Human beings are territorial. However, we're also social animals. Evolutionarily speaking, we are designed to live and function in groups. Our survival depends on it(1). This leads to a complex blend of territorial behaviors. These behaviors range from personal space and possessions, to tribal territories to national borders and national 'interests.'

The normal social hierarchy is designed so various members of a group can all function in an area. Driving members away from the group is generally counter productive because the reduced numbers weaken the group to defend itself against the encroachment of other tribes. Much of the violence that occurs occurs between group members is oriented on correcting unacceptable behavior (see following section). The goal is not to drive away the group member.

However-- especially in cases of limited resources (or the perception thereof) -- groups and individuals do become intent on driving away individuals they do not deem as 'group members.' This is common behavior in areas that the group has deemed as 'theirs' (such as a neighborhood or establishment). Whether you agree with this assessment or not is irrelevant. What matters is the person believes that he or 'his' group controls this area ... and you are not welcome.

The early stage of this behavior is a threat display. However, it is accompanied by the order to leave! Inherent in the threat of violence is the promise that it won't occur IF you concede to leave. That promise is one of the defining factors of territorial violence. The other one is you have the option to prevent violence from occurring.

Unfortunately, too many people  -- who we refer to as Modern Romans -- feel it is their right to go where ever they please and not be ordered around by some hairy knuckled low life. The decision to try to stand and argue for your 'rights' is generally a bad one. An equally bad decision is to allow your emotions and anger override the decision to act immediately on the offer to leave to prevent violence. Someone who is telling you leave or be physically assaulted is not particularly interested in what you think of him or your attempt to verbally save face before leaving. In fact, such actions are usually looked upon as an indication that you have chosen the 'or else' option he has presented. As such you will be immediately assaulted for failure to leave. It won't matter to him that you intended to leave after you made a production of showing him that you aren't afraid of him ... that is still failing to leave.

Believe it or not, he will be immediately attacking you -- at least according to his perception -- in self-defense. Take note of the fact that in 'barbarian lands' where this type of violence is common, a territorial display such as he is engaging in would indicate that you are preparing to fight him. That is if you weren't reaching for a weapon under the table to kill him. His attack needs to overwhelm you before either option occurs.

Return to top

1) Forget the myth of the loner. A human alone, without items created by other humans has little to no chance of survival. Even the most antisocial self-proclaimed. "I don't need nobody" loner can only function in that manner because of the society which he relies on to provide his survival needs such as food, clothing, shelter and safety. Return to Text