I have an as-yet unproven hypothesis at *all* wars are actually about resource conflicts, even the ones we think are about religion, even the Crusades. Religion is a huge part of people's identity and becomes a way to motivate and rally people, but resource conflict drives it all. Without resource conflict, people of different religions or ethnicities tolerate each other just fine.
Apparently in Spain, religion was not a major kind of division, until the Almohads introduced a more puritanical form of Islam. The Christians then appealed to the Pope and other Europeans for help, and this catalysed more religious struggles.
Also, everyone would benefit from having more resources. But perhaps religion and culture shape who we attack to get those resources. In Zambia, a widow's home may be grabbed by her husband's kin who feel they have a legitimate entitlement.
I should read more about the Almohads in Spain. Your second point I agree with entirely, that religion & culture and ethnicity shape the contours of the conflict, but I still maintain it doesn't *start* without resource conflict and scarcity. In relatively comfortable societies, people don't seize widow's houses or invent things like sati.
Strong rule of law doesn't preclude bad law. The Mughals hated sati and put a whole lot of barriers in place to reduce it -- the widow had to come to the emperor or governor in person and explain why she wanted to be a sati, and that that she was not being coerced -- but they did not prevent or abolish it.
Inheritance laws can be whatever. Under traditional Islamic law, widows get a fairly small share of their husband's property. That is also consistent with a strong rule of law. It's not expropriation if it's the law, right....
I have an as-yet unproven hypothesis at *all* wars are actually about resource conflicts, even the ones we think are about religion, even the Crusades. Religion is a huge part of people's identity and becomes a way to motivate and rally people, but resource conflict drives it all. Without resource conflict, people of different religions or ethnicities tolerate each other just fine.
Well, here is one counter-point.
Apparently in Spain, religion was not a major kind of division, until the Almohads introduced a more puritanical form of Islam. The Christians then appealed to the Pope and other Europeans for help, and this catalysed more religious struggles.
Also, everyone would benefit from having more resources. But perhaps religion and culture shape who we attack to get those resources. In Zambia, a widow's home may be grabbed by her husband's kin who feel they have a legitimate entitlement.
I should read more about the Almohads in Spain. Your second point I agree with entirely, that religion & culture and ethnicity shape the contours of the conflict, but I still maintain it doesn't *start* without resource conflict and scarcity. In relatively comfortable societies, people don't seize widow's houses or invent things like sati.
or perhaps that's co-extensive with strong rule of law, and the chances of punishment are higher..
Strong rule of law doesn't preclude bad law. The Mughals hated sati and put a whole lot of barriers in place to reduce it -- the widow had to come to the emperor or governor in person and explain why she wanted to be a sati, and that that she was not being coerced -- but they did not prevent or abolish it.
Inheritance laws can be whatever. Under traditional Islamic law, widows get a fairly small share of their husband's property. That is also consistent with a strong rule of law. It's not expropriation if it's the law, right....
agree. that's why i added culture and exclusionary institutions.