The writer cites the Hyskos migration as an example of how dismissing the “idea that we belong to a particular land and that it belongs to us” can lead to a a great flourishing.
Well, the Hyskos migration was very violent and destructive until the land they’d migrated to firmly belonged to them and they belonged to it. And then there continued to be war between them and the Egyption dynasty based in Thebes until the Hyskos were defeated. Only then did relative peace return to Egypt.
Ironically, the example used to justify no borders is a classic example of why we have borders. The Hyskos only became peaceful once their own borders were settled and they had their “own land”, and war in Egypt only ceased when they were re-conquered by the Egyptions and the borders of Egypt re-asserted.
It is suggested the Hyskos brought the horse and chariot, the so-called flourish the author refers to, but they did so to destroy their opponents and claim the land of Egypt as their own. Even this is disputed: many historians believe the horse and chariot technology arrived in Egypt independently of the Hyskos and their epic smash and grab. So not only did many people die to satisfy the Hyskos land grab, the technology transfer remarked upon in this article was already underway.
So how is the story of the Hyskos supportive of the end of borders?
The article isn’t promoting “the end of borders”, it’s merely discussing migration with an open mind.
The author fully admits that the social consequences of mass migration and the psychological resistance to it may be impossible to overcome- illustrated by the inevitable Unherd rants that I’m sure will follow….
The author states in the opening “After bloodshed, the incomers brought new ideas, and revolutionary technology” but this is highly disputed. The ideas were already diffusing from Asia to the Middle East and Europe, which is how the Hyskos got them in the first place.
The author goes on to claim the “great flowering of art, imperial expansion and wealth” arose from the Hyskos, but that’s plain wrong because this great expansion came after the Hyskos had been completely defeated. It was the re-assertion of Egyption power, built to defend against then defeat the Hyskos, that led to that expansion. It was battle hardening in war, not migration, that gave Egypt its later expansion and prosperity.
The author claims that “cosmopolitanism [] can lead to innovation and prosperity” but perpetual war isn’t cosmopolitanism and the Hyskos didn’t didn’t innovate anything, their ideas were copied from elsewhere.
In short, the Hyskos are a poor example for whatever the author is trying to communicate about migration. In fact, the only conclusion you can draw from Egypt and the Hyskos is that nation state war and the battle of ideas and technology is what drives development and progress. Something we could also attribute to the great flourishing that took place between the competing states of Europe until recent times.
Moreover, there have been many times when near-constant warfare has been the norm- not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation. Worship of bloodshed as the great advancer of humanity is not only historically dubious, but, after the 20th century, rather idiotic.
“not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation.”
Im not sure what periods you’re referring to, but it seems to me that war has led to many advances, or innovations. Of course we have to agree on the meaning of advances.
“not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation.”
Im not sure what periods you’re referring to, but it seems to me that war has led to many advances, or innovations. Of course we have to agree on the meaning of advances.
Moreover, there have been many times when near-constant warfare has been the norm- not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation. Worship of bloodshed as the great advancer of humanity is not only historically dubious, but, after the 20th century, rather idiotic.
The author states in the opening “After bloodshed, the incomers brought new ideas, and revolutionary technology” but this is highly disputed. The ideas were already diffusing from Asia to the Middle East and Europe, which is how the Hyskos got them in the first place.
The author goes on to claim the “great flowering of art, imperial expansion and wealth” arose from the Hyskos, but that’s plain wrong because this great expansion came after the Hyskos had been completely defeated. It was the re-assertion of Egyption power, built to defend against then defeat the Hyskos, that led to that expansion. It was battle hardening in war, not migration, that gave Egypt its later expansion and prosperity.
The author claims that “cosmopolitanism [] can lead to innovation and prosperity” but perpetual war isn’t cosmopolitanism and the Hyskos didn’t didn’t innovate anything, their ideas were copied from elsewhere.
In short, the Hyskos are a poor example for whatever the author is trying to communicate about migration. In fact, the only conclusion you can draw from Egypt and the Hyskos is that nation state war and the battle of ideas and technology is what drives development and progress. Something we could also attribute to the great flourishing that took place between the competing states of Europe until recent times.
Indeed. Nomads tend to migrate from places that have been exhausted or become uninhabitable, either temporarily or permanently, to more resource – rich environments. For us all to become nomads, we would need to find a second Earth.
The author fails to mention the prehistoric Yamanyaya culture that swept out of the Steppes of central Eurasia and violently colonised most of Europe. DNA evidence shows that they basically killed off all males in the cultures they encountered and took over, imposing their culture and language. Nomadism can be a very dangerous thing.
This is an argument based on not a lot of evidence either way, which is why historians dispute it, but common sense would tend to argue that it would be rather remarkable if a poor bunch of nomads could defeat a long standing sophisticated empire without some strong technological or other advantage over it. This might just have been that they were much more flexible and willing to adapt to change themselves, as for example the Mongols did in their conquest of China.
I am sure that invaders DO often bring about social and / or technological innovation – the Normans were notably more impressive builders than the Anglo Saxons for example, which is why we have only a handful of pre-Norman buildings left.
The numbers of invaders need not be large to have an enormous impact.
But in any case, I rather agree that citing a military conquest would be a rather peculiar way to argue for the benefits of migration in the modern world. Although the author wasn’t actually making a simplistic claim that large scale migration is always beneficial and certainly not that it won’t often be resisted.
The article isn’t promoting “the end of borders”, it’s merely discussing migration with an open mind.
The author fully admits that the social consequences of mass migration and the psychological resistance to it may be impossible to overcome- illustrated by the inevitable Unherd rants that I’m sure will follow….
Indeed. Nomads tend to migrate from places that have been exhausted or become uninhabitable, either temporarily or permanently, to more resource – rich environments. For us all to become nomads, we would need to find a second Earth.
The author fails to mention the prehistoric Yamanyaya culture that swept out of the Steppes of central Eurasia and violently colonised most of Europe. DNA evidence shows that they basically killed off all males in the cultures they encountered and took over, imposing their culture and language. Nomadism can be a very dangerous thing.
This is an argument based on not a lot of evidence either way, which is why historians dispute it, but common sense would tend to argue that it would be rather remarkable if a poor bunch of nomads could defeat a long standing sophisticated empire without some strong technological or other advantage over it. This might just have been that they were much more flexible and willing to adapt to change themselves, as for example the Mongols did in their conquest of China.
I am sure that invaders DO often bring about social and / or technological innovation – the Normans were notably more impressive builders than the Anglo Saxons for example, which is why we have only a handful of pre-Norman buildings left.
The numbers of invaders need not be large to have an enormous impact.
But in any case, I rather agree that citing a military conquest would be a rather peculiar way to argue for the benefits of migration in the modern world. Although the author wasn’t actually making a simplistic claim that large scale migration is always beneficial and certainly not that it won’t often be resisted.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Nell Clover
1 year ago
The writer cites the Hyskos migration as an example of how dismissing the “idea that we belong to a particular land and that it belongs to us” can lead to a a great flourishing.
Well, the Hyskos migration was very violent and destructive until the land they’d migrated to firmly belonged to them and they belonged to it. And then there continued to be war between them and the Egyption dynasty based in Thebes until the Hyskos were defeated. Only then did relative peace return to Egypt.
