditto for any neurodivergent folks who need meds to manage their whatever.<<
I can't imagine anyone on any kind of psychological maintenance medication being allowed a gun -- or for that matter, anyone taking any of the many medications with multiple uses one of which is psychological. That adds up fast.
Contrast with our coven, where we have a rule that people should enter ritual space clearheaded. That means if you have any kind of maintenance meds, make sure you've taken them; and don't come high, drunk, or even strung out on cold meds. We have nothing against psychenauts, it's just not work that we do in our group.
>> Well, how likely is random violence, how bad does it tend to be when it happens, and who gets dragged in? <<
There have fights among refugees, people preying on refugees, landowners who don't want various people trespassing, actual border police, and so forth all of which cause injuries and sometimes deaths. But I would still bet that most of the deaths come from people who die while trying to escape dire danger by fleeing along dangerous routes. The tighter people squeeze the border, the higher the death toll goes.
>> If the violence is largely unidirectional, I personally wouldn't consider that a good reason for the violence-causing group to need additional firepower. <<
From what I've seen, America is largely the cause of the violence. However, some is spillover from things like the narcoleros hunting victims across borders, or other causes. I suspect that is greatly overexposed because it tends to make the news, whereas border police murdering refugees is business as usual, and if the coyotes lose or murder passengers then they tend to hide the bodies more effectively.
>> If it's back and forth that would be a better argument, though I am still not completely in favor.<<
Look at Israel and Palestine scrapping over their borders. They've been doing that ever since Europe forcibly inserted Israel into an unstable region. It isn't really a solvable problem. But given that Israel is an invading force into Palestinian homeland, I tend to sympathize with the Palestinians. That doesn't mean I approve of some of the utter mayhem they've done, though.
Re: Hmm ...
Date: 2025-01-29 01:32 am (UTC)While I am not always comfortable with the conclusion you reach, I do like to try and understand the underpinnings of your argument. You usually make pretty good points, even when I happen to disagree with some of the specifics.
>>Specifically, what veteran would risk losing their right to protect themselves and hunt food by having any content with mental care? <<
...or what happens when whole groups of the population are 'crazy' because of psychological stressors? Good luck putting together a militia group (including the military) when everyone you'd usually recruit is traumatized from exposure to poverty, abuse, and violence and legally can't use guns.
...conversely, some people could probably switch to hunting with a bow-and-arrow. Or that rock-onna-stick trick I read about.
>>...and don't come high, drunk, or even strung out on cold meds.<<
I like that the rule focuses on results, rather than having a "Drugs are good/bad" system. I also like that it is framed as 'this isn't something we're set up to do' rather than a values-judgy thing.
>>There have fights among refugees, people preying on refugees, landowners who don't want various people trespassing, actual border police, and so forth all of which cause injuries and sometimes deaths. <<
Okay, so culturally landowners can have guns (though I would frown on "Trespassers will be shot" use of guns). Predators (landowners included) using guns to abuse people can get the grown-up version of a time out at minimum. I am...not fond of the idea of refugees having guns, but I'm also not sure of the best way to handle that. And cops should be held to a higher standard than the average gun owner, which is a whole discussion on it's own.
Also, consider how difficult the environment is and to what degree Sacred Hospitality does/should apply. (In most inhospitable environments, humans are very invested in keeping other humans - including strangers - alive.)
>>However, some is spillover from things like the narcoleros hunting victims across borders, or other causes.<<
...that would be a concern, and a good argument in favor of everyone who can be armed being armed.
>>But given that Israel is an invading force into Palestinian homeland, I tend to sympathize with the Palestinians.<<
From what I've heard, they are the primary aggressors, so the main 'back the f*** off' obligation is, in my opinion, theirs. Given the back-and-forth violence, I don't expect that disarming the borders is going to happen anytime soon - or, indeed, be appropriate any time soon.
Re: Hmm ...
