Continuing the discussion on culture versus space that began in class, I have noticed in my reading that Natty is the only character resisting the culture of Templeton. As the town of Templeton has expanded its space, and therefore its cultural grasp, characters like Indian John and Mohegan have succumbed to the culture of the town. While these characters do not assimilate entirely into Templeton, they accept the inevitability of its cultural grasp. Natty, however, remains devoted to his lifestyle, in a sense rebelling against the expansion of Templeton, and posing the question are societal laws more important than natural laws?
In Chapter 27, Natty's hounds find him a deer. He intends to kill it because he needs to eat, but Oliver warns him that "You are in plain sight of the village, and I know that Judge Temple is determined to prosecute all indiscriminately, who kill deer out of season" (299). Although Oliver knows that Natty needs the deer to survive, he reminds him of the Templeton laws. Natty ignores this warning, and is charged for his out of season hunt.
What I find interesting about this is that it seems that natural laws should supersede all other laws. A man should a right to feed himself and survive, regardless of what hunting season it is. With the exception of Natty, the natives seem to hold Templeton's societal laws in higher regard than natural laws. They have given in to the cultural grasp of Templeton, because of how much space it controls. It seems that Templeton's societal laws are the law of the land due to the size of Templeton. The natives cannot avoid its reaches, so they must give in. I do not think societal laws are more important than natural laws, but it seems that simply because Templeton has so much influence, their laws are more relevant. It is an interesting concept and I am looking forward to seeing how it plays out in the remaining chapters.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteExcellent continuation of our class discussion. I think the larger problem for Natty and Indian John is that they have no legal claim to the land. According to the law of the United States, which claims control over the territory that Indian John's people used to occupy, Temple is the owner of the land and can therefore decide who gets to occupy it and how they can conduct themselves while on his land. If Natty owned a portion of land, he could do what he wanted on it.
What you're noticing, it seems to me, is the problem of ecosystems that surpass individual land claims. For example, deer don't stay on Temple's property, they roam around the countryside, so if Natty is hunting a deer he might follow him from one property to another. But unless he can afford to purchase a huge swath of land, he's never going to own an entire habitat, so he's going to come into conflict with settlers sooner or later. The issue, then, is whether land claims should extend to all sorts of other resources, like water rights, hunting rights, air rights, mining rights, and (these days) fracking rights.
Kelly