Ironically, the example used to justify no borders is a classic example of why we have borders. The Hyskos only became peaceful once their own borders were settled and they had their “own land”, and war in Egypt only ceased when they were re-conquered by the Egyptions and the borders of Egypt re-asserted.
It is suggested the Hyskos brought the horse and chariot, the so-called flourish the author refers to, but they did so to destroy their opponents and claim the land of Egypt as their own. Even this is disputed: many historians believe the horse and chariot technology arrived in Egypt independently of the Hyskos and their epic smash and grab. So not only did many people die to satisfy the Hyskos land grab, the technology transfer remarked upon in this article was already underway.
So how is the story of the Hyskos supportive of the end of borders?
Last edited 1 year ago by Nell Clover
jmo
1 year ago
“The Covid pandemic is cited as an example of how large populations are able to stomach radical social change if the reasons for doing so are critical.”
Having managed to visit that trauma on us it will now be the pretext to do whatever they want with us.
The reasons weren’t critical, and we couldn’t stomach the radical social change. I believe it’s ruined a couple of generations.
That is simply shrugged off as you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Expendable casualties. No justification for recall. It is more important to create the globalist vision as described by the references in this article. I wonder what Dua Lipa’s take on this is?
That is simply shrugged off as you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Expendable casualties. No justification for recall. It is more important to create the globalist vision as described by the references in this article. I wonder what Dua Lipa’s take on this is?
jmo
1 year ago
“The Covid pandemic is cited as an example of how large populations are able to stomach radical social change if the reasons for doing so are critical.”
Having managed to visit that trauma on us it will now be the pretext to do whatever they want with us.
The reasons weren’t critical, and we couldn’t stomach the radical social change. I believe it’s ruined a couple of generations.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
The illegal migration on the USA’s southern border is not due to climate change, but rather it’s driven by failed South American governments (as well as the failed and extreme handling of Covid in China) – both situations are man-made.The sole reason these illegal migrants are jumping the border is for economic opportunity. That’s all well & good, but the financial burden not only on borders states but at the federal level is running into billions, at a time the USA is spending billions to fight the Ukraine’s border wars. Moreover, the just passed omnibus bill will also pay billions to ‘protect the borders’ of Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia & Syria. When many Americans are living on the edge as it is, this largesse by our ruling class becomes obscene. Hence, Trump’s popularity.
Moreover, many if not most illegal migrants who cross are illiterate or barely educated so it’s not clear what more they will be doing in the short term than cleaning toilets and agricultural work. We’re not getting rocket scientists & artists like we did post WW2. Small local towns are burdened by educating their kids, providing welfare for a considerable time only to endure the drug culture and crime that is enabled when a number of these migrants transport drugs over the border as payment for passages.
To romanticize the so-called contribution they make is just ludicrous. The burden is very heavy indeed.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
The illegal migration on the USA’s southern border is not due to climate change, but rather it’s driven by failed South American governments (as well as the failed and extreme handling of Covid in China) – both situations are man-made.The sole reason these illegal migrants are jumping the border is for economic opportunity. That’s all well & good, but the financial burden not only on borders states but at the federal level is running into billions, at a time the USA is spending billions to fight the Ukraine’s border wars. Moreover, the just passed omnibus bill will also pay billions to ‘protect the borders’ of Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia & Syria. When many Americans are living on the edge as it is, this largesse by our ruling class becomes obscene. Hence, Trump’s popularity.
Moreover, many if not most illegal migrants who cross are illiterate or barely educated so it’s not clear what more they will be doing in the short term than cleaning toilets and agricultural work. We’re not getting rocket scientists & artists like we did post WW2. Small local towns are burdened by educating their kids, providing welfare for a considerable time only to endure the drug culture and crime that is enabled when a number of these migrants transport drugs over the border as payment for passages.
To romanticize the so-called contribution they make is just ludicrous. The burden is very heavy indeed.
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
If you believe climate change is a literal apocalypse, you’ll do nearly anything to avert it. This writer seems to have fallen for the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Planet” apocalyptic nonsense. If you want people to do something, fear is a great motivator. The reality is that the equatorial regions are already woefully unsuited to mass agriculture, being largely dense jungle or desert, and always have been, which is why humans originated in Africa, but civilization developed largely in temperate zones, with Egypt being the only notable exception I’m aware of. Migration issues have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with keeping the cost of labor down and exploiting the most vulnerable people. The migration problems of today are largely related to two factors, neither of which is remotely connected to climate. First, the demographic trend of fertility falling dramatically in developed nations which are largely in the global north, while fertility remains high in the global south. Second, the need for labor has not declined as sharply as the birth rate, so there’s a perpetual need for low level workers. Much of the migration pressures are driven by service industries that literally couldn’t exist in their present form if they paid wage rates similar to what unionized factory workers commanded a few decades ago. Migration empowers the wealthy elite to continue to hold down wages and exploit people… period. Immigration, in the US, UK, or anywhere, can be easily managed by A.) raising the minimum wage, B.) punishing employers severely for employing illegals and/or participating in human trafficking, and C.) establishing unions in all service industries, fast food, janitorial workers, landscapers, etc. and D.) allocating sufficient resources to police immigration and seriously enforce the law. I grant this would cause economic problems, probably a severe recession, as businesses, governments, and people adjusted. Whole industries might collapse. The same is true of limiting free trade based on wage scale differences between nations. Nevertheless, if people ever want to be out from under the thumb of international finance, multinational corporations, and unaccountable, unelected, tyrants like Musk, Bezos, Gates, etc. this is a pill we have to swallow. Immigration is a good way to fill shortages in critical fields, like medicine, nursing, transportation, construction, and so on. It shouldn’t be so people living in mansions can have perfectly manicured and maintained lawns while paying at or below a living wage. It should be driven by common sense, national interest, and economic need and balanced against social stability, not by corporate greed and not by sympathy for people who were, unfortunately, born in really awful places. Climate change is just another excuse to continue the policies that have already resulted in a new class of global oligarchs and a dwindling middle class throughout the developed world.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
If you believe climate change is a literal apocalypse, you’ll do nearly anything to avert it. This writer seems to have fallen for the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Planet” apocalyptic nonsense. If you want people to do something, fear is a great motivator. The reality is that the equatorial regions are already woefully unsuited to mass agriculture, being largely dense jungle or desert, and always have been, which is why humans originated in Africa, but civilization developed largely in temperate zones, with Egypt being the only notable exception I’m aware of. Migration issues have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with keeping the cost of labor down and exploiting the most vulnerable people. The migration problems of today are largely related to two factors, neither of which is remotely connected to climate. First, the demographic trend of fertility falling dramatically in developed nations which are largely in the global north, while fertility remains high in the global south. Second, the need for labor has not declined as sharply as the birth rate, so there’s a perpetual need for low level workers. Much of the migration pressures are driven by service industries that literally couldn’t exist in their present form if they paid wage rates similar to what unionized factory workers commanded a few decades ago. Migration empowers the wealthy elite to continue to hold down wages and exploit people… period. Immigration, in the US, UK, or anywhere, can be easily managed by A.) raising the minimum wage, B.) punishing employers severely for employing illegals and/or participating in human trafficking, and C.) establishing unions in all service industries, fast food, janitorial workers, landscapers, etc. and D.) allocating sufficient resources to police immigration and seriously enforce the law. I grant this would cause economic problems, probably a severe recession, as businesses, governments, and people adjusted. Whole industries might collapse. The same is true of limiting free trade based on wage scale differences between nations. Nevertheless, if people ever want to be out from under the thumb of international finance, multinational corporations, and unaccountable, unelected, tyrants like Musk, Bezos, Gates, etc. this is a pill we have to swallow. Immigration is a good way to fill shortages in critical fields, like medicine, nursing, transportation, construction, and so on. It shouldn’t be so people living in mansions can have perfectly manicured and maintained lawns while paying at or below a living wage. It should be driven by common sense, national interest, and economic need and balanced against social stability, not by corporate greed and not by sympathy for people who were, unfortunately, born in really awful places. Climate change is just another excuse to continue the policies that have already resulted in a new class of global oligarchs and a dwindling middle class throughout the developed world.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Bernd Ohm
1 year ago
It’s “Hyksos”, for chrissakes. Can you at least check the spelling before embarking on rambunctious deliberations on world history?
