Why do some (most?) people form such a bond to mere land?

[lastliberalintexas]

I have sincerely never understood this point. To his dying day, my grandfather refused to leave the house and land that had been in his family for well over a century, even though by the time he died it was surrounded by scalawags and punks who tried their best to terrorize the area. In fact, if anything, their presence only made him even more determined to stay on the land on which he was born. Texans are as idiotic about land as any other groups of humans, trust me. Which is why it's so bizarre to me that I don't possess this trait that would probably help me understand why land grabs and the like apparently justify killing real, live human beings.

Now, by no means am I comparing the totality of my grandfather's circumstances to those in the Middle East. But a root problem of each is the love of mere property, the notion that a spot of land can be sacred, hallowed or consecrated- espcially if one's ancestors lived on it. Though it is a beautiful country, I have no great affection for Scotland merely because most of my ancestors hailed from there. Germany means no more or less to me than any other country, even though my great grandfather reluctantly left Bavaria to come to the US. France is nothing specia- well, yes it is, but NOT because that is where my great-great grandfather lived before sailing with Lafitte. ;)

In another thread started by opi____, a poster said that s/he would have no problem with the US government giving land to the Native Americans, so long as it wasn't her/his home. Now, I know this isn't the situation in the US, but if you and your neighbors giving up your residences would go a long way towards PEACE, why would that be so difficult? (of course assuming that you were compensated for the "land grab") So what if it was the land of your ancestors, or the land on which you were born, or the land on which you'd lived your entire life. It is still merely land. :shrug:

I am not arguing that either side should or even at this stage could give up land. I am not saying that this *entire* situation is based on land issues. But it is a huge part of it. I am not arguing that one side is right or even partially right and the other is pure evil. In fact, I am not arguing either side of this conflict or any conflcit here, and am instead merely asking a question to try to understand why some people have such an attachment to mere real property.

I must say that I don't understand the significance that either side places on a plot of dirt. Especially when that significance leads to the deaths of our fellow humans. And who knows- maybe if I lived somewhere other than mosquito-infested swampland of high humidity prone to tropical storms, torrential rains, bouts of drought and heat indices of 115, maybe I too would be gaga over my property. :)

But I still would hope that I'd care for others more than dirt.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Land is life and security. That's what it comes down to.

[DELUSIONAL]

7. 'aina -- Hawaiian word for land

aloha 'aina
{noun-verb} Love of the land; to nurture and care for the land

Many creation myths begin with humans being made from the earth/dirt/soil.

It is cultural -- especially for people who came to America as servants/slaves -- workers of land owned by land lords etc.

To some it is merely "owning" the land they are to be buried in.

Others are nomads -- and they aren't into the ownership of land -- they will move on.

This could be in our genes -- some of us stay, make a home, stake out our territory. Others have the need to move on, see what is beyond that next hill.

[cali]

2. It's in our DNA

Territorial imperative and all that.

[lastliberalintexas]

10. Possibly

But for the vast majority of humankind's existence, we were nomadic. Perhaps we've evolved the territorial gene that quickly, who knows?

[Odin2005]

16. Hunter-gathers had territories.

They just moved through the territory throughout the year.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. You know, its funny

I've never felt at "home" in the places where I've lived--they were places where I've lived. But when I visited the Hudson Valley and Connecticut, I felt a real bond with the land--I put it down to the fact that half a dozen generations ago my ancestors settled the region. But I wouldn't go to Poughkeepsie and demand a plot of land just because my ancestors founded the town. But I do enjoy visiting.

[unpossibles]

5. I was born in Poughkeepsie

can you pick up an acre or two for me while you're there... lol

[On the Road]

13. I Was Born in New Jersey

but lived most of my early life away.

When I moved to the Northeast (Connecticut) in my 20s, I immediately felt like I had rediscovered something I had lost. The feeling applies to NY and NJ as well. That's the part of the country my father's family has lived in for almost 400 years.

