I agree that in a loose, general sense, the application of the term "pirate" can be extended far beyond the strict dictionary definition that I am prepared to accept in the case of the Iban and Brooke, however, as I have already stated, I am not writing in general terms. My remarks apply specifically to the case of the Iban, Brooke, and the British government.
In casual conversation we can use language in a very flexible manner. We can do the Humpty Dumpty thing and make our words mean what we want them to mean.We can even be as Mrs. Malaprop, and people will still understand us, and not take us to task for it.
However, in any exchange of ideas there comes a point where we need to determine exactly what we mean when we use a word.
The word "pirate" has a very distinct and very quantifiable value when we apply the test of correct usage. That value can change from place to place, and from time to time. In those countries which use American English, and most particularly in the second half of the 20th. century, it is clearly quite legitimate to extend the boundaries of the value of the word "pirate". For example, in colloquial usage, we can pirate another man's woman, and by the pirating thereof, we become a pirate. But this is 20th century, colloquial usage. It is not the usage that would apply in the 1840's, at a government level, in England.
In England, in the first half of the 19th century, the memory of pirates, and their continuing existence, was still very real. At that time, and in that place the term "pirate" was on a par with the term "terrorist" , today. When Brooke approached the British government for assistance he was well aware that his requests would receive better consideration if he used the emotive term "pirate", rather than to describe the rice farmers of the inland hill country as marauding tribesmen, or something similar. So, all these small groups of rice farmers were overnight turned into "Sea Dyaks" and "pirates".
Pirates attack ships at sea, and interfere with international trade. In 1839 England was at the height of its glorious days of Empire. How could a request to eliminate the wolves of the sea be denied? So Brooke with the help of a friend of long standing, a Captain Keppel,got his assistance, and set about establishing his minor kingdom. But it took until the early years of the 20th century before the Brookes were able bring all the "Sea Dyaks" to heel.
The major reason for the Iban taking of heads is that it formed an integral part of the culture's system of sexual selection, just as the weaving of the Iban women established the hierarchy for Iban females. As such, the taking of heads was essential for the continued viability of any tribal group, within the culture. The Iban were behaving in accordance with long established cultural traditions of the place where they lived.
When James Brooke arrived on the River Sarawak he brought with him the values of a foriegn culture, and he set about applying those values to the cultures which he intended to dominate. Brooke had no problem at all with the Iban taking heads and slaves, provided those Iban gave their allegiance to Brooke, and paid their taxes.
So now tell me:- who exactly was the pirate here?
Was it the Iban, living in their own country and in accordance with the traditions of that country, or was it James Brooke, who with the assistance of the British Government effectively invaded the country of the Iban and imposed taxation upon them?
The name of this forum implies that the participants have some knowledge and understanding of the ethnic values applicable to those weapons and cultures which are discussed here. I would most humbly suggest that before applying the label of "pirate" to the Iban, it may be a very good idea to learn a little about this culture, and the way in which the Brookes and Britain destroyed it.
We all know that victors write the history books.
The Iban were not pirates in any sense of the word.
|