Who are the 'wild men'?

[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.

So, I don't agree that the Dunlendings of 3019 T.A. can justify their war against the Rohirrim based on something that happened over 500 years ago. Or would you suggest that I have an inherent right and a claim to some territory my distant ancestors inhabited in the year 1516, wherever this may be?

Apart from the moral question, I think it's fair to assume that the "history" between the Rohirrim and the Dunledings created a highly ideologized feud and hatred between them.

[Findegil]

Where die the Notion come from that Tharbad let Sauron pass over Greyflood in the war against Eregion?
My understanding was that the numenorean settelment of Tharbad was defended by the small garnision against Sauron and his alleies. But Sauron did not need the Ford of Tharbad. He entered Eregion from the south coming out of Dunland over the Sirannon.

Respectfuly
Finddegil

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Leaf

So, I don't agree that the Dunlendings of 3019 T.A. can justify their war against the Rohirrim based on something that happened over 500 years ago. Or would you suggest that I have an inherent right and a claim to some territory my distant ancestors inhabited in the year 1516, wherever this may be?

The Irish curse Cromwell to this day, even though he died in 1658. The Irish hate for the English and for their usurpation of Ireland goes back to the Norman Invasion. There is still an undercurrent of animosity between the Republicans and Unionists in Northern Ireland.

So, I would say the Dunlending disdain for Rohan is not without real world precedent.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The Irish curse Cromwell to this day, even though he died in 1658. The Irish hate for the English and for their usurpation of Ireland goes back to the Norman Invasion. There is still an undercurrent of animosity between the Republicans and Unionists in Northern Ireland.

So, I would say the Dunlending disdain for Rohan is not without real world precedent.

That's correct. Those ideologies do exist in the real world and I never argued otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

But, Leaf ownership, sovereignty, territoriality as characterise by Tolkien it seems to me were central tenets used to explain the tensions between the Dunlendings, the Dunedain, Numenor and Rohan. Longstanding gripes over land ownership. I wonder if the Dunlendings were expected to pay taxes to Gondor and Arnor for example, during -- as Dunlendings would have put it -- "the occupation".

Dunlendings were antagonistic to Rohan and Dunedain and the conflict emphasised jealousies and conflict over sovereignty of the region.

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.




There are some quotes from the Silmarillion I'd like to add to the discussion. They touch the subject of different ideas and concepts of ownership and sovereignty. The first bit is from the dialogue between Eöl and Turgon:

"But Eöl withdrew his hand. 'I acknowledge not your law,' he said. 'No right have you or any of your kin in this land to seize realms or to set bounds, either here or there. This is the land of the Teleri, to which you bring war and all unquiet, dealing ever proudly and unjustly.[...]"

Eöl denies Turgon's claim because he isn't a kinsman of the Teleri. He ties dominion and sovereignty to blood. Here's Turgon's response:

"'I will not debate with you. Dark Elf. 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. And here I am King; and weather you will it or will it not, my doom is law. [...]"

Turgon stresses the practical side of political rulership and elucidates Eöl about the conjunction between sovereignty and force.

There's another part with a similar topic, Thingol's message to the Noldor princes: "'Thus shall you speak for me to those that sent you. In Hithlum the Noldor have leave to dwell, and in the highlands of Dorthonion, and in the lands east of Doriath that are empty and wild; but elsewhere there are many of my people, and I would not have them restrained of their freedom, still less ousted from their homes. Beware therefore how you princes of the West bear yourselves; for I am the Lord of Beleriand, and all who seek to dwell there shall hear my word. Into Doriath none shall come to abide but only such as I call guest, or who seek me in great need.'"

Maedhros' answer: "'A King is he that can hold is own, or eke his title is vain. Thingol does but grant us lands where his power does not run. 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. Elsewhere it shall go as seems good to us.'"

[Faramir Jones]

The problem is the issue of the source material. We're using works compiled by hobbits of the Shire, whose history and legitimacy resulted from a decision by a Numenorean monarch to allow them to settle there. There's also the Rohirrim, whose title to their lands resulted from the Oath of Eorl, a decision of the ruler of another Numenorean state.

The overwhelming amount of material we have is either Numenorean or at least pro-Numenorean. In terms of what you said here, Ivriniel:

I wonder if the Dunlendings were expected to pay taxes to Gondor and Arnor for example, during -- as Dunlendings would have put it -- "the occupation".

Dunlendings were antagonistic to Rohan and Dunedain and the conflict emphasised jealousies and conflict over sovereignty of the region.

You may be right; but I don't think there's enough material to enable us to conclusively judge.

In terms of what might be done to settle the matter after the War of the Ring, we read what King Elessar did on 4 occasions. He granted the lands around Lake Núrnen in Mordor to the slaves who farmed them, whom he freed, although we don't know if they formed an independent state or states. He let the Drúedain be, declaring that none may enter their woods without their leave, which appears to be a recognition of their independence. Regarding the Shire, he declared that it was a free land under his protection, and forbade men to settle there. It appears, although it wasn't explicitly stated, that he did something similar to Bree. He certainly appears to have let it alone.

Perhaps the Dunlendings or other folk might have approached Eomer or Elessar, making offers of accepting their overlordship in return of an amount of autonomy, referring to what was done to the Shire and Bree as precedents?

[Morthoron]

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:

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.

[Leaf]

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:

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?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just to toss some more red meat into the dog-pit, I'll observe that the "fall" of Rhudaur (from the Numenorean standpoint) was effectively an Angmar-aided revolt of the native population against their minority Dunedain overlords.

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Just to toss some more red meat into the dog-pit, I'll observe that the "fall" of Rhudaur (from the Numenorean standpoint) was effectively an Angmar-aided revolt of the native population against their minority Dunedain overlords.

Gondor conquered swathes of Rhun and the Harad as well. Small wonder men from the Northern Waste to the Southern heats turned to Sauron to drive out their Numenorean oppressors.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Just to toss some more red meat into the dog-pit, I'll observe that the "fall" of Rhudaur (from the Numenorean standpoint) was effectively an Angmar-aided revolt of the native population against their minority Dunedain overlords.

Númenóreans were known as cruel tyrants during their years of colonization, so it's not surprising the Dúnedain leaf didn't fall far from the tree.