It’s “Hyksos”, for chrissakes. Can you at least check the spelling before embarking on rambunctious deliberations on world history?
Jack Tarr
1 year ago
“Indeed, Vince subscribes to the economic school of thought which contends that the dissolution of borders would lead to a doubling of global GDP, and the elimination of global poverty.”
1/ Where is the evidence behind the statement “the dissolution of borders…would lead to a doubling of global GDP”?
2/ Over what timescale would this doubling take place? Decades? Centuries?
3/ Who would benefit from this doubling? In more precise terms, what would the Gini coefficient be?
The direction for the future mapped out by the WEF, World Bank and so on points to a totalitarian transglobal corporate state in which a very small proportion of the population own virtually everything and control what they don’t own. If the borderless world does indeed double its GDP most of the world’s people won’t see any of this wealth – they’ll “own nothing and be happy”.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jack Tarr
Jack Tarr
1 year ago
“Indeed, Vince subscribes to the economic school of thought which contends that the dissolution of borders would lead to a doubling of global GDP, and the elimination of global poverty.”
1/ Where is the evidence behind the statement “the dissolution of borders…would lead to a doubling of global GDP”?
2/ Over what timescale would this doubling take place? Decades? Centuries?
3/ Who would benefit from this doubling? In more precise terms, what would the Gini coefficient be?
The direction for the future mapped out by the WEF, World Bank and so on points to a totalitarian transglobal corporate state in which a very small proportion of the population own virtually everything and control what they don’t own. If the borderless world does indeed double its GDP most of the world’s people won’t see any of this wealth – they’ll “own nothing and be happy”.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jack Tarr
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Let’s not confuse “migrants” with “nomads.” Nomadic communities have chosen a way of life, pastoralism, that requires some mobility but definitely not random wandering. And most of these pastoral communities have inter-dependent relations (trade) with the settled agrarian ones through which they travel according to the seasons.
Very few of the migrants today are pastoral nomads and have any intention of establishing new trails for flocks or herds. Rather, they come from poor agrarian and urban environments and probably hope to settle in wealthy European or American cities, which offer them–or at least their children and grandchildren–many advantages. I doubt that climate change has much to do with current migrations, but it could in the future as it has in the remote past.
Historically, conflict has often erupted between agrarian and pastoral communities. But conflict has often erupted among agrarians themselves and pastoralists themselves. Nonetheless, some of the latter have been particularly aggressive, notably several waves of Huns and Mongols who stormed out of central Asia into Europe and the Near East. They had less property to protect than agrarians did, after all, which has allowed them to be more mobile.
The Hebrew Bible does record a conflict of many centuries between nomadic tribes and agrarian states or city-states. At first, the Israelites were nomadic pastoralists. Eventually, however, they conquered much of agrarian Canaan, settled either in or near towns and established a kingdom but nonetheless retained nostalgia for the old ways–that is, they remained ambivalent about the new ways (partly because of their associations with foreign religions).
Paul, i’m really enjoying your contributions to this forum. Your study of comparative religion is obviously time well spent and even though i’m far from being religious myself (which isn’t to say spiritual), the historicity which you bring is not only valuable but quite rare in the 21st century.
What a delightful way, Steve, to begin the new year (not that I actually expect to see much improvement in this world of increasingly polarized ranting).Thank you for that encouragement. Generally speaking, bloggers are indifferent to what I write. So I’ve learned to value every acknowledgment of the effort that it takes merely to clarify historical or cross-cultural contexts.
What a delightful way, Steve, to begin the new year (not that I actually expect to see much improvement in this world of increasingly polarized ranting).Thank you for that encouragement. Generally speaking, bloggers are indifferent to what I write. So I’ve learned to value every acknowledgment of the effort that it takes merely to clarify historical or cross-cultural contexts.
Paul, i’m really enjoying your contributions to this forum. Your study of comparative religion is obviously time well spent and even though i’m far from being religious myself (which isn’t to say spiritual), the historicity which you bring is not only valuable but quite rare in the 21st century.
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Let’s not confuse “migrants” with “nomads.” Nomadic communities have chosen a way of life, pastoralism, that requires some mobility but definitely not random wandering. And most of these pastoral communities have inter-dependent relations (trade) with the settled agrarian ones through which they travel according to the seasons.
Very few of the migrants today are pastoral nomads and have any intention of establishing new trails for flocks or herds. Rather, they come from poor agrarian and urban environments and probably hope to settle in wealthy European or American cities, which offer them–or at least their children and grandchildren–many advantages. I doubt that climate change has much to do with current migrations, but it could in the future as it has in the remote past.
Historically, conflict has often erupted between agrarian and pastoral communities. But conflict has often erupted among agrarians themselves and pastoralists themselves. Nonetheless, some of the latter have been particularly aggressive, notably several waves of Huns and Mongols who stormed out of central Asia into Europe and the Near East. They had less property to protect than agrarians did, after all, which has allowed them to be more mobile.
The Hebrew Bible does record a conflict of many centuries between nomadic tribes and agrarian states or city-states. At first, the Israelites were nomadic pastoralists. Eventually, however, they conquered much of agrarian Canaan, settled either in or near towns and established a kingdom but nonetheless retained nostalgia for the old ways–that is, they remained ambivalent about the new ways (partly because of their associations with foreign religions).
Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
Jack Tarr
1 year ago
Migration isn’t needed nowadays for the benefits of cross-cultural fertilisation – just universal internet access and an absence of government/big business/academic censorship.
Jack Tarr
1 year ago
Migration isn’t needed nowadays for the benefits of cross-cultural fertilisation – just universal internet access and an absence of government/big business/academic censorship.
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
I don’t know about the Hyksos, but this article is a welcome invitation to reflect upon one of the critical issues of our times. Migration and its dangers and benefits, for both migrant and host.
What indeed is the difference between the motivations of the economic migrant and the digital nomad? Both are seeking a more comfortable life and better prospects in another country. Properly managed, these flows of migration have brought enormous prosperity to host nations (first and foremost the USA) but closer to home the Huguenots, the Jews and the Ugandan Asians have all made contributions to the growth of wealth, science and culture in the UK.