I also realized this week I was born about ten miles from the Meadowlands. Must have something to do with becoming a rabid Giants fan, even though I never lived nearby as an adult.

[EST]

4. If the notion that possessions and property are of tremendous

value to many people isn't something you just "get," then understanding won't explain much. It's mostly emotional, not logical or necessarily understandable.
Why on earth would a seventy year old man still be striving desperately for more power and more riches? Yet there are thousands of them, scattered throughout government and business.

[lastliberalintexas]

8. Perhaps you're right- perhaps I just can't understand

I know someone like you've described, though he isn't quite 70 yet. But he could single-handedly retire a fairly substantial portion of the US debt if he bequeathed his entire estate to the Treasury. Yet he still works, still enters new business ventures, and is still trying to accumulate even more money.

And, no, I don't understand that. Actually living is much more important to me than accumulating anything, whether it's wealth or personal or real property. And perhaps you are correct, that if I don't automatically understand that concept, then I never will.

I personally thinks that's a good thing. :)

[EST]

33. I can give you an explanation but that explanation may prove as

unsatisfactory as a popularization of quantum mechanics, and as impenetrable.

Humans have a survival mechanism, often called ego, that is dedicated to the survival of the "self" or anything that the self considers itself to be. When someone identifies himself or herself with possessions or property, even partially, the mechanism kicks in and starts behaving in a manner that seems to be oriented toward protecting all of "self," including those possessions.

That means the person reacts to threats to that property as though those threats were to himself, personally. That person also tends to see the property as an extension of self and, in many cases, since property isn't subject to the same rules regarding disease, growing old, and dying, sees it as a sort of source of eternal life.

Of course, being the complicated critters we are, all of that gets paved over with assumptions, delusions, reasons, misdirections and all sorts of other "protections" against attack or loss. The rarity of self-examination, with some understanding of the mechanism involved, allows us to hide our real reasons behind high sounding language, including patriotism, family values, love, honor, on and on.

[marions ghost]

38. interesting comments

yes, bonding to property is an extension of self--putting self into something that seems more permanent.

But there is no such security here in this life. That is the delusion.

What makes me feel more a source of eternal life is to appreciate the more enduring structures of nature and man, such as the Grand Canyon, a mountain range, the ocean...or creations that survive centuries such as art & architecture, music, literature. These experiences make me feel a much stronger connection to humanity than owning a house does...although some houses carry a sense of history.

But even all that is delusion. Nothing that is physical, not even this planet, is guaranteed to be eternal.

[marions ghost]

37. those people need to get a hobby

other than 'acquiring.'

I think a lot of people do it for security. They have an emotional need to acquire. Beyond a certain point where your needs are covered, it is truly a sickness.

It's a cliche but the first thing a sage will tell you is "get rid of it" (the excess). It only holds you back.

[napi21]

6. I don't know either! I was thrilled when I finally had the chance to

move out of the house I was born in, the house we first built and raised our kids in, AND the house that was built by my grandparents and passed on to my parents before THEY died. I oved to several different States and never felt the desire to return to any of them!

I know, when I watch the bombing and fighting in Israel nd Lebanon, I keep asking myself "Why in th world do those people stay there?"

[lastliberalintexas]

14. I can certainly appreciate that there are people without the means

to leave in various battle torn parts of the world. And also that some wars are shortlived and temporary. But I also sense that many would refuse to leave their little plots of land even if offered that chance, which is what is truly amazing to me. Never mind that their children live in mortal danger, that their family is in insecure surroundings, etc. The land of their forefathers, and such. :(



Though for levity's sake, this idea might be able to work for me. After all, some of my ancestors were French, so maybe I can lay claim to some farmland in Normandy. :)

[enid602]

9. outside interference

In the case of the Middle East, you have two groups whose land claims overlap, making the debate more heated. Add outside interference (Arab aid for terrorists, and US evangelical aid to Orthodox Russian Jews to relocate to Israel), and you have the potential for real violence.

