HISTORIANS SHOULD NOT DISCOUNT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
I am incensed by my latest readings concerning the Gasparilla Legend. Legend not myth! The main source of information concerning Gasparilla comes from accounts of John Gomez. These accounts are full of historical accuracies but are discounted due to the historian's 'greater' understanding. How could such a man ever speak to Napoleon? Yet history showed that napoleon spoke to hundreds of thousands of people so why not this servant as opposed to the others? Only the historians know. they believe he worked on a slave trader, but discount the piratical activities of heavily armed 'blackbirders' after emptying the slaves from their ships. The historian seems to think that captains of national navies cared much about the names of the pirates they killed and sank. Famous pirates existed, yes, but most pirates of the Florida coast and the Caribbean were scavengers and jackals with no fame and little fortune. When a pirate ship was sunk by an anti-piracy patrol it was noted in the ship's log,,, and then the ship sailed on leaving the corpses of the defeated pirates floating in the sea to be eaten by the sharks that swirled around their wrecked and sunken ships. There was no mercy and very little care about who the pirates were and what drove them to piracy; pirates were hated then as terrorists are today. John Gomez admitted himself to be 'just crew' and had difficulties finding the hordes of treasure he had helped bury. 'Crew' could not read or write or read maps; John Gomez was saved at least twice while lost along the Florida coast by other ships- he had no idea of navigation beyond that of a common fisherman of the time. It was not his job to make maps or take bearings- it was his job to carry, dig, bury, and sometimes kill. He was never a leader so these historians attempts to despise his witness are unfounded. Gasparilla was a real historical figure who arose out of the Florida coast. His name and legend are all built upon the peoples and geography of the Gulf Coast. One last thing to remember about the problem with discounting John Gomez's testimony. If he had given verifiable information and proven beyond doubt that he knew of known crimes, possessed himself much stolen property (He was reported to have had gold and coins always available to him except in his last days), and knew the identities of other pirates- well, he would have been beaten, interrogated, beaten again, tried, and hung as a pirate. No wonder he was vague about so many details! Historians and other academicians sometimes are too quick to discount eyewitness testimony that defies their preconceived notions. I say "Boooo!'. We need to listen to the voices of our past without putting on cultural blinders. And john Gomez was famous and important voice of Florida's history!