Nomadic existence or dystopian city? It’s a very good question and one that’s deserving of further debate.
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
I don’t know about the Hyksos, but this article is a welcome invitation to reflect upon one of the critical issues of our times. Migration and its dangers and benefits, for both migrant and host.
What indeed is the difference between the motivations of the economic migrant and the digital nomad? Both are seeking a more comfortable life and better prospects in another country. Properly managed, these flows of migration have brought enormous prosperity to host nations (first and foremost the USA) but closer to home the Huguenots, the Jews and the Ugandan Asians have all made contributions to the growth of wealth, science and culture in the UK.
Nomadic existence or dystopian city? It’s a very good question and one that’s deserving of further debate.
Brett H
1 year ago
These sort of ideas are very interesting, but squeezed into this journalistic form they don’t really come to life.
That may be true, but isn’t the point of these types of articles to simply raise awareness of issues in a way which then encourages wider attention? It’s not as if migration doesn’t have all our attentions, but the article pushes in a direction some may not have considered. For that, it’s more than worthwhile, even though i don’t agree with some of it’s conclusions.
That may be true, but isn’t the point of these types of articles to simply raise awareness of issues in a way which then encourages wider attention? It’s not as if migration doesn’t have all our attentions, but the article pushes in a direction some may not have considered. For that, it’s more than worthwhile, even though i don’t agree with some of it’s conclusions.
Brett H
1 year ago
These sort of ideas are very interesting, but squeezed into this journalistic form they don’t really come to life.
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Lots of interest in this article, but let’s get one thing clear. The anguished discussion over to what extent we should have open borders, or indeed, whether they shouldn’t simply be abolished, is yet another phenomenon solely belonging to the ‘woke’ West.
China very clearly is not going to let all and sundry into its territory, and not are many other non western countries. Saudi Arabia took a grand total of zero refugees in the Syrian civil war, despite their far closer cultural and religious match than with European societies. Japan has notably been very restrictive in taking in migrants as it wishes to preserve its culture rather than entirely transform it.
Some countries may have little choice as to whether to accept refugees from wars across their borders, but their populations don’t like the fact and they rely on UN western-raised aid to fund large camps, which hardly amounts to a clarion cheer for the beneficial cultural effects of migration.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Lots of interest in this article, but let’s get one thing clear. The anguished discussion over to what extent we should have open borders, or indeed, whether they shouldn’t simply be abolished, is yet another phenomenon solely belonging to the ‘woke’ West.
China very clearly is not going to let all and sundry into its territory, and not are many other non western countries. Saudi Arabia took a grand total of zero refugees in the Syrian civil war, despite their far closer cultural and religious match than with European societies. Japan has notably been very restrictive in taking in migrants as it wishes to preserve its culture rather than entirely transform it.
Some countries may have little choice as to whether to accept refugees from wars across their borders, but their populations don’t like the fact and they rely on UN western-raised aid to fund large camps, which hardly amounts to a clarion cheer for the beneficial cultural effects of migration.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Nicholas Taylor
1 year ago
Following Nell Clover’s point, if there were no borders there would be nothing for nomads – at any level, geographical, social or intellectual – to invade and plunder. However, it does seem a feature of human history so deeply ingrained I wonder whether it will ever cease. Mr Putin obviously does not think so. Maybe it’s just nature, a combination of slow inbreeding and settling of social layers creating opportunity, and the intensity of new order (whether or not truly progressive) being in proportion to the entropy it flings away. However, that the new order thrives may not be a law of nature, just luck.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
ahhh… we have dull, tedious man made fibre clad people on commuter trains from places like Kent and Surrey… we call them Gnomads…..
Maybe not, but we did. That’s because we evolved to adapt to environmental change and even venture into new environments. But we’ve also evolved as a territorial species, curious but also suspicious of strangers (often with good reason).
One primary function of every state (or any proto-state) is to establish order in what would otherwise be chaos. That sometimes means protecting people from invaders (or acquiring resources by invading others) but it always means regulating both immigration and emigration. There can be no such thing, in short, as a state without one of its defining features. Abolishing borders would defeat the purpose of any state.
Those who want to argue for the eventual abolition of states (as Marx did, even though his followers went in the opposite direction by establishing communist states), must therefore make a coherent argument for that extraordinary innovation in human history, apply it consistently and therefore universally (not only to this or that state). The burden of proof is on those who want to change conditions, not on those who want to preserve or improve existing conditions. Far from being inherently “immoral” (as Nancy Pelosi claimed), even walls can be serve moral purposes.
But there is an underlying moral question that’s very hard to discuss without charges of racism. If we assume that borders should disappear and that all people should be unconditionally free to migrate wherever and whenever they like, then we must ask about the cultural cost to established communities. (I refer not to innate differences but to linguistic, religious, ideological or other cultural differences.) Why build any community and work or even sacrifice for it over many generations, after all, if its endurance has no moral legitimacy?
Alan Hawkes
1 year ago
Not wild about the deaths of so many Egyptians being treated as collateral damage on the way to a better future. And as a precedent for further immigration….?
John Holland
1 year ago
A terrific, if short, outline of the situation, and a rare rejoinder to the silly, myopic nonsense generally spoken about this issue.
The overwhelming majority of discussions in Britain now about migration lack any perspective- either historical or geographical- and are merely knee-jerk exercises in wishful thinking. The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change- is generally ignored or dismissed by the very people who most fear migration.
The millions pouring illegally into the United States aren’t fleeing because they fear climate change. They’re fleeing the inept and evil governments who have turned their countries into unliveable, violent h*llholes. If their homelands were prosperous, sane, and safe, they would likely return, whatever the weather.
I think the author is referring more to the 4 billion + experiencing medium to extremely high water stress in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans, India and all immediate neigbours and China.
Not forgetting Mexico.
Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress
No- but then I didn’t say they were.
Mind you, one thing that’s helped make Mexico into an “unliveable, violent hellhole” is the US ‘war on drugs’, a failed and foolish delusion.
I think the author is referring more to the 4 billion + experiencing medium to extremely high water stress in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans, India and all immediate neigbours and China.
Not forgetting Mexico.
Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress
No- but then I didn’t say they were.
Mind you, one thing that’s helped make Mexico into an “unliveable, violent hellhole” is the US ‘war on drugs’, a failed and foolish delusion.
“The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change-“
I’m not sure that what you think might happen in the future proves anything, irony or anything else..
The millions pouring illegally into the United States aren’t fleeing because they fear climate change. They’re fleeing the inept and evil governments who have turned their countries into unliveable, violent h*llholes. If their homelands were prosperous, sane, and safe, they would likely return, whatever the weather.
“The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change-“
I’m not sure that what you think might happen in the future proves anything, irony or anything else..
here soeaketh the philosophy of Testiclese…and Ess Fincta
John Holland
1 year ago
A terrific, if short, outline of the situation, and a rare rejoinder to the silly, myopic nonsense generally spoken about this issue.
The overwhelming majority of discussions in Britain now about migration lack any perspective- either historical or geographical- and are merely knee-jerk exercises in wishful thinking. The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change- is generally ignored or dismissed by the very people who most fear migration.