Date: 2025-02-03 08:15 pm (UTC)I enjoy discussing things with you. Most of our disagreements are simply because we are different people with different backgrounds and values.
>> ...or what happens when whole groups of the population are 'crazy' because of psychological stressors? Good luck putting together a militia group (including the military) when everyone you'd usually recruit is traumatized from exposure to poverty, abuse, and violence and legally can't use guns.<<
Yeah, that's a problem. Black people basically aren't allowed to be seen with guns, even toy guns, because people will kill them for it.
>> ...conversely, some people could probably switch to hunting with a bow-and-arrow. Or that rock-onna-stick trick I read about.<<
Some do. However, archery requires more skill and room than firearms. Trapping works quite well but has a more limited range of prey and requires a different license. Also some states have outright banned it, and it was always aimed more at furbearing species than food.
>> I like that the rule focuses on results, rather than having a "Drugs are good/bad" system. I also like that it is framed as 'this isn't something we're set up to do' rather than a values-judgy thing. <<
We thought about it and talked it over before framing that rule.
Also, we do altered states of consciousness, but our thing is trancework. And of course, I don't need a chemical assist to shift mine.
>>Okay, so culturally landowners can have guns (though I would frown on "Trespassers will be shot" use of guns). <<
Valid in most contexts, excepting areas of high violence. However, that signage is usually meant for hogging resources, which I do not support.
>> Predators (landowners included) using guns to abuse people can get the grown-up version of a time out at minimum.<<
If only.
>> I am...not fond of the idea of refugees having guns, but I'm also not sure of the best way to handle that.<<
Bear in mind that many refugees come out of war zones or other places where people routinely tried to murder them. Being unarmed is extremely stressful for them, and stressed people are more likely to react violently than calm people.
If I were designing a sane refugee intake system, I'd just grab the bull by the horns:
* How violent was the place you fled from?
* What kind of self-defense, weapons, etc. experience do you have?
* Which if any of those would you like to keep as an emergency option here? Or would you like to learn something new?
* Here are the resources you need to pursue that.
* A violent environment can leave lasting harm in the mind. Would you also like a list of culturally appropriate resources for coping with possible issues from your experiences?
If this interests you, by all means prompt for it. The Rutledge thread is perfect; I know at least a couple of instances where it comes up. One woman immediately pursued qualification for gun use, which is harder in T-America than here, but they're in Vermont so "loaded for bear" is something they actually need. Another case I know of, Family Services sent a social worker to the hotel, and one agitated grandmother pulled out an enormous kitchen knife.
>> And cops should be held to a higher standard than the average gun owner, which is a whole discussion on it's own. <<
I agree. Instead, they are legally placed above the law and protected from many rules that apply to everyone else. That's a serious problem.
>> Also, consider how difficult the environment is and to what degree Sacred Hospitality does/should apply. (In most inhospitable environments, humans are very invested in keeping other humans - including strangers - alive.) <<
Yeah, part of the problems we have come from overcrowding. Look at Daughters of the Apocalypse and you can see how Sacred Hospitality made a brisk rebound.
>>...that would be a concern, and a good argument in favor of everyone who can be armed being armed.<<
Now consider how many bad neighborhoods have drugrunners, local or foreign, as their leading threat. I think bulletproof buildings (e.g. brick) would be a good idea, but nobody cares about providing hard cover for poor folks.
>>From what I've heard, they are the primary aggressors, so the main 'back the f*** off' obligation is, in my opinion, theirs.<<
I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think Israel is capable of that. A couple thousand years of historic trauma can completely fuck up your ability to behave like a rational human being.
>> Given the back-and-forth violence, I don't expect that disarming the borders is going to happen anytime soon - or, indeed, be appropriate any time soon.<<
Sadly so.
The most promising signs I've seen are instances where Jews and Palestinians are coming together because they are tired of the violence. So I suggest that we throw money and resources at those groups, and let them sort out what they believe would work for their peoples. They know the needs, issues, and options better than anyone else.