[Ravenseye]

11. It's more than just land though, it's everything in some cases

There's a difference between choosing not to leave somewhere because you're tied to your home, and being forcibly removed.

I undersatnd your abstract point, and would generally agree with it, but the root problem with the middle east isn't just a love of mere property. It's about one's existance. Many palestinians weren't just kicked off their land. They were removed from all their possessions. I personally know one family who was forcibly removed from their home, at gun point, with no time to gather any possessions, photographs, family heirlombs or the money they had buried in the backyard (instead of a bank which were apparently notorious back then). They hadn't fought anyone, or opposed anything, yet they found themselves shortly in a refugee tent camp, with just what they had on their backs when the Israeli soldiers showed up. For them it wasn't just about property. It was about the fact that their entire life was obliterated. Their family albums and history lost. The money they had saved stolen. Their jewlery, clothes, books, everything. Gone.

How would you feel if soldiers showed up at your house and forcibly removed you with no warning to a refugee camp with just what you have on you right now as you read this. It wouldn't be about just land.

The other thing to understand about the situation in Israel is that many of the people removed actually didn't own the land. Much of the land itself was held by landlords, while the common people really didn't own ANY land. What they owned though were the olive trees. See how it worked was that even though someone else owned the land, families owned the olive trees and other types of produce bearing trees. They would produce for hundreds and hundreds of years and provided generational employment for these families. When the new Israelis showed up, the land taken from the landlords and parceled out, they didn't know this. Still, many of the poeple in the camps don't really have ties to 'the land' per se, but those trees which now are long gone. The people didn't have their land taken from them so much as their very livelyhood.

So really it's not 'mere real property' but a home, family history, possessions, and even more important their jobs and property. They had EVERYTHING taken from them aside from the clothes on their backs. Some have been able to leave, to go to other countries and start new lives. Not everyone can do that though.

It's more than just dirt in some cases. It's your entire life.

[lastliberalintexas]

17. That is too specific

Not to criticize, but I really am trying to keep this thread as a general discussion of attachment to property. I'd hate for it to devolve into which group has more of a right to a certain plot or property or possessions and which was wronged more many years ago (or even in the not so distant past). There are transgressions on both sides, neither side is perfect and neither side is evil.

And compensation is another issue as well.

[Ravenseye]

20. You mentioned it

It was one of your examples for a love of real property ie land, and I'm showing you that it really isn't as simple as just a love for a particular spot in the sun. I know you were speaking in general, but for this specific example it's not about real estate it's about people having their property stolen from them.

Most people don't have a particularly overwhealming tie to a particular spot. Oh sure, they love the summer cabin, or they love their family farm that they've had for 200 years, or whatever. While they might not sell it, they'd be damn pissed if it was taken from them.

My point was that you brought it up as just one example of people's attachemnt to property. I would argue that in most cases it's that they don't like to have something stolen from them.

In cases where people are on their land and refuse to leave, it's because they fear change and the unknown, becuase really at the heart of it we're a bunch of scared apes who get spooked really easily.

[lastliberalintexas]

23. So maybe what I see as an unhealthy attachment to land

is actually festering resentment over all that was taken from them? Hmmm...

[Ravenseye]

30. In that case at least

"Unhealthy" attachment to land does exist, but in this case it's something else.

[hfojvt]

12. land is not mere

without land, you have no place to live.
Without land, you have no source of food.

In the agrarian world, if you have no land, you die, so people will fight or kill to keep it.

[Scribe]

15. When the land is given to you by God, you cannot leave it.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, religious beliefs concerning land in the Middle East are strong. Amazingly, to me, some people actually fervently believe that God deals in real estate.