The writer cites the Hyskos migration as an example of how dismissing the “idea that we belong to a particular land and that it belongs to us” can lead to a a great flourishing.
Well, the Hyskos migration was very violent and destructive until the land they’d migrated to firmly belonged to them and they belonged to it. And then there continued to be war between them and the Egyption dynasty based in Thebes until the Hyskos were defeated. Only then did relative peace return to Egypt.
Ironically, the example used to justify no borders is a classic example of why we have borders. The Hyskos only became peaceful once their own borders were settled and they had their “own land”, and war in Egypt only ceased when they were re-conquered by the Egyptions and the borders of Egypt re-asserted.
It is suggested the Hyskos brought the horse and chariot, the so-called flourish the author refers to, but they did so to destroy their opponents and claim the land of Egypt as their own. Even this is disputed: many historians believe the horse and chariot technology arrived in Egypt independently of the Hyskos and their epic smash and grab. So not only did many people die to satisfy the Hyskos land grab, the technology transfer remarked upon in this article was already underway.
So how is the story of the Hyskos supportive of the end of borders?
The article isn’t promoting “the end of borders”, it’s merely discussing migration with an open mind.
The author fully admits that the social consequences of mass migration and the psychological resistance to it may be impossible to overcome- illustrated by the inevitable Unherd rants that I’m sure will follow….
The author states in the opening “After bloodshed, the incomers brought new ideas, and revolutionary technology” but this is highly disputed. The ideas were already diffusing from Asia to the Middle East and Europe, which is how the Hyskos got them in the first place.
The author goes on to claim the “great flowering of art, imperial expansion and wealth” arose from the Hyskos, but that’s plain wrong because this great expansion came after the Hyskos had been completely defeated. It was the re-assertion of Egyption power, built to defend against then defeat the Hyskos, that led to that expansion. It was battle hardening in war, not migration, that gave Egypt its later expansion and prosperity.
The author claims that “cosmopolitanism [] can lead to innovation and prosperity” but perpetual war isn’t cosmopolitanism and the Hyskos didn’t didn’t innovate anything, their ideas were copied from elsewhere.
In short, the Hyskos are a poor example for whatever the author is trying to communicate about migration. In fact, the only conclusion you can draw from Egypt and the Hyskos is that nation state war and the battle of ideas and technology is what drives development and progress. Something we could also attribute to the great flourishing that took place between the competing states of Europe until recent times.
So perpetual war is our best bet in the coming century, or have I read you wrong?
By the way, who exactly are these “Hyskos” you keep talking about?
Moreover, there have been many times when near-constant warfare has been the norm- not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation. Worship of bloodshed as the great advancer of humanity is not only historically dubious, but, after the 20th century, rather idiotic.
“not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation.”
Im not sure what periods you’re referring to, but it seems to me that war has led to many advances, or innovations. Of course we have to agree on the meaning of advances.
“not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation.”
Im not sure what periods you’re referring to, but it seems to me that war has led to many advances, or innovations. Of course we have to agree on the meaning of advances.
Moreover, there have been many times when near-constant warfare has been the norm- not many of them led to any great technological or cultural innovation. Worship of bloodshed as the great advancer of humanity is not only historically dubious, but, after the 20th century, rather idiotic.
So perpetual war is our best bet in the coming century, or have I read you wrong?
By the way, who exactly are these “Hyskos” you keep talking about?
The author states in the opening “After bloodshed, the incomers brought new ideas, and revolutionary technology” but this is highly disputed. The ideas were already diffusing from Asia to the Middle East and Europe, which is how the Hyskos got them in the first place.
The author goes on to claim the “great flowering of art, imperial expansion and wealth” arose from the Hyskos, but that’s plain wrong because this great expansion came after the Hyskos had been completely defeated. It was the re-assertion of Egyption power, built to defend against then defeat the Hyskos, that led to that expansion. It was battle hardening in war, not migration, that gave Egypt its later expansion and prosperity.
The author claims that “cosmopolitanism [] can lead to innovation and prosperity” but perpetual war isn’t cosmopolitanism and the Hyskos didn’t didn’t innovate anything, their ideas were copied from elsewhere.
In short, the Hyskos are a poor example for whatever the author is trying to communicate about migration. In fact, the only conclusion you can draw from Egypt and the Hyskos is that nation state war and the battle of ideas and technology is what drives development and progress. Something we could also attribute to the great flourishing that took place between the competing states of Europe until recent times.
Indeed. Nomads tend to migrate from places that have been exhausted or become uninhabitable, either temporarily or permanently, to more resource – rich environments. For us all to become nomads, we would need to find a second Earth.
The author fails to mention the prehistoric Yamanyaya culture that swept out of the Steppes of central Eurasia and violently colonised most of Europe. DNA evidence shows that they basically killed off all males in the cultures they encountered and took over, imposing their culture and language. Nomadism can be a very dangerous thing.
This is an argument based on not a lot of evidence either way, which is why historians dispute it, but common sense would tend to argue that it would be rather remarkable if a poor bunch of nomads could defeat a long standing sophisticated empire without some strong technological or other advantage over it. This might just have been that they were much more flexible and willing to adapt to change themselves, as for example the Mongols did in their conquest of China.
I am sure that invaders DO often bring about social and / or technological innovation – the Normans were notably more impressive builders than the Anglo Saxons for example, which is why we have only a handful of pre-Norman buildings left.
The numbers of invaders need not be large to have an enormous impact.
But in any case, I rather agree that citing a military conquest would be a rather peculiar way to argue for the benefits of migration in the modern world. Although the author wasn’t actually making a simplistic claim that large scale migration is always beneficial and certainly not that it won’t often be resisted.
The article isn’t promoting “the end of borders”, it’s merely discussing migration with an open mind.
The author fully admits that the social consequences of mass migration and the psychological resistance to it may be impossible to overcome- illustrated by the inevitable Unherd rants that I’m sure will follow….
Indeed. Nomads tend to migrate from places that have been exhausted or become uninhabitable, either temporarily or permanently, to more resource – rich environments. For us all to become nomads, we would need to find a second Earth.
The author fails to mention the prehistoric Yamanyaya culture that swept out of the Steppes of central Eurasia and violently colonised most of Europe. DNA evidence shows that they basically killed off all males in the cultures they encountered and took over, imposing their culture and language. Nomadism can be a very dangerous thing.
This is an argument based on not a lot of evidence either way, which is why historians dispute it, but common sense would tend to argue that it would be rather remarkable if a poor bunch of nomads could defeat a long standing sophisticated empire without some strong technological or other advantage over it. This might just have been that they were much more flexible and willing to adapt to change themselves, as for example the Mongols did in their conquest of China.
I am sure that invaders DO often bring about social and / or technological innovation – the Normans were notably more impressive builders than the Anglo Saxons for example, which is why we have only a handful of pre-Norman buildings left.
The numbers of invaders need not be large to have an enormous impact.
But in any case, I rather agree that citing a military conquest would be a rather peculiar way to argue for the benefits of migration in the modern world. Although the author wasn’t actually making a simplistic claim that large scale migration is always beneficial and certainly not that it won’t often be resisted.
