25 votes

Have mass migrations ever happened for positive reasons instead of because hardship or lack of opportunity in their home countries?

Just as a preface, I am not making this post because I oppose immigration or want to turn away imigrants, much less those who can't live safely in their home countries, I just notice immigration and misery seem to be intimately related, and it honestly makes me wonder if a world without misery is also a world without immigration, at least in the form of mass migrations of a specific people group or type of person. I also recognize that more immigration and cultural diversity does have a wide variety of benefits, regardless of it's causes or motives, and that leaving your home for some faraway country looking for some high-end job not present where you live is definitely not the fault or problem of the person migrating.

I've been thinking about immigration recently and it kind of astounds me just how much of immigration happens because of misery, Colonialism or oppression. Here's a pretty broad and varied list of mass immigration phenomena and (as I understand them) their causes:

  • The USA has a southern border crisis (to some extent because Republicans like to exaggerate it to justify their xenophobia and so on) because Mexico and Latin America as a whole are much poorer than the USA (something the USA itself shares a good deal of blame for) and thus want to come to the USA, with illegal immigrants often doing so by any means necessary.

  • Europe (and Turkey kinda) has an Arab migrant crisis because of the (mostly) failed Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War destabilizing the region or plunging it into war, forcing million to flee to Europe, which is in large part responsible for this crisis seing as (West) Europeans colonized the whole region and set much of the stage for conflicts.

  • A large share of white people from a variety of different ethnic groups in the USA were fleeing oppression or misery in Europe (and the ones that were not came here to colonize and oppress the natives):

    • Quakers fleeing to the USA due to British persecution

    • Irish-Americans coming to the USA in largest amounts following the Potato Famine

    • The height of German-American migration to the USA followed the 1848 revolution's failure to make a more liberal and united Germany

    • Meanwhile, Black Americans, after being forcibly migrated out of the African continent to be enslaved, fled the US South in the millions starting around the 1920s as this was the nadir of race relations and the heights of the Jim Crow age. White flight to the suburbs (another large migration) was one of the main northern responses to this influx of black people.

  • In early 20th century Brazil, the government encouraged immigration from European countries and Japan to them in large part due to a need for cheap labor still unmet a few decades after the end of slavery and as a way to make the country more white. Many of the European migrants were poor workers looking to make a better life for themselves.

  • Zionism arguably owes it's existence and success to centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe and it's culmination in the Holocaust, alongside a sympathetic British Empire and UN being able to simply lease most of the Levant that they had colonized to a new Jewish state. This is layered on top of the fact that the reason Jewish people even left the Levant in the first place was oppression by several different foreign empires for centuries since antiquity. The modern state of Israel also owes the largest share of it's Jews from neighboring middle-eastern countries which also expelled them due to their own anti-Semitism.

  • In the middle of the 20th century in Brazil, millions of Brazilian northeasterners migrated to the Southeast in search of economic opportunity they lacked (and to some extent still do) at home, as well as fleeing drought in more rural zones. Notably, in the 2010s we have seen many of these people return to the Northeast following Lula massively helping the Northeast develop over his first presidency in the 2000s. For a personal anecdote, both of my mother's parents did this, and brought my mother to where I live in São Paulo, and then they also went back to the northeast in the mid 2010s.

  • Virtually the entirety of the Global South and also Eastern Europe suffers from Brain Drain, where their most educated people leave in search of better opportunity and higher incomes in developed countries and the multinationals they possess. Much of the USA's legal immigration and economic power in spite of it's numerous flaws is owed to this.

  • Somewhat similarly, most Western European countries have one or more large communities of people who originate from a country they had colonized as an empire. (The USA also owes much of their Filipino American community to owning them despite it not being the same colonialism as practiced by the British on the USA or by Spain.)

Looking at this fairly long list of examples, I have to wonder if there are mass migrations that happened because of more positive reasons or if any of these already existing mass migrations can be explained by more positive reasons?

11 comments

  1. [6]
    gryfft
    Link
    To some degree I think the answer is almost tautological-- people generally don't like uprooting their lives and casting their lot to fate if they have the option to be comfortable and safe where...

    To some degree I think the answer is almost tautological-- people generally don't like uprooting their lives and casting their lot to fate if they have the option to be comfortable and safe where they are.

    That being said, I think a genuine answer to your question largely consists of gold rushes. Folks who see a shot at a MUCH better life-- the chance to literally strike pay dirt-- can go en masse to a place that gives them that opportunity.

    From Wikipedia:

    Gold rushes were typically marked by a general buoyant feeling of a "free-for-all" in income mobility, in which any single individual might become abundantly wealthy almost instantly, as expressed in the California Dream.

    51 votes
    1. [2]
      a_sharp_soprano_sax
      Link Parent
      Your answer also reminded me of the Homestead Act, where the US encouraged settlement of the west by promising free plots of land. Not sure if that qualifies as mass migration, though.

      Your answer also reminded me of the Homestead Act, where the US encouraged settlement of the west by promising free plots of land. Not sure if that qualifies as mass migration, though.

      15 votes
      1. DefinitelyNotAFae
        Link Parent
        The people moving may have had "good reason" but that was absolutely still built on the back of the Indigenous people's suffering for many of the various Homestead Acts

        The people moving may have had "good reason" but that was absolutely still built on the back of the Indigenous people's suffering for many of the various Homestead Acts

        4 votes
    2. sparksbet
      Link Parent
      This is true but I think its framing also makes the pattern OP points out more clear -- of course you're much more likely to see a shot at a MUCH better life if your current baseline is really...

