People's migrations are not another order's phenomenon, but have created today's global world. From "deep time" in Africa went gay sapiens from east africa, out of Africa to Southeast Asia and Australia. Based on this movement, one move went north to the Middle East and Europe, another via East Asia and up to the two americans. A historical distinction can be made at the second phase of agricultural revolution. Then the planet was inhabited with the exception of the Arctic. From now on migration immigration into other people's territories. Another time gap can be set around 1500. Before that, intercontinental movements took place: huns into Europe, bantu out of West Africa. Afterwards, transcontinental overseas movements came to America, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean and beyond. But then, admiral Zheng He had been to Aden, an expedition from 1405 to 1435, with 1000 men per ship, 27 in total. They cultivatedits own vegetables on board.
Intuitively, global mass migration seems like such a "very" phenomenon that it calls for macro explanations, as economic economic conditions. But at the same time global migration is a sum of individual actions. It is often translocal, from place to place. Migration in the 1800s did not generally go between China and America, but between some communities at the delta of Perleelva some cities in california
Global migration can be studied "descriptive" and they can be seen as one "prism" for other even bigger processes: The proletarian The masses across the Atlantic provide input for understanding the 1800 talks industrial capitalism. We can ask about the reasons for /Migration, where it originated, lasted, changed and resided in epochs. And we can see migration / as a cause /, as a force which changes society. Walking is etymologically related to changing.
If we see migration as a cause, it is easiest to think in diffusion that migration was a channel of proliferation. But remember that the movements went Pulses were returned and went out again. Diffusion did not necessarily mean cozy cultural meetings; it shows microbial history. Diffusion could be juvenile but also asymmetrical. "Strong migrants" meant expansion, yes, military conquest, like the conquistadores. Regularly "weak" migrants had to adapt, submit or go to bed. ButMongolian conquerors also became absorbers of Chinese culture.
If migration has spread innovations, it does not mean that all scatterings have taken p lace through migration. Innovation can also go from one group to another, as one assumes that agriculture is widespread. And spreading aleine can not explain change. Should something be spread,
Must it be created somewhere. Therefore, we must also study inner evolution. Society can not be understood without their immigration history. It is seen in South andNorth America. Country with Spanish conquest, like Mexico, with a small European population and a large number of indigenous peoples, received a long, insecure transition to capitalism and the nation state.
Rural areas with plantation economies, slavery and relatively small indigenous peoples, such as the northeast of Brazil and the US newer times do not become the expansive boom areas.
The European settler colonies west of Mexico and the northern United States were historically not a few colonial successes, but led to today's modern capitalism. In general, there has been a connection between the nature of migration and the kind of rule of domination that was established.
Norway shows how migration could work in a sending country. Mass evolution created a seller's market. What would happen else? Accumulation of poverty, high unemployment, buyer's labor market. Edvard Bull called the period from 1860 to 1920 "kapitalism's liberating phase. "Strong position for ordinary people in the labor market gave them both free time and opportunity to build up organizations. For those who believe that class organization meant opposition, for a long time Norway made a relatively egalitarian and civilized society, there is reason to thank the migration story.
Global migration is not a natural act. Yes, one can say that in the 300 million living outside their country of origin, the question is the reason why does not move more? Nevertheless, strong forces make the hikes likely to continue: population growth, bad economic development, persecution for many reasons, and probably climate change sea rise, desertification and extreme weather. Global migration can not be avoided, but must be the premise of our thinking.
- Knut Kjelstadli