Re: Hmm ...
Date: 2025-02-04 09:06 pm (UTC)I think it helps that we both agree on trying to minimize harm, but have different opinions on how best to do that (as opposed to someone who considers harming others and acceptable default solution.)
>>Black people basically aren't allowed to be seen with guns, even toy guns, because people will kill them for it.<<
I'd think better of the NRA if they took up some more of these cases - or also, the ones where the person was /thought/ to have a gun but actually didn't. Ditto for cases of women shooting abusive partners, which is not covered under castle /stand your ground laws. (...and though I haven't heard of a case with a queer person being arrested for a self-defense killing, I'm sure we'll have one at some point or another.)
Instead, the NRA mostly seems to be backing white men. [rolls eyes]
>>Some do. However, archery requires more skill and room than firearms. Trapping works quite well but has a more limited range of prey and requires a different license.<<
Point, though people will still try if they feel they have to. Hmmm, I don't think I recall any laws against slingshots either...
>>Also some states have outright banned it, and it was always aimed more at furbearing species than food.<<
With penalties greater or lesser than illegal firearm possession?
Also, trapping may work better for folk who lack the equipment/abilities to deal with larger animals, or people who only need a little meat. Trapping would also work better if you want to catch a live animal, and start breeding them for whatever reason.
>>We thought about it and talked it over before framing that rule.<<
That generally seems to work better than an authoritarian decision, at least in small well-knit social groups. (To be fair, I am probably predisposed in that direction as that is a familiar/preferred decision-making method for me.)
>>Also, we do altered states of consciousness, but our thing is trancework. And of course, I don't need a chemical assist to shift mine.<<
Despite what some people thing altered state of consciousness =/= drugged. Besides the many ways to tweak emotions or biochemsitry without drugs, there are also many people whose natural state is what most people would consider 'altered,' and some people whose brains swing widely back and forth naturally.
So, yeah, "Are you currently able to do XYZ?" is more useful than "Are you on mind altering substances?" (Hmm, as I'm typing this out, I'm noticing that that method mirrors our cultural idea of consent, where clear-headedness is more important than having/lacking substances in your system.)
>> However, that signage is usually meant for hogging resources, which I do not support.<<
In most contexts, being on someone else's land should not warrant death. Also, the 'hogging resources' bit then ties back into Sacred Hospitality, which does still survive in laws in a few places, such as providing water to people in Arizona (I think, I've never lived there).
I think a lot of people put up No Trespassing signs because they get tired of Tragedy of the Commons style problems caused by visitors - releasing livestock, tearing up the land with noisy machines, leaving trash or biohazardous stuff, taking resources, setting stuff on fire...
Access for specific uses might work, but it's pretty much impossible to enforce behavior over large areas of mostly-uninhabited land. Also there may be a legal component - what exactly is your legal obligation and/or liability if a migrant dies on your property (for whatever reason) or a local gang sets up a meth lab or something?
Its possible that someone /might/ be more liable with 'open' property than a posted property. Ditto for asking people to leave - its probably easier to argue or enforce if there is a sign.
I'm not saying these are all good, moral reasons, but they are reasons that must be considered when trying to untangle the problem.
>>If only.<<
Preferred standards are often different than reality.
>>Bear in mind that many refugees come out of war zones or other places where people routinely tried to murder them. Being unarmed is extremely stressful for them, and stressed people are more likely to react violently than calm people.<<
Oh, there are plenty of good reasons.
Also, my discomfort isn't with "OMG, this class of people we call 'refugees' has guns!" It is with the fact that a group of wandering strangers not connected to the local communities have guns. So, there's no way to predict behavior, no way to identify potential risk factors, and if something does happen there won't be a good way to resolve it because the people involved can very easily (and understandably) ghost.
If, for example, there were regular 'conductors' who are known to the locals and can mutually vouch for or mediate between both the passengers and local residents then I would be much more relaxed about it. But that is just not feasible in a situation where the refugees or migrants are not legally supposed to be in the area, because it makes them easier to track.
