You keep confusing my assessments to be descriptive even though I clearly stated that they are more of the normative type. I was simply expressing my opinion on a moral question and didn't try to make positive claims about the actual history of human existence. (cf.
naturalistic fallacy, 'is-ought' problem. There's a difference between the way the world is, and how it ought to be.) I did this because I think that the affirmative devotion and identification with the cause of the 'wild men' is problematic and complicated. And I already agreed with you that the history of mankind is, of course, filled with similar or comparable conflicts. I know that people tend to take the ideas and concepts about property and territory very seriously. I know that people even fought wars over such categories. And I already said so in my last post. That's why I really don't understand why you are trying to foist such positions on me:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Morthoron
[...]I would have to reply that biological and cultural heritage are very distinct and not synonymous at all. And just because you feel that way cannot erase the entire history of Mankind, [...] You don't think there is a cultural heritage in the English, and later American traditions that hold ownership of property almost a fundamental Right -- like guns?[...]
|
But never mind answering this. I would much rather talk about Tolkien's work and the actual texts instead of indulging in meta-discussions about the way we argue, primates or the Irish. That's why I provided (using the edit-feature) some interesting, at least in my opinion, quotations from Silmarillion in my last post. I think that they suggest that this topic is complex and more complicated when it comes to the different texts.
Edit
In fact I'm going to continue with this right now:
The way the Noldor justified their realms in Beleriand is comparable to the justification of the Númenóreans. The Noldor are claiming their domain based on the ability to defend it from Morgoth:
"By the swords of the Noldor alone are your sunless woods defended. Your freedom to wander there wild you owe to my kin; and but for them long since you would have laboured in thraldom in the pits of Angband."
"[...]Indeed Doriath alone would be his realm this day, but for the coming of the Noldor. Therefore in Doriath let him reign, and be glad that he has the sons of Finwë for his neighbours, not the Orcs of Morgoth that we found."
We all know that they ultimately failed in that regard. They were not able to keep Morgoth at bay and suffered greatly in the war against him. Yet they (especially Turgon) were able to sustain their realms long enough for the eventual "rescue" by the Valar. I think it's fair to point out that the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor played a similar role in the history of Middle-Earth. What would the situation have been like if there wasn't a kingdom like Gondor?