The writer cites the Hyskos migration as an example of how dismissing the “idea that we belong to a particular land and that it belongs to us” can lead to a a great flourishing.
Well, the Hyskos migration was very violent and destructive until the land they’d migrated to firmly belonged to them and they belonged to it. And then there continued to be war between them and the Egyption dynasty based in Thebes until the Hyskos were defeated. Only then did relative peace return to Egypt.
Ironically, the example used to justify no borders is a classic example of why we have borders. The Hyskos only became peaceful once their own borders were settled and they had their “own land”, and war in Egypt only ceased when they were re-conquered by the Egyptions and the borders of Egypt re-asserted.
It is suggested the Hyskos brought the horse and chariot, the so-called flourish the author refers to, but they did so to destroy their opponents and claim the land of Egypt as their own. Even this is disputed: many historians believe the horse and chariot technology arrived in Egypt independently of the Hyskos and their epic smash and grab. So not only did many people die to satisfy the Hyskos land grab, the technology transfer remarked upon in this article was already underway.
So how is the story of the Hyskos supportive of the end of borders?
“The Covid pandemic is cited as an example of how large populations are able to stomach radical social change if the reasons for doing so are critical.”
Having managed to visit that trauma on us it will now be the pretext to do whatever they want with us.
The reasons weren’t critical, and we couldn’t stomach the radical social change. I believe it’s ruined a couple of generations.
That is simply shrugged off as you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Expendable casualties. No justification for recall. It is more important to create the globalist vision as described by the references in this article. I wonder what Dua Lipa’s take on this is?
That is simply shrugged off as you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Expendable casualties. No justification for recall. It is more important to create the globalist vision as described by the references in this article. I wonder what Dua Lipa’s take on this is?
“The Covid pandemic is cited as an example of how large populations are able to stomach radical social change if the reasons for doing so are critical.”
Having managed to visit that trauma on us it will now be the pretext to do whatever they want with us.
The reasons weren’t critical, and we couldn’t stomach the radical social change. I believe it’s ruined a couple of generations.
The illegal migration on the USA’s southern border is not due to climate change, but rather it’s driven by failed South American governments (as well as the failed and extreme handling of Covid in China) – both situations are man-made.The sole reason these illegal migrants are jumping the border is for economic opportunity. That’s all well & good, but the financial burden not only on borders states but at the federal level is running into billions, at a time the USA is spending billions to fight the Ukraine’s border wars. Moreover, the just passed omnibus bill will also pay billions to ‘protect the borders’ of Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia & Syria. When many Americans are living on the edge as it is, this largesse by our ruling class becomes obscene. Hence, Trump’s popularity.
Moreover, many if not most illegal migrants who cross are illiterate or barely educated so it’s not clear what more they will be doing in the short term than cleaning toilets and agricultural work. We’re not getting rocket scientists & artists like we did post WW2. Small local towns are burdened by educating their kids, providing welfare for a considerable time only to endure the drug culture and crime that is enabled when a number of these migrants transport drugs over the border as payment for passages.
To romanticize the so-called contribution they make is just ludicrous. The burden is very heavy indeed.
The illegal migration on the USA’s southern border is not due to climate change, but rather it’s driven by failed South American governments (as well as the failed and extreme handling of Covid in China) – both situations are man-made.The sole reason these illegal migrants are jumping the border is for economic opportunity. That’s all well & good, but the financial burden not only on borders states but at the federal level is running into billions, at a time the USA is spending billions to fight the Ukraine’s border wars. Moreover, the just passed omnibus bill will also pay billions to ‘protect the borders’ of Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia & Syria. When many Americans are living on the edge as it is, this largesse by our ruling class becomes obscene. Hence, Trump’s popularity.
Moreover, many if not most illegal migrants who cross are illiterate or barely educated so it’s not clear what more they will be doing in the short term than cleaning toilets and agricultural work. We’re not getting rocket scientists & artists like we did post WW2. Small local towns are burdened by educating their kids, providing welfare for a considerable time only to endure the drug culture and crime that is enabled when a number of these migrants transport drugs over the border as payment for passages.
To romanticize the so-called contribution they make is just ludicrous. The burden is very heavy indeed.
If you believe climate change is a literal apocalypse, you’ll do nearly anything to avert it. This writer seems to have fallen for the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Planet” apocalyptic nonsense. If you want people to do something, fear is a great motivator. The reality is that the equatorial regions are already woefully unsuited to mass agriculture, being largely dense jungle or desert, and always have been, which is why humans originated in Africa, but civilization developed largely in temperate zones, with Egypt being the only notable exception I’m aware of. Migration issues have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with keeping the cost of labor down and exploiting the most vulnerable people. The migration problems of today are largely related to two factors, neither of which is remotely connected to climate. First, the demographic trend of fertility falling dramatically in developed nations which are largely in the global north, while fertility remains high in the global south. Second, the need for labor has not declined as sharply as the birth rate, so there’s a perpetual need for low level workers. Much of the migration pressures are driven by service industries that literally couldn’t exist in their present form if they paid wage rates similar to what unionized factory workers commanded a few decades ago. Migration empowers the wealthy elite to continue to hold down wages and exploit people… period. Immigration, in the US, UK, or anywhere, can be easily managed by A.) raising the minimum wage, B.) punishing employers severely for employing illegals and/or participating in human trafficking, and C.) establishing unions in all service industries, fast food, janitorial workers, landscapers, etc. and D.) allocating sufficient resources to police immigration and seriously enforce the law. I grant this would cause economic problems, probably a severe recession, as businesses, governments, and people adjusted. Whole industries might collapse. The same is true of limiting free trade based on wage scale differences between nations. Nevertheless, if people ever want to be out from under the thumb of international finance, multinational corporations, and unaccountable, unelected, tyrants like Musk, Bezos, Gates, etc. this is a pill we have to swallow. Immigration is a good way to fill shortages in critical fields, like medicine, nursing, transportation, construction, and so on. It shouldn’t be so people living in mansions can have perfectly manicured and maintained lawns while paying at or below a living wage. It should be driven by common sense, national interest, and economic need and balanced against social stability, not by corporate greed and not by sympathy for people who were, unfortunately, born in really awful places. Climate change is just another excuse to continue the policies that have already resulted in a new class of global oligarchs and a dwindling middle class throughout the developed world.
