Board Thread:Skyrim/@comment-12599067-20130928060857/@comment-24590102-20140226092726

Firstly, I'd like to point out that "indigenous" means "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place" so, either none of the people living there are indigenes (not having originated i.e. evolved there) or almost all the people living there are indigenes (having a natural occurance there due to the very natural process of migration). In the context of taking core (i.e. primary) English diction to somewhat of an extreme, for example, we are yet to discover any placental mammals which can be accurately described as "indigenous to Australia" - and that includes the consideration of Homo Sapiens. In the same stricture of diction we could go so far as to assert that, other than Africa, there is no other continent or land mass for which we have palaeontological evidence of human indigenes (as opposed to migrants) and yet, if we extend our diction to allow the second element of the definition to hold sway, we can argue that everyone is an indigene unless they come to be in a place by some unnatural process (e.g. witchcraft, the Dark Arts, etc. but, dare I suggest, more tangible unnatural processes might be possible too: imprisonment, pilgrimage, etc.). What we have here is a very real example, from the English language, of a term which only retains any meaning at all if it is used in the strictest of primary definitions wherein the diction is based solely on the primary sense while being restricted to the primary element (which, interestingly is supported by the word's roots). Otherwise, the word comes to mean two things which nearly always contradict eachother. The English language, in particular, has many examples of words which are rendered utterly meaningless by simultaeneous contradictory denotations like this because, unlike HTML or Standard Italian, English is not treated as a rigid inflexible standard - which, as we discovered during the "Browser Wars", is a necessity of communication standard.

Secondly, the noun "right" refers, in its core diction, to "that which is morally right" and, in its secondary diction, as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". While I'm tempted to ask the 'dictioneers' whether they are talking about a moral entitlement or a legal entitlement (and there are many historical examples where the two are mutually exclusive) I leave the amoral fudge factor to crime-bosses who wear crowns. However, in the sense of the moral entitlement it is easily argued that rights do not exist unless they are bound, inextricably, to a verifiable function. So, working from the reality that rights are percieved via reasonable expectation - this expectation, when taken as an absolute must, therefore, refer to a need which is owed by the community to the individual as due payment for freedoms and liberties sacrificed in the course of living by the rules of the community. Otherwise, why else should any individual choose to sacrifice his or her freedoms and liberties to come in from the jungle and live in the bonds of a community? This may shed light on situations analogous to the Reachmen/Nords versus the Forsworn "Tribes". Moreover, usage of the term "right" in the context of law-regulating documents such as a "Bill of Rights", for example, describes the community's obligation to safeguard the access to means of all individual members to meet a specific need which, in turn, is dictated by something necessary to the survival and ongoing function of the organism to which such rights apply. This point is not to confuse safeguarding of access to things like air, water, clothing/shelter, food, sleep etc. with their provision. While, sometimes, provision is necessary in order to guarantee access, this is not always the case (just to keep both right and left jackboots nicely polished and locked safely in their display case where they can do no harm).

So, moving on to some of the points made:

1. I tend to agree with Dovahsebrom's point that Reachmen are not indigenous to the Reach but would argue in agreement with Natalie-gra-Canada and Nazul Rostello that people have the right to be (meaning to go about their business unmolested provided that they go about their business without molesting others). This infers a people's fundamental right to the land upon which that people live and make their living; which brings us back to the Reach being the Reachmen's home - and I agree totally with this point subject to the condition that Nords and every other group member living in this hold have an equal right to continue living as they do provided they are not disrupting others more than the proximity of living dictates). This is problematic given the penchant of the Silverbloods to kidnap people and set them to work as slaves in their mine - and do so with the collaboration of the City Watch and, by extension of authority and attached liability, the collaboration of the Jarl. I have to wonder which is more brutal: Being stuck for life down a dark dingy hole with the worst criminals of the city while being compelled to perform unending repetitive labour for long hours every day until death, or being forcibly inducted into a Forsworn tribe which, as a hunter gatherer culture, will tend to be a great deal more leisurely than life down a mine and a lot more forgiving of inductees than than the Silverbloods. Either way, the Forsworn aren't the only troublesome folk in the Reach and it may yet be argued, no doubt with great Olympian semantic effort, that the behaviour of the Forsworn meagrely mirrors the Jarl's who, by his legal authority (which must cut both ways lest there be no 'equity of law'), is cast in the role of exemplar.

2. Remembering my somewhat Olympian semantic efforts above (necessitated by the seemingly dire shorcomings of the English "language"), I would argue that rulership is a priviledge generously and, I must say, charitably, and perhaps, even gullibly endowed by the community. Nobody dies or looses the ability to go about the business of breathing, drinking, eating, sleeping etc as a consequence of losing this priviledge. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "right to rule" - unless we throw morality out the window and go back to living by the 'Law fo the Jungle' so that rights exist only by the strictly legal (i.e. amoral) sense of the diction. This, I think, is a very good example of where the legal and moral rights are mutually exclusive.

3. Thanks and kudos Dovahsebrom for the references - these ones were interesting to say the least. It brings to mind the distinct perception that the Forsworn have a culture of their own - developed in living off the land in isolation from other Reachmen. What is peculiar is that, as isolated tribes, this culture is uniform and has not diversified from tribe to tribe. Assuming that this is by design, then it is suggestive of something orderly at work; perhaps a common dogma or religious creed is at work which I think would fit nicely with the role of their pet Hagravens. The difference of motive between the Forsworn of the Reach and the "Forsworn" who "infiltrate" Markarth raises many more interesting questions.