I really do not want to start something here that could see this thread degenerate into a debate on the meanings of words. However, I must point out that the English language is not used in exactly the same way in all those countries that use a form of this language.
I am located in Australia, and I have found that in legal applications two dictionaries are accepted as sufficient evidence to establish the generally accepted meaning of a word. These dictionaries are the Macquarie Dictionary, which is an Australian compilation, and the Oxford Dictionary.
I prefer the Oxford Dictionary because that has a greater possibility of acceptance outside Australia.
The Oxford dictionary that I use as my everyday tool is the Shorter Oxford on Historical Principles.
In this dictionary the word "pirate" is provided with a number of meanings. In the context of this discussion no meaning is given that covers the act of piracy from the sea, but only on the sea.
The Sea Dyaks did not as a general rule attack ships on the sea. They used watercraft to transport warriors along river systems and to attack settlements on land.
In Britain in 1839, or in Britain today, I believe it would be very difficult to get a conviction against the Dyaks for piracy. Yes, you could get them for something else, but not piracy. Not in Britain.
They were unjustly accused because the pirates of two hundred years ago had a similar aura to the terrorists of today. It was political expediancy.
Brookes and the British Government branded the Sea Dyaks as pirates, and the language used for this defamation was the English language.
I submit that this was an incorrect use of language which resulted in the defamation of a tribal group for political purposes.
Pirates with fountain pens?
Yep.
And computers too.
|