Are religious wars (past and present) just an excuse to fuel territorial disputes?

Religious wars throughout history, to me, just seem to be an excuse for a leader or group of leaders to gain more land or territory, and therefore power.

Am I wrong? Why or why not?

Kiras avatar Religion
Share
1 17

Depends what you mean by territory. If you mean property (which could also be construed as power in an aristocratic sense) then yeah, pretty much.

Nope. A lot of times they are merely caused by the religions themselves. Take India around 1948 for example, the Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims fought each other just to eliminate the opposing religions. This fighting was only ended by the UN's and Britain's interference. If the fighting hadn't of stopped it is reasonable to believe that a full blown genocide may have occurred

@Glungo Nope. A lot of times they are merely caused by the religions themselves. Take India around 1948 for example, the...

You mean the Britain that enslaved the people of India? Turning them into servants. Yeah, they helped a lot.

Anonymous 0Reply
@You mean the Britain that enslaved the people of India? Turning them into servants. Yeah, they helped a lot.

They actually did. They managed to mediate the conflict through the creation of Pakistan and the seperation of the two major factions. You could argue that the conflict remains today at the border and that they accomplished very little, but to do that first you should learn what the fuck you're talking about

@Glungo They actually did. They managed to mediate the conflict through the creation of Pakistan and the seperation of the...

I do know what I'm talking about. I learned about it in my world history class. Britain did some of the same things to India that it did to the Native Americans. It overtook the land, and subdued the royalty there. The people there were made into indentured servants. The Britain in the past didn't care too much about other people. It was about conquering lands, people, and resources for its own gains.

Anonymous 0Reply
@I do know what I'm talking about. I learned about it in my world history class. Britain did some of the same things...

Yes, in the 1800's which became irrelevant post-world war II during the anti-colonialism and independence era.

My issue with your original reply was that it had absolutely nothing to do with OP's post and the point I was making. It seems as if you're just attempting to start a fight, an action that I have fueled for too long at this point.

Anonymous 0Reply
@Enslavement never becomes irrelevant. It changes the territory permanently.

Fine. Tell me what those changes were and how they affected the long feud between Muslims and Hindus in India.

@Glungo Fine. Tell me what those changes were and how they affected the long feud between Muslims and Hindus in India.

It caused a change in status for the inhabitants of India. Some were also sold as slaves in international trade, which was what Britain did. To this day, there are still remnants of British culture and impositions in India such as spoken language. Also, India is a developing nation that is poor partially due to Britain stripping the territories' riches. Note that I said partially due to Britain, not completely.

Anonymous 0Reply
@It caused a change in status for the inhabitants of India. Some were also sold as slaves in international trade...

The social changes Britain made (which were minimal at best seeing as they respected the social structure already in place) had very little effect once they withdrew in 1948. While India does have many western elements they can be attributed to the Indian National Congress's reforms post WWII to adapt to an increasingly western-dominated world. Also, India isn't as poor as many think it is, it has the 9th largest economy in the world thanks to its manufacturing reforms which were made possible because of Britain's support.

@Glungo The social changes Britain made (which were minimal at best seeing as they respected the social structure already...

That's because the wealth is split up between a select few. It is a developing country with a very high number of homeless and poor people.

Anonymous 0Reply
@That's because the wealth is split up between a select few. It is a developing country with a very high number of...

The "few" got that way because of the manufacturing infrastructure established by Britain and the imitation of the West

@Glungo The "few" got that way because of the manufacturing infrastructure established by Britain and the imitation of the West

I would like proof of this.

Also, that doesn't change the face that India is a poor, developing nation.

Anonymous 0Reply
@I would like proof of this. Also, that doesn't change the face that India is a poor, developing nation.

Best I can do for you now, essentially it says that economic reforms in India were influenced by colonial rule and had an emphasis on industrialization and liberalization. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Econo...ation_in_India

@Glungo Best I can do for you now, essentially it says that economic reforms in India were influenced by colonial rule and...

Also generally the countries with the top 10 largest economies aren't considered poor. Yes there are poverty stricken areas but those are in every nation, and the only reason it's even notable in India is because of the large population's ability to amplify the effects of said poverty. The large population was caused by India's traditional patriarchal society, i.e. poverty in India is not Britain's fault but due entirely their own male-dominated culture

@Glungo Also generally the countries with the top 10 largest economies aren't considered poor. Yes there are poverty...

Again, it's a developing nation. The homeless rates are staggering. The economy can thank Bollywood and the select few who hold the wealth in the world's second largest population.

Anonymous 0Reply
@Again, it's a developing nation. The homeless rates are staggering. The economy can thank Bollywood and the select...

There are a lot of homeless people in India because there is a lot of people. According to Wikipedia there are 1,220,800,000 people in India and 78 million are homeless which turns up about a .06% homeless rate. America (which in your definition I'm assuming to be developed) has around 315 million people and, again according to Wikipedia, has a homelessness rate of .5%. A larger percentage of Americans are homeless than Indians. The economy can also thank the countless western nations who choose to outsource their workforce to India because of its increasingly westernized society and cheap manufacturing costs, which were made possible by Britain and its influence.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.