Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 176551

> > > Alla:
> > <SNIP> 
> > > I think you nailed it though - Goblins wanting **both**  
> > > money and property just seems so very **unfair** to me.
<snip>

> > Goddlefrood:
<SNIP>>
> > There are many artifacts that change hands for money and 
> > later still get returned to their so called rightful owners. 
<snip>. 
> > Basically what happens is that at one time or another, quite 
> > typically in a ceremony, a whale's tooth (or tabua in Fiji), 
> > is handed over or bought by a visitor in an untraditional 
> > manner. <snipped for details> 
<SNIP>
> > Often the tabua will be recovered by the original owners 
> > and there is certainly no question of any money that was 
> > ever paid being refunded.

> > Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I believe you  
> > may agree.<snip>
 
> Alla:
<SNIP> 
> Could you clarify about tabua, please? Do people who buy them 
> **know** that they are doing the wrong thing? I got confused, 
> sorry about that. Is it made clear that they are no supposed 
> to get away from rightful owner? Are they allowed to be leased?

Goddlefrood:

Quite simply it depends to whom they are sold or exchanged. The 
indigenous people *know* that they are only receiving the tabua 
temporarily. If it were a tourist then said tourist would not 
normally be informed of the fact that the owner would consider 
that the tabua should be returned later. There have been instances, 
one not so very long ago, whereby tabuas have turned up in museums 
in countries outside the Pacific. Six tabuas were discovered in 
the UK somewhere, having been bought or possibly removed many 
years ago. The traditional owners recognised them at once, and 
don't ask me how because they look much the same to me. There is 
a kind of rope attached to the whale's tooth and that is probably 
unique to the family, tribe or individual original owner is my 
best guess on that aspect.

Once these six tabuas were recognised as belonging to a particular 
clan this clan notified the museum where they had been and the 
same were actually returned after some diplomatic manoeuvering.

To put this into goblin terms, and there is a recognisable 
difference, in that there is no explanation as to whether an 
artifact considered to belong to goblins by goblins belongs to 
an individual goblin or to a group of them or indeed even to 
the race of goblins, your basic goblin, let's call him Griphook, 
as JKR did, says that a certain item belongs to a goblin because 
it was made by goblins. There is no indication as to whether the 
goblin attitude to goblin made items has been widely made known 
to human wizards. If it has then there would be some culpability 
on the part of the human taking over the lease (from a goblin
perspective) of the item in question. If not then the goblins 
really only have themselves to blame.

IIrc in LotR the dwarves have a similar attitude.

On the whole it seems illogical, however, the explanation above 
and in my preceding posts would make perfect sense to a Fijian, 
and, of course, to a goblin.

Whether it is right is another matter, again it would be right to 
a goblin. I merely offer the example of the whale's tooth as a way 
to see the goblin point of view in respect of ownership. At least 
they have the consolation of keeping some, if not most, of the 
goblin made items in the vaults at Gringotts even if those vaults 
are leased by wizards and witches. The goblins probably see it as 
the vaults belonging to them and also whatever's inside. Whichever 
witch or wizard thought of letting the goblins run Gringotts may 
well have had this in mind when they did so. It would appease the 
goblin sensibility a little, or it would in my opinion.

Goddlefrood, not siding with either goblins or the wizarding 
world on this one, just trying to explain the goblin outlook, 
despite being more concerned about leprechauns ;-)