Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf
That's correct. Those ideologies do exist in the real world and I never argued otherwise.
Yes, those categories are indeed important to understand the conflict. I merely wanted to point out that those categories are highly ideologized and man-made and not some sort of ontological law of (human) nature.
My goal was simply to shift the focus of the discussion away from alleged "legitimacy" of territorial claims.
|
I would suggest that territorialism has been a part of human nature for several hundred thousand years, and it is also in the nature of very closely related primates. Whether this is part of the genetic code is something beyond an English Major's grasp, but, being a neophyte in such affairs, it would seem that way.
So, when you made the declamation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf
I don't believe that there's a "natural" link between family relationships and a claim to a specific territory. From my point of view there's no such thing as "rightful" or "legitimate" owners simply by biological or cultural heritage. "Property" and "rights" are social categories which are tied to a political construct, i.e. a state and only make sense in that context. And those political constructs are always established and sustained by force.
|
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, which would certainly point to property being not a distinctly state or social category, but an individual one as well. Therefore, while there may not be a biological imperative for property, there certainly is one for territoriality.
And from a cultural heritage standpoint, the propagation of property by the individual or social group has been a practiced institution of humans since hunter-gatherers settled down to farming 25-30,000 years ago. You try to steal oats from a Neolithic farmer's field, he's going to bash your head in with a flint axe. Even in more recent history, hunter-gathering aboriginal tribes in the Americas would ferociously defend their Spring/Summer hunting grounds from trespass by Europeans and other tribes as well.
As far as property rights, such a construct has existed beyond the pale of States or governmental interference, regulation, taxation or politicization throughout history. Many settlers over the centuries staked claims to land beyond territorial borders because they wanted nothing to do with a state or society. 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?
Read the Bible. It's one long battle for property rights that's still continuing thousands of years later. Even after several Diasporas, the intent of Jewish People was to return to Israel.
Tolkien, while not dwelling on this, would certainly have considered the Irish at last freeing the Republic of Eire from the Britain (the Free State in 1922 and adopting a constitution in 1937), the independence movement in India ( independent and partitioned from Pakistan 1947), and then the Jews finally creating a new Israel in 1949, as they were occurring within the continuum between The Hobbit and LotR. His references to Dunland and the dour mood of Dunlenders in regards to the usurping Rohirrim would be in the same category.