Thursday, April 12, 2007
Land and Family Ties
This situation gave rise to frequent serious conflicts that the parties could not resolve themselves, Jared Diamond says in Collapse, conflicts that were referred to traditional village conflict mediators and less often to the courts. Households reported more than one such conflict each year. Most were not well resolved because the land was already fully occupied. An interesting sub class of these cases, 10% of them, involved “hunger thieves,” people who owned no land and were without off-farm income, who lived by stealing for lack of other options.
The land disputes undermined the cohesion of Rwandan society. Traditionally, richer landowners were expected to help their poorer relatives. But the richer land owners were still too poor to spare anything for poorer relatives. That loss of protection especially victimized vulnerable groups: separated or divorced women, widows, orphans, and younger half-siblings. When ex-husbands ceased to provide for their separated or divorced wives, the women would formerly return to their natal family, but now their own brothers opposed their return, which would make the brothers or the brothers’ children even poorer.
The women might then seek to return to their natal family only with their daughters, because Rwandan inheritance was traditionally by sons, and the woman’s brothers wouldn’t see her daughters as competing with their own children. The women would leave her sons with their father, but his relatives might then refuse land to her sons, especially if their father died or ceased protecting them. Similarly, a widow would find herself without support from either her husband’s family or from her own brothers, who again saw the widow’s children as competing for land with their children.
The most painful and socially disruptive land disputes were those between fathers and sons. Traditionally, when a father died, his land passed to his oldest son, who was expected to manage the land for the whole family and to provide his younger brothers with enough land for their subsistence. As land became scarce, fathers gradually switched to the custom of dividing their land among all sons. But different sons urged their father to different, competing proposals. Younger sons became bitter if older brothers who married first received more. The youngest son, who traditionally was expected to care for the parents in their old age, demanded an extra share of land to carry out that responsibility.
All of these types of conflicts ended up before mediators or the courts, with fathers suing sons and vice versa, sisters suing brothers, nephews suing uncles, and so on. Family ties were sundered and along with them the restraints on hateful behavior. Close relatives became competitors, bitter enemies and potential murderers.
The land disputes undermined the cohesion of Rwandan society. Traditionally, richer landowners were expected to help their poorer relatives. But the richer land owners were still too poor to spare anything for poorer relatives. That loss of protection especially victimized vulnerable groups: separated or divorced women, widows, orphans, and younger half-siblings. When ex-husbands ceased to provide for their separated or divorced wives, the women would formerly return to their natal family, but now their own brothers opposed their return, which would make the brothers or the brothers’ children even poorer.
The women might then seek to return to their natal family only with their daughters, because Rwandan inheritance was traditionally by sons, and the woman’s brothers wouldn’t see her daughters as competing with their own children. The women would leave her sons with their father, but his relatives might then refuse land to her sons, especially if their father died or ceased protecting them. Similarly, a widow would find herself without support from either her husband’s family or from her own brothers, who again saw the widow’s children as competing for land with their children.
The most painful and socially disruptive land disputes were those between fathers and sons. Traditionally, when a father died, his land passed to his oldest son, who was expected to manage the land for the whole family and to provide his younger brothers with enough land for their subsistence. As land became scarce, fathers gradually switched to the custom of dividing their land among all sons. But different sons urged their father to different, competing proposals. Younger sons became bitter if older brothers who married first received more. The youngest son, who traditionally was expected to care for the parents in their old age, demanded an extra share of land to carry out that responsibility.
All of these types of conflicts ended up before mediators or the courts, with fathers suing sons and vice versa, sisters suing brothers, nephews suing uncles, and so on. Family ties were sundered and along with them the restraints on hateful behavior. Close relatives became competitors, bitter enemies and potential murderers.