If you believe climate change is a literal apocalypse, you’ll do nearly anything to avert it. This writer seems to have fallen for the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Planet” apocalyptic nonsense. If you want people to do something, fear is a great motivator. The reality is that the equatorial regions are already woefully unsuited to mass agriculture, being largely dense jungle or desert, and always have been, which is why humans originated in Africa, but civilization developed largely in temperate zones, with Egypt being the only notable exception I’m aware of. Migration issues have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with keeping the cost of labor down and exploiting the most vulnerable people. The migration problems of today are largely related to two factors, neither of which is remotely connected to climate. First, the demographic trend of fertility falling dramatically in developed nations which are largely in the global north, while fertility remains high in the global south. Second, the need for labor has not declined as sharply as the birth rate, so there’s a perpetual need for low level workers. Much of the migration pressures are driven by service industries that literally couldn’t exist in their present form if they paid wage rates similar to what unionized factory workers commanded a few decades ago. Migration empowers the wealthy elite to continue to hold down wages and exploit people… period. Immigration, in the US, UK, or anywhere, can be easily managed by A.) raising the minimum wage, B.) punishing employers severely for employing illegals and/or participating in human trafficking, and C.) establishing unions in all service industries, fast food, janitorial workers, landscapers, etc. and D.) allocating sufficient resources to police immigration and seriously enforce the law. I grant this would cause economic problems, probably a severe recession, as businesses, governments, and people adjusted. Whole industries might collapse. The same is true of limiting free trade based on wage scale differences between nations. Nevertheless, if people ever want to be out from under the thumb of international finance, multinational corporations, and unaccountable, unelected, tyrants like Musk, Bezos, Gates, etc. this is a pill we have to swallow. Immigration is a good way to fill shortages in critical fields, like medicine, nursing, transportation, construction, and so on. It shouldn’t be so people living in mansions can have perfectly manicured and maintained lawns while paying at or below a living wage. It should be driven by common sense, national interest, and economic need and balanced against social stability, not by corporate greed and not by sympathy for people who were, unfortunately, born in really awful places. Climate change is just another excuse to continue the policies that have already resulted in a new class of global oligarchs and a dwindling middle class throughout the developed world.
It’s “Hyksos”, for chrissakes. Can you at least check the spelling before embarking on rambunctious deliberations on world history?
Well said, I noticed this error.
Well said, I noticed this error.
It’s “Hyksos”, for chrissakes. Can you at least check the spelling before embarking on rambunctious deliberations on world history?
“Indeed, Vince subscribes to the economic school of thought which contends that the dissolution of borders would lead to a doubling of global GDP, and the elimination of global poverty.”
1/ Where is the evidence behind the statement “the dissolution of borders…would lead to a doubling of global GDP”?
2/ Over what timescale would this doubling take place? Decades? Centuries?
3/ Who would benefit from this doubling? In more precise terms, what would the Gini coefficient be?
The direction for the future mapped out by the WEF, World Bank and so on points to a totalitarian transglobal corporate state in which a very small proportion of the population own virtually everything and control what they don’t own. If the borderless world does indeed double its GDP most of the world’s people won’t see any of this wealth – they’ll “own nothing and be happy”.
“Indeed, Vince subscribes to the economic school of thought which contends that the dissolution of borders would lead to a doubling of global GDP, and the elimination of global poverty.”
1/ Where is the evidence behind the statement “the dissolution of borders…would lead to a doubling of global GDP”?
2/ Over what timescale would this doubling take place? Decades? Centuries?
3/ Who would benefit from this doubling? In more precise terms, what would the Gini coefficient be?
The direction for the future mapped out by the WEF, World Bank and so on points to a totalitarian transglobal corporate state in which a very small proportion of the population own virtually everything and control what they don’t own. If the borderless world does indeed double its GDP most of the world’s people won’t see any of this wealth – they’ll “own nothing and be happy”.
Let’s not confuse “migrants” with “nomads.” Nomadic communities have chosen a way of life, pastoralism, that requires some mobility but definitely not random wandering. And most of these pastoral communities have inter-dependent relations (trade) with the settled agrarian ones through which they travel according to the seasons.
Very few of the migrants today are pastoral nomads and have any intention of establishing new trails for flocks or herds. Rather, they come from poor agrarian and urban environments and probably hope to settle in wealthy European or American cities, which offer them–or at least their children and grandchildren–many advantages. I doubt that climate change has much to do with current migrations, but it could in the future as it has in the remote past.
Historically, conflict has often erupted between agrarian and pastoral communities. But conflict has often erupted among agrarians themselves and pastoralists themselves. Nonetheless, some of the latter have been particularly aggressive, notably several waves of Huns and Mongols who stormed out of central Asia into Europe and the Near East. They had less property to protect than agrarians did, after all, which has allowed them to be more mobile.
The Hebrew Bible does record a conflict of many centuries between nomadic tribes and agrarian states or city-states. At first, the Israelites were nomadic pastoralists. Eventually, however, they conquered much of agrarian Canaan, settled either in or near towns and established a kingdom but nonetheless retained nostalgia for the old ways–that is, they remained ambivalent about the new ways (partly because of their associations with foreign religions).
Paul, i’m really enjoying your contributions to this forum. Your study of comparative religion is obviously time well spent and even though i’m far from being religious myself (which isn’t to say spiritual), the historicity which you bring is not only valuable but quite rare in the 21st century.
What a delightful way, Steve, to begin the new year (not that I actually expect to see much improvement in this world of increasingly polarized ranting).Thank you for that encouragement. Generally speaking, bloggers are indifferent to what I write. So I’ve learned to value every acknowledgment of the effort that it takes merely to clarify historical or cross-cultural contexts.
What a delightful way, Steve, to begin the new year (not that I actually expect to see much improvement in this world of increasingly polarized ranting).Thank you for that encouragement. Generally speaking, bloggers are indifferent to what I write. So I’ve learned to value every acknowledgment of the effort that it takes merely to clarify historical or cross-cultural contexts.
Paul, i’m really enjoying your contributions to this forum. Your study of comparative religion is obviously time well spent and even though i’m far from being religious myself (which isn’t to say spiritual), the historicity which you bring is not only valuable but quite rare in the 21st century.
Let’s not confuse “migrants” with “nomads.” Nomadic communities have chosen a way of life, pastoralism, that requires some mobility but definitely not random wandering. And most of these pastoral communities have inter-dependent relations (trade) with the settled agrarian ones through which they travel according to the seasons.
Very few of the migrants today are pastoral nomads and have any intention of establishing new trails for flocks or herds. Rather, they come from poor agrarian and urban environments and probably hope to settle in wealthy European or American cities, which offer them–or at least their children and grandchildren–many advantages. I doubt that climate change has much to do with current migrations, but it could in the future as it has in the remote past.
Historically, conflict has often erupted between agrarian and pastoral communities. But conflict has often erupted among agrarians themselves and pastoralists themselves. Nonetheless, some of the latter have been particularly aggressive, notably several waves of Huns and Mongols who stormed out of central Asia into Europe and the Near East. They had less property to protect than agrarians did, after all, which has allowed them to be more mobile.
The Hebrew Bible does record a conflict of many centuries between nomadic tribes and agrarian states or city-states. At first, the Israelites were nomadic pastoralists. Eventually, however, they conquered much of agrarian Canaan, settled either in or near towns and established a kingdom but nonetheless retained nostalgia for the old ways–that is, they remained ambivalent about the new ways (partly because of their associations with foreign religions).
Migration isn’t needed nowadays for the benefits of cross-cultural fertilisation – just universal internet access and an absence of government/big business/academic censorship.
Migration isn’t needed nowadays for the benefits of cross-cultural fertilisation – just universal internet access and an absence of government/big business/academic censorship.
I don’t know about the Hyksos, but this article is a welcome invitation to reflect upon one of the critical issues of our times. Migration and its dangers and benefits, for both migrant and host.
What indeed is the difference between the motivations of the economic migrant and the digital nomad? Both are seeking a more comfortable life and better prospects in another country. Properly managed, these flows of migration have brought enormous prosperity to host nations (first and foremost the USA) but closer to home the Huguenots, the Jews and the Ugandan Asians have all made contributions to the growth of wealth, science and culture in the UK.
