Final answer:
The opposition in civil strife often comprises individuals fighting for perceived rights, identity, and regional power rather than direct economic benefits. This includes Southern soldiers in the American Civil War and the Igbo people during the Nigerian Civil War. Additionally, the Russian Civil War's Bolshevik victory showcases other complex ideological and socioeconomic factors influencing such conflicts.
Step-by-step explanation:
When we explore the dynamics of civil strife and why certain groups find themselves in opposition to the mainstream or ruling perspective, history offers numerous examples. During the American Civil War, the Confederate side comprised primarily of regular citizens who did not own slaves, despite the war being largely over the institution of slavery—an economic cornerstone for the Southern elite. These individuals often fought for what they perceived to be their way of life, regional identity, and rights, which were tied to states' rights concepts rather than a direct economic benefit from slavery.
Similarly, in the Nigerian Civil War, the Igbo people felt marginalized and believed that their region's wealth from oil was not benefiting them as it should. They fought for independence to form the nation of Biafra, but despite the legitimate grievances, the war resulted in immense suffering without achieving the secession they desired. In both these contexts, it was not only about the immediate material benefit but also about broader issues of identity, rights, and power disparities.
Throughout history, from the Russian Civil War where the Bolsheviks eventually took control, to the sectional conflicts in the United States triggering civil war fears, civil strife typically embodies a complex mix of ideology, socioeconomic conditions, and identity politics. Leaders from both sides often used persuasive rhetoric to depict the other as an existential threat, thereby mobilizing groups to engage in conflict where the direct benefits to participants were not always clear.