[lastliberalintexas]

19. It is unfortunate that early humans created religion, no?

If God has time for American football games, surely he has time for real estate issues of the world. :)

[Skidmore]

18. We have a little piece of land--about 3/4 a acre--that our house sits

on. I love this little piece of land. I know every inch of it. In the spring, I till part of it and sow seed for the vegetables that take the edge off the grocery bill through the winter months. I plant flowers and prune the shrubs. Through the summer months, I care for the gardens and the lawns and harvest the fruits and vegetables as they are ready. In the fall, I pick the berries, rake the leaves, and put the gardens to rest. I winter I watch as the life it contains sleeps protected under a thick blanket of snow. It is more than a piece of land. It gives back to me for the care I put into it. Beyond the bounty of the harvest and the beauty of the flowers, the land gives back to me the satisfaction of a creative act seen through to fruition and the wonderful peace and joy at turning the soil over and smelling its richness. There is nothing like standing at the edge of my little piece of land and look across the next field with my face in the wind. With the land comes the knowledge that this something solid under my feet has joy and bounty to others before me and will do so after I return to the soil. It is these moments when I know what a mother our planet has been to us. She births us and sustains us until we return to her. I love my mother earth every time I dress my little portion of her.

[lastliberalintexas]

21. Stewardship of land is different than a homicidal attachment to it

[deaniac21]

26. I'd rather have a nice airplane.

[bleedingheart]

22. No...but I know people who are...

I think that it is genetic...some people are wired for it more than others.

I for one ...value living...so I would rather find a place to settle peacefully than to fight over some grass and rocks...

[Rosemary2205]

24. IMHO

It's the same reason why NOLA residents need their communities back. It's not the buildings or the land. It's the unique community. The belonging - of place within society.

[SoCalDem]

25. George carlin said it best.."people just want a place for their shit"

It's human nature to want a "place of your own"..a place where YOU are in charge of your life. Humans accumulate things, and when they are asked/forced to leave suddenly and leave their belongings behind, it gets personal.....especially if someone else plans to wantonly destroy their "stuff", or worse yet.. move in and USE their left behind stuff..

When people leave willingly, they leave with confidence that they "have everything", and already have a place to go ..and are usually taking everything they want with them.

It's the forced leaving that bugs humankind..

[annabanana]

41. Eeeek! GREAT pictures!

Bozo indeed!!

[SoCalDem]

42. thnaks.. when I saw that pic in the AP, I could NOT resist..n/t

[marions ghost]

43. I understand the attachment to place

not so much to things...the older I get the more I realize how much time it takes to keep up with and maintain all the 'things.' At my house things are being lost, broken, or decaying so much all the time you lose a certain attachment naturally. However I would not like to be forced away from a place. I can certainly understand that. Being a refugee in some camp would be a living hell.

However there are some days I feel like a refugee from our country as we thought we knew it. Estranged from a country we haven't even left.

[jwirr]

27. In your grandfather's case it represents what he has invested his

whole life in. To give it up is to once again become dependent like giving up your car.

[MadHound]

28. The reason that you would have to kill me to get me off my farm

Is for a number of reasons. The memories I've built there, the improvements I've made, the pride that I take in being a caretaker for my land, the distrust that I have of what would happen to the land if I left, the fact that it is, for me, a very nice place to spend my life. All of this and more comes into play when discussing peoples' attachment to the land.

I suspect that if you got a few acres, raised gardens, orchards, made improvements, had good times and fond memories, you too would start to feel a bond, an attachment to that particular piece of earth.

[JNelson6563]

29. This whole millenia long conflict

is absurd. For how many thousands of years now, these people been killing each other over some seriously bad real estate.

A special kind of stupid.

[ret5hd]

31. we (humans) haven't evolved that much from dogs...

we go around pissing on trees saying "this ones mine, this ones mine, this one too, this one too". Then we bite anyone that says different.

[Tsiyu]

32. My land feeds me

I have worked hard on it (though you can't tell.) It's where I have planted things and raised animals. It's my haven.

BUT, if the Cherokee won the right to have it back I would sell it back to them. Nevertheless, there is a part of me that would resent giving up all that I'd worked for. If I had a huge home I'd birthed babies in and that was built by some ancestor, I'd really be upset.