Nomadic existence or dystopian city? It’s a very good question and one that’s deserving of further debate.
I don’t know about the Hyksos, but this article is a welcome invitation to reflect upon one of the critical issues of our times. Migration and its dangers and benefits, for both migrant and host.
What indeed is the difference between the motivations of the economic migrant and the digital nomad? Both are seeking a more comfortable life and better prospects in another country. Properly managed, these flows of migration have brought enormous prosperity to host nations (first and foremost the USA) but closer to home the Huguenots, the Jews and the Ugandan Asians have all made contributions to the growth of wealth, science and culture in the UK.
Nomadic existence or dystopian city? It’s a very good question and one that’s deserving of further debate.
These sort of ideas are very interesting, but squeezed into this journalistic form they don’t really come to life.
That may be true, but isn’t the point of these types of articles to simply raise awareness of issues in a way which then encourages wider attention? It’s not as if migration doesn’t have all our attentions, but the article pushes in a direction some may not have considered. For that, it’s more than worthwhile, even though i don’t agree with some of it’s conclusions.
That may be true, but isn’t the point of these types of articles to simply raise awareness of issues in a way which then encourages wider attention? It’s not as if migration doesn’t have all our attentions, but the article pushes in a direction some may not have considered. For that, it’s more than worthwhile, even though i don’t agree with some of it’s conclusions.
These sort of ideas are very interesting, but squeezed into this journalistic form they don’t really come to life.
Lots of interest in this article, but let’s get one thing clear. The anguished discussion over to what extent we should have open borders, or indeed, whether they shouldn’t simply be abolished, is yet another phenomenon solely belonging to the ‘woke’ West.
China very clearly is not going to let all and sundry into its territory, and not are many other non western countries. Saudi Arabia took a grand total of zero refugees in the Syrian civil war, despite their far closer cultural and religious match than with European societies. Japan has notably been very restrictive in taking in migrants as it wishes to preserve its culture rather than entirely transform it.
Some countries may have little choice as to whether to accept refugees from wars across their borders, but their populations don’t like the fact and they rely on UN western-raised aid to fund large camps, which hardly amounts to a clarion cheer for the beneficial cultural effects of migration.
Lots of interest in this article, but let’s get one thing clear. The anguished discussion over to what extent we should have open borders, or indeed, whether they shouldn’t simply be abolished, is yet another phenomenon solely belonging to the ‘woke’ West.
China very clearly is not going to let all and sundry into its territory, and not are many other non western countries. Saudi Arabia took a grand total of zero refugees in the Syrian civil war, despite their far closer cultural and religious match than with European societies. Japan has notably been very restrictive in taking in migrants as it wishes to preserve its culture rather than entirely transform it.
Some countries may have little choice as to whether to accept refugees from wars across their borders, but their populations don’t like the fact and they rely on UN western-raised aid to fund large camps, which hardly amounts to a clarion cheer for the beneficial cultural effects of migration.
Following Nell Clover’s point, if there were no borders there would be nothing for nomads – at any level, geographical, social or intellectual – to invade and plunder. However, it does seem a feature of human history so deeply ingrained I wonder whether it will ever cease. Mr Putin obviously does not think so. Maybe it’s just nature, a combination of slow inbreeding and settling of social layers creating opportunity, and the intensity of new order (whether or not truly progressive) being in proportion to the entropy it flings away. However, that the new order thrives may not be a law of nature, just luck.
ahhh… we have dull, tedious man made fibre clad people on commuter trains from places like Kent and Surrey… we call them Gnomads…..
We should never have come down from the trees.
Maybe not, but we did. That’s because we evolved to adapt to environmental change and even venture into new environments. But we’ve also evolved as a territorial species, curious but also suspicious of strangers (often with good reason).
One primary function of every state (or any proto-state) is to establish order in what would otherwise be chaos. That sometimes means protecting people from invaders (or acquiring resources by invading others) but it always means regulating both immigration and emigration. There can be no such thing, in short, as a state without one of its defining features. Abolishing borders would defeat the purpose of any state.
Those who want to argue for the eventual abolition of states (as Marx did, even though his followers went in the opposite direction by establishing communist states), must therefore make a coherent argument for that extraordinary innovation in human history, apply it consistently and therefore universally (not only to this or that state). The burden of proof is on those who want to change conditions, not on those who want to preserve or improve existing conditions. Far from being inherently “immoral” (as Nancy Pelosi claimed), even walls can be serve moral purposes.
But there is an underlying moral question that’s very hard to discuss without charges of racism. If we assume that borders should disappear and that all people should be unconditionally free to migrate wherever and whenever they like, then we must ask about the cultural cost to established communities. (I refer not to innate differences but to linguistic, religious, ideological or other cultural differences.) Why build any community and work or even sacrifice for it over many generations, after all, if its endurance has no moral legitimacy?
Not wild about the deaths of so many Egyptians being treated as collateral damage on the way to a better future. And as a precedent for further immigration….?
A terrific, if short, outline of the situation, and a rare rejoinder to the silly, myopic nonsense generally spoken about this issue.
The overwhelming majority of discussions in Britain now about migration lack any perspective- either historical or geographical- and are merely knee-jerk exercises in wishful thinking. The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change- is generally ignored or dismissed by the very people who most fear migration.
The millions pouring illegally into the United States aren’t fleeing because they fear climate change. They’re fleeing the inept and evil governments who have turned their countries into unliveable, violent h*llholes. If their homelands were prosperous, sane, and safe, they would likely return, whatever the weather.
I think the author is referring more to the 4 billion + experiencing medium to extremely high water stress in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans, India and all immediate neigbours and China.
Not forgetting Mexico.
Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress
No- but then I didn’t say they were.
Mind you, one thing that’s helped make Mexico into an “unliveable, violent hellhole” is the US ‘war on drugs’, a failed and foolish delusion.
I think the author is referring more to the 4 billion + experiencing medium to extremely high water stress in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans, India and all immediate neigbours and China.
Not forgetting Mexico.
Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress
No- but then I didn’t say they were.
Mind you, one thing that’s helped make Mexico into an “unliveable, violent hellhole” is the US ‘war on drugs’, a failed and foolish delusion.
“The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change-“
I’m not sure that what you think might happen in the future proves anything, irony or anything else..
here soeaketh the philosophy of Testiclese…and Ess Fincta
The millions pouring illegally into the United States aren’t fleeing because they fear climate change. They’re fleeing the inept and evil governments who have turned their countries into unliveable, violent h*llholes. If their homelands were prosperous, sane, and safe, they would likely return, whatever the weather.
“The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change-“
I’m not sure that what you think might happen in the future proves anything, irony or anything else..
here soeaketh the philosophy of Testiclese…and Ess Fincta
A terrific, if short, outline of the situation, and a rare rejoinder to the silly, myopic nonsense generally spoken about this issue.
The overwhelming majority of discussions in Britain now about migration lack any perspective- either historical or geographical- and are merely knee-jerk exercises in wishful thinking. The irony is that the driving force behind the next massive wave of global migrations- climate change- is generally ignored or dismissed by the very people who most fear migration.