Posted by Ed Kiser on September 12, 2013 at 07:51:25 user Kisered.
In Reply to: Re: Water and Empire: Examination Paper posted by Peter Hyland on September 12, 2013 at 00:35:16:
Our beloved childhood friends certainly do exhibit a tendance to employ the "right to roam" as they seem to interpret it, but such does take a certain amount of willingness on the part of the property owner.
As for the North Pole, Captain Flint did go to make arrangements ahead of time as he explained that everything is owned by somebody.
However we must consider that these stories are from the children's point of view. What the natives said to each other, and there were conferences between them that the children were not a party to, but perhaps we can assume that these native discussions did involve permission and price. After all, even there at the beginning in SA, the Swallows went to Dixon's for their daily milk which I feel sure that such was not a gift, but payment had been previously arranged by the natives.
There is also the "class" social order. I get the impression that Beckfoot and their inhabitants were very likely of the landed class, and the Blacketts could very well have owned much of the territory they used for roaming. This distinction seems to be strongly suggested in SA when the policeman, Sammy, came to Wild Cat Island to question the campers he found there, but was rather soundly rebuked by Nancy and ordered by her to leave her friends alone. Sammy's obsequious stammerings at that situation wherein he seemed to acquiese to her wishes to me strongly suggests a class difference with the implied need for obedience to the upper class.
There was some chopping of trees performed in SW and PP which could be considered damage to the property of the owner. Again, what arrangements were made between the natives is all done behind the scenes, as we are not privy to those negotiations. Perhaps the cutting of a few small timber was covered in these negotiations. Or perhaps, that was Blackett property they were on.
The big exception to that "right to roam" really came out in GN, much to their surprise and dismay.
As for Titty "diving for pearls" the value of a few pebbles is hardly worth any native negotiations. But to be really strict about it, those pebbles are belonging to whatever Entity owned that lake bottom. Perhaps the question of legality really is whether or not Titty removed that property (the pebbles) from the domain of the owning Entity. It is not clear what she did do with them, but I doubt she took them away, as she seemed to feel that once those "pearls" dried, they seemed to lose their value and so were probably just abandoned there on WCI.
To me, the big legality problem was the mining of the copper, as it seemed that it was available to anyone just for the taking. Here again, we are not appraised of the native negotiations involved as to the settlement of who owns what and who gets paid for what. Not being familiar with the laws concerning the product of a mine that exist in that country (foreign country from my point of view) I am not in a position to take a stand as to who really owned that copper ore. Perhaps that ore is the property of the Crown, and the minors are really working for that owner for a fee or a percentage of the take - but what do I know...
And Peter - I am looking forward to receiving that certificate for my 10 marks in the mail without undue delay. All donations gratefully received. Thank you for such considerations.
Ed Kiser, Kentucky (kisered AT aol DOT com)