When Israel was re-created, it seemed nobody gave a freaking second's thought to the long-term consequences of displacing people and forcing them to like it.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. How do you explain love, or depression?

It's just a state of mind, and although you can find contributing factors it basically defies any logical analysis.

It's probably a hangover from an earlier stage in our development: many, if not most animals have a territory they use for feeding and mating, which they will fight - and sometimes die - to preserve. In some "higher" creatures this is done on a group basis - think of lion's ranges, which the pride will defend as a whole.

Although it's no longer a requirement for preserving our DNA we've still got the basic wiring somewhere in the arse-end of our brains which, rather like the appendix, sometimes blows up with unpleasant results.

Since not having this wiring is no longer an disadvantage (given the current context it could be a definite advantage) I'd expect this particular trait to die out over time. Indeed, since you don't feel this attachment, it could even be said you're slightly higher up the evolutionary tree, while others will continue to yell "Get you filthy hands off my desert" at each other while blasting away with rocks, muskets, shells and missiles.

Sigh. Same as it ever was.

But I digress. A lot of people do feel an attachment to a certain area - myself included. Please be patient while we evolve a bit. :)

[Rex]

35. It's not mere land when you fight and die over it.

When your relatives are buried there and countless people have died to 'hold' the land. Then it becomes more important than your family or friends, you will die for it and will accept the death of loved onces for 'protecting the land'. The land takes on life and is important beyond measure. All the blood, sweat and tears in building the buildings on the land and watching as others do the same.

I agree, it is just land but then again I haven't had to fight someone for the plot I sit on.

[scarletwoman]

36. There's a HUGE difference between "ownership" and "belonging".

Ownership of land/property is an act of ego and will imposing dominion over a particular piece of territory. Belonging is a spiritual sense of acknowledging the particular place on earth where one feels most "at home". The first is an assertion of personal power, the second is an act of receptivity to the life force of the earth itself.

"Ownership" (propertarianism) asserts that THIS piece of earth belongs to ME. "Belonging" asserts that I belong to this piece of earth.

Western culture exults ownership/propertarianism, and derides and dismisses the sense of "belonging". There is no clearer illustration of this than the history of the European invaders' treatment of the First Peoples of this continent. Natives did not practice personal ownership of property, their sense of personal and tribal identity was inextricably bound to the particular ecosphere/place in the world in which they considered themselves to be part of a dynamic whole.

To be driven away from the places where ones ancestors had walked was like being stolen away from ones mother's breast. The heartbreak and broken spiritedness that followed had nothing to do with having any sense of "ownership" and everything to do with being wrenched away from where one belonged.

In my own life, I spent nearly half my adulthood living in one place or another, hoping to find the perfect place to set down roots. After nearly 20 years of wandering from place to place, from Pensylvania to Alaska, I finally came "home" to the state in which I was born. I now "own" 10 acres of woodland in a sparsely populated area of the state of my birth, but it is not the ownership which holds me here, it is the sense of "belonging" to this part of the earth.

Its water and its soil and its air went into the making of my physical body, through my mother who grew me in her womb while drinking those very waters, eating the foods grown in its soil, and breathing the pine-fraganced air surrounding her. My attachment to the land here feels absolutely physical -- I am a product of this very particular biosphere, and this is where I feel most at "home". The very molecules of my body were made of the things particular to this place on the earth.

I do not own it -- it is part of me, as I am part of it.

All this is to say, it's no mystery to me why people anywhere would resist being pushed out of their homeland. It has NOTHING to do with "ownership" and EVERYTHING to do with "belonging".

sw

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. That Was Me

"In another thread started by opi____, a poster said that s/he would have no problem with the US government giving land to the Native Americans, so long as it wasn't her/his home."

That was me. I wouldn't mind moving to another part of town for a higher purpose but I wouldn't surrender my culture, my way of life, my beliefs , even at the point of a gun. If nothing is worth dying for then nothing is worth living for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Duplicate