Jump to content

Women in piracy: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

7 July 2024

9 June 2024

17 May 2024

15 May 2024

26 April 2024

12 April 2024

11 April 2024

29 March 2024

10 January 2024

9 January 2024

  • curprev 22:4122:41, 9 January 2024Gameking69 talk contribsm 54,964 bytes +66 →‎18th–19th centuries: 1. According to the citation, it was a British privateer ship not a pirate ship. Pirate ship = Speculation. 2. She was not a sex slave. She was captured and was a crew member with various duties, who was "expected" to perform sex. This is more akin to forced prostitution. Either way, its sensationalist writing. 3. She became the captain's wife later towards her experience. This fixes the chronological order of events. Summary: Fixed readability and brevity. undo
  • curprev 22:0722:07, 9 January 2024Eric talk contribsm 54,898 bytes −8 →‎18th–19th centuries: wording undo
  • curprev 21:4621:46, 9 January 2024Gameking69 talk contribsm 54,906 bytes +87 →‎18th–19th centuries: Bishop was not active for 8 years 1778-1770, in fact, she left the life after two years in captivity. Zuidhoek's Pirate Encyclopedia book erroneously states she left in 1780. That book sources information from De Pauw's Seafaring Women, page 60-61 (erroneously spelled as Grant's). According to De Pauw's book the passage states "Two years after her capture, Sarah, Bishop slipped over the side of the ship and swam ashore at Stamford, Connecticut". 1778 + 2 = 1780 undo Tag: Visual edit: Switched

24 October 2023

3 October 2023

2 October 2023

5 September 2023

11 August 2023

30 July 2023

28 July 2023

  • curprev 10:4710:47, 28 July 202395.90.117.180 talk 54,851 bytes −1 Undid revision 1166186420 by Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) I wish it were different. But even up to now seafaring is and was globally predominantly male. This is not a colonial point of view, since it does not deny the existence of female seafarers. It just says there were and are few. Which is statistically globally true. undo Tag: Undo

19 July 2023

  • curprev 22:2922:29, 19 July 2023Kikila mai Tawhiti talk contribsm 54,852 bytes +1 Wikipedia has a really colonial aspect to it, one that comes from universalizing the experiences of Euro-North Americans onto other cultures while describing this in a way that centres whiteness and Euro-North American history as the only valid perspectiv undo Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit

29 June 2023

9 May 2023

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)