Piracy, Power, and Politics: Language Ownership and Discourse Control From the Golden Age of Piracy to Today
In a letter to the Board of Trade in 1724, Governor Spotswood of Virginia expressed a profound concern about piracy—a threat so severe that he vowed only to return to London aboard a “well-armed man of war” (Rediker 1981, 203). By the early 18th century, piracy had emerged as a significant challenge to the political and economic interests of "civilized nations" (Pi' 2024, 121). Pirates became the “set-piece villains of the Pax Britannica” (Benton 2016, 118), actively undermining the “British dominated oceanic orders” that supported burgeoning empires (Benton 2016, 121).
The academic Laura Benton’s concept of the ocean as a “backdrop for movement” provides a framework for understanding how the sea—an ungovernable expanse— became a theatre for imperial control and conflict (Benton 2009, 105). The attempt to impose jurisdiction on this anarchic environment reflected imperial anxieties about sovereignty. The term hostes humani generis, or "enemies of all mankind," became central to this narrative. Originating in ancient Roman law, this term was wielded to justify the persecution of pirates, portraying them as threats to a universal moral order. However, as scholars like Matthew Garrod and Jody Greene argue, the application of this label was less about universal justice and more about consolidating imperial power.
Piracy and Universal Jurisdiction
The claim that pirates were enemies of all mankind rests on the concept of universal jurisdiction, which allowed imperial powers to prosecute piracy regardless of where it occurred. Proponents of this idea, such as Garrod, link it to the rise of centralized governments and mercantilist economies, emphasizing that protecting trade routes was paramount to imperial ambitions (Garrod 2014, 201). This rationale was formalized in legal frameworks such as the 1536 Offences at Sea Act and later in 1700, An Act for the more effectual Suppression of Piracy, which expanded colonial governors' authority to prosecute pirates (Garrod 2014, 201).
However, the notion of universal jurisdiction was more rhetoric than reality. Benton observes that British colonial courts were often reluctant to try foreign pirates for crimes against foreign vessels, reflecting a selective application of justice aligned with British interests (Benton 2009, 120). Moreover, An Act for the more effectual Suppression of Piracy prioritised protecting British trade rather than enforcing a universal moral order. This selective enforcement underscores the argument that pirates were enemies of individual states, not all mankind.
The Role of Language in Imperial Power
Central to this discussion is the power of language in shaping historical and political narratives. The distinction between pirates and privateers—individuals licensed by states to attack enemy ships—illustrates how terminology was used to legitimise certain acts of violence while condemning others. For instance, in 1693, eight Irishmen were executed as pirates despite claiming to be privateers under the commission of the deposed King James II (Greene 2008, 685). Their fate hinged on the imperial assertion that James’s deposition rendered his commissions invalid. This legal and linguistic manipulation highlights how piracy was defined not by the act itself but by who wielded the power to label it.
Jody Greene’s analysis in Hostis Humani Generis emphasizes that “control over terminology is not a weak form of power” (Greene 2008, 687). Instead, it is a dominant force that shapes perceptions and, consequently, the course of global events. By branding pirates as enemies of all mankind, imperial powers legitimised their suppression campaigns and reinforced their economic and territorial ambitions. Greene draws parallels between this rhetorical strategy and modern political language, such as terms like "rogue state" and "terrorism," which similarly justify state actions under a veneer of moral authority (Greene 2008, 687).
The Political and Historical Significance of "Owning Language"
The label hostes humani generis served as more than a legal and moral justification for persecuting pirates; it was a tool of imperial propaganda. By framing pirates as universal enemies, imperial powers masked their self-interest and transformed economic conflicts into moral crusades. This strategy is evident in the writings of Hugo Grotius, a Dutch teenage prodigy who became the definitive authority on diplomacy, and who argued for the "incontrovertible right" to free trade under natural law. Grotius’s labelling of the Portuguese as pirates for obstructing Dutch trade in the East Indies exemplifies how language was weaponized to serve national interests (Boukema 1983, 68).
The manipulation of terminology extended to the imperial practice of licensing privateers to attack rival powers’ commerce, effectively sanctioning acts of piracy under a different name. This duplicity underscores the argument that pirates were not universal enemies but political tools in a broader struggle for maritime dominance. By defining the rules of engagement at sea, imperial powers institutionalised their control and perpetuated a system that prioritised their interests while marginalizing dissenting voices.
The historical narrative of piracy as a universal threat is a construct born of imperial ambition and the strategic use of language. The term hostes humani generis exemplifies how control over terminology can legitimize power structures and shape historical understanding. By framing pirates as enemies of all mankind, imperial powers justify their actions, silenced opposition, and reinforced a Eurocentric vision of order and morality.
This legacy of "owning language" extends beyond the Golden Age of Piracy. It highlights the enduring power of terminology in defining political realities and legitimising authority. As Jody Greene observes, the ability to control narratives is central to shaping history and influencing global events (Greene 2008, 687). Understanding this dynamic offers valuable insights into the intersection of language, power, and historical interpretation.
Bibliography:
Benton, Laura. 2009. “Sovereignty at Sea: Jurisdiction, Piracy, and the Origins of Ocean Regionalism.” In A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900, 104–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benton, Laura, and Lisa Ford. 2016. Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Boukema, H.J.M. 1983. “Grotius’ Concept of Law.” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 69 (1): 68.
Garrod, Ma'hew. 2014. “Piracy, the Protection of Vital State Interests and the False Foundations of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 25 (2): 195–213.
Greene, Jody. 2008. “Hostis Humani Generis.” Critical Inquiry 34 (4): 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1086/592540.
Rediker, Marcus. 1981. “Under the Banner of King Death: The Social World of Anglo-American Pirates, 1716 to 1726.” The William and Mary Quarterly 38 (2): 203–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/1918775.
Pitt, S. 2024. “Boston, Logwood, and the Rise and Decline of the Pirates, 1713 to 1728.” In The Problem of Piracy in the Early Modern World: Maritime Predation, Empire, and the Construction of Authority at Sea, edited by N. Kwan and D. Wilson, 121–150. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.