Another solution would be to integrate settled/settling down refugees or migrants into the community as soon as possible. People are going to be less jumpy around each other once their kids are in the same Scouting troop and their wives are carpooling to the grocery store (or whatever), and those social bonds give people reasons to try less-violent solutions and stick around long enough to work through problems.
As I understand it, people have always been jumpy about armed wanderers/strangers - see unemployed soldiers after almost every war, especially those who have to fund their own way home for whatever reason.
Another similar issue is that there has also been a similar conflict between settled and nomadic peoples for millennia (though here it is a form of Culture Clash), and it tends to be one that is very difficult to resolve.
>>If I were designing a sane refugee intake system, I'd just grab the bull by the horns:<<
This seems sensible, though it wouldn't be applicable until people are at the intake phase - which would be /after/ the 'sneak in while armed' phase that I am mostly concerned about. (I particularly approve of the culturally-appropriate coping issues item.)
>>One woman immediately pursued qualification for gun use, which is harder in T-America than here, but they're in Vermont so "loaded for bear" is something they actually need.<<
Was that the lesbian bodyguard who got a job at that gardening place? Speaking of those folks, did she end up fostering the teenager who /didn't/ want her husband?
>>Another case I know of, Family Services sent a social worker to the hotel, and one agitated grandmother pulled out an enormous kitchen knife.<<
The knife-wielding grandmother does sound like an interesting story. (Being Terramagne, I bet it was resolved by the social worker backing off and finding someone with refugee-community standing to sort out the problem and then figuring out mediation.)
That... does fit with examples I've heard of (knife thing, not mediation thing). Most of the refugees I know are fairly friendly and nonconfrontational, but I fully expect that they'd go after anyone who messed with their kids - and I think that wouldn't be strictly limited to bio-parents either. (I also expect many of the men will be very protective of women in their family. Since I am also a woman, I mostly see this one manifest as concern or as a Culture Clash, rather than potential fisticuffs.)
I will also mention that while I have dealt with odd, confusing, or even exasperating behavior* (arising from a variety of different reasons), I typically find the refugees I work with to be very careful, gentle and considerate with me. They'll do things like hang around with me until my ride arrives, walk me to my car after dark, fuss over me as a guest when I visit their houses, etc. If there is a misunderstanding, they're usually okay with talking it out, and they're generally very concerned about not accidentally upsetting me/other locals.
*An in all fairness, from their perspective I probably do plenty of odd, confusing, or exasperating American stuff too!
>>Yeah, part of the problems we have come from overcrowding.<<
In a city, yes, possibly also including the Bystander Effect. I would argue that more rural areas lacking Sacred Hospitality tend to indicate a breakdown in social structure, though.
>>I think bulletproof buildings (e.g. brick) would be a good idea, but nobody cares about providing hard cover for poor folks.<<
That is a good idea. Maybe it would be possible to require new buildings in areas with certain crime levels to build with brick... or possibly some disaster prone areas could require it as part of the building code which would sidestep the poverty aspect.
Something to consider is if the cost of a brick building is more than other materials, as that might drive up costs and either increase gentrification or decrease the quality or quantity of available housing.
>>Unfortunately, I don't think Israel is capable of that. A couple thousand years of historic trauma can completely fuck up your ability to behave like a rational human being.<<
Hmm, now that I think of it, the occupy and refuse to leave gimmick is borrowed right from the settling of the American West.
>>The most promising signs I've seen are instances where Jews and Palestinians are coming together because they are tired of the violence. So I suggest that we throw money and resources at those groups, and let them sort out what they believe would work for their peoples. They know the needs, issues, and options better than anyone else.<<
That does seem to be a promising solution.
Hmm, I wonder also how both sides would react to a mixed family or community...History would suggest poorly, I suspect, but maybe some sort of privilege would serve as protection in some cases.