      Folks who see a shot at a MUCH better life-- the chance to literally strike pay dirt-- can go en masse to a place that gives them that opportunity.

      This is true but I think its framing also makes the pattern OP points out more clear -- of course you're much more likely to see a shot at a MUCH better life if your current baseline is really horrible, especially when it's due to mistreatment and oppression.

      6 votes
    3. [2]
      fyzzlefry
      Link Parent
      I get stir crazy if I fall into a routine. I've moved about a dozen times, thousands of miles.

      I get stir crazy if I fall into a routine. I've moved about a dozen times, thousands of miles.

      5 votes
      1. SleepyGary
        Link Parent
        This is like weather vs climate. Not enough people do this, at the same time, from the same areas, to the same areas, to be considered a mass migration though. For everytime you move somewhere...

        This is like weather vs climate. Not enough people do this, at the same time, from the same areas, to the same areas, to be considered a mass migration though. For everytime you move somewhere there is likely someone with the same sort of wanderlust moving from elsewhere to where you were.

        15 votes
  2. skybrian
    Link
    Historically, travel was hard and risky, so people wouldn't do it without good reason. But there were (are) nomadic people who move as a way of life. There were hunters and trappers and travelling...

    Historically, travel was hard and risky, so people wouldn't do it without good reason. But there were (are) nomadic people who move as a way of life. There were hunters and trappers and travelling merchants and sailors. Did they live hard lives? Sure.

    Nowadays it's common to move for work. It's my understanding that for some jobs there's little choice, if that's the work you want to do:

    • People in the military go where they're deployed.
    • Some industries happen in remote areas where nobody goes except for work. (Things like mining and fossil fuels.)
    • There's lots of competition for academic jobs, so people often need to decide to accept a job even if it's not where they would want to live.
    • There are industry hubs people move to, like Hollywood or Silicon Valley.
    14 votes
  3. kovboydan
    Link
    If you dig into the history of the Eurasian Steppe you’ll find nomadic - migratory - peoples, such as Bulgars and Göktürks. I’m not particularly well read on Nomadic Empires but I’d assume at...

    If you dig into the history of the Eurasian Steppe you’ll find nomadic - migratory - peoples, such as Bulgars and Göktürks. I’m not particularly well read on Nomadic Empires but I’d assume at least a few of those might be seen as not driven by hardship or lack of opportunity.

    The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari, Proto-Bulgarians, Nandor, Nandar) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. They became known as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, but some researchers believe that their ethnic roots can be traced to Central Asia

    “The Turkic migrations were the spread of Turkic tribes and Turkic languages across Eurasia between the 6th and 11th centuries. In the 6th century, the Göktürks overthrew the Rouran Khaganate in what is now Mongolia and expanded in all directions, spreading Turkic culture throughout the Eurasian steppes.

    There was not a unified expansion of Turkic tribes. Peripheral Turkic peoples in the Göktürk Empire like the Bulgars and even central ones like the Oghuz and Karluks migrated autonomously with migrating traders, soldiers and townspeople.

    12 votes
  4. chocobean
    Link
    I'm not a history buff so I can only speak to my own experiences. I'm part of the 80s-90s immigration wave from Hong Kong to North America, and in particular to Vancouver. We were, as a cohort,...

    I'm not a history buff so I can only speak to my own experiences. I'm part of the 80s-90s immigration wave from Hong Kong to North America, and in particular to Vancouver.

    We were, as a cohort, fairly wealthy, fairly educated, and fairly respectful of our new home and hosts, and we certainly weren't miserable. In fact most of us kind of flew back and forth and refered to trips to HK as "going back to 返香港" as opposed to "going to HK 去香港". There are some of us hedging our bets a little, sure, but I don't think any of us could have foreseen things falling apart to this degree. We were probably all keeping one foot in each home, keeping our eyes on international things and using our unique advantages and skills an networks to do better than we could in just one place, precisely because we thought HK was going to forever be prosperous and amazing. We probably thought of immigration as a sort of opening a branch store rather than uprooting and starting over.

    The newest wave of young people though..... they're breaking my heart and I wish each of them only the best, wherever they all are.

    8 votes
  5. Habituallytired
    Link
    The only one I can really think of that might qualify was the California Gold Rush, but even then it was pretty dire straits for the people involved and it wasn't really a good situation for...

    The only one I can really think of that might qualify was the California Gold Rush, but even then it was pretty dire straits for the people involved and it wasn't really a good situation for people living in the area already or the people who flocked to the area.

    5 votes
  6. cykhic
    Link
    My uninformed model: Much like how it's easier to smash a glass than to make one, so too it is a lot easier for a region to destabilise than to build it up, or for a group to become oppressed than...

    My uninformed model:

    Much like how it's easier to smash a glass than to make one, so too it is a lot easier for a region to destabilise than to build it up, or for a group to become oppressed than to become venerated.

    I imagine that the same differential of "goodness" would cause roughly the same amount of migration, just that things collapse far more often than they suddenly become amazing.

    For instance, compare the length of Wikipedia's Lists of wars or List of natural disasters to the length of their Category: Economic booms.

    2 votes