ISIS Behead Palmyra Archaeologist Khaled al-Assad And Hang His Body From Ruins

[Tonitrus]

All it takes for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing...or flee to the West?

[Admiral Yi]

This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.

I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily.  Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.

[Martinus]

This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.

I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily.  Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.

You got it backwards - the reason why these migrations were contested militarily was because they were military invasions - not vice versa.

Anyway, the German burgher migration to Poland in the 12th century is an example of a non-military mass migration. History knows countless of examples of settlement like this - the reason why you can't think of any is exactly because when they were not military invasions they were treated like pretty much a normal occurrence.

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure I see how that's me getting it backwards.  You said preventing them is new, I said the contrary.

[Martinus]

Not sure I see how that's me getting it backwards.  You said preventing them is new, I said the contrary.

I said preventing migrations is new.

You said the contrary, by arguing that migrations were treated as military invasions and prevented with a military force.

My point is that you are confusing actual invasions with (peaceful) migrations - and I give you example of a peaceful migration to support my view that peaceful migrations were not prevented.

What else is there to understand, beyond the usualy Yi artful dodging?

Clearly, if a horde of Mexicans or Syrians was storming the US or EU border, respectively, burning and looting as they go, it would be quite normal to prevent this militarily.

[Eddie Teach]

"Peaceful" migrations typically carried their arms with them and could turn into violent invasions if opposed. The Germans entering Roman territory could usually be bought off if given a bit of land to farm.

[Admiral Yi]

I said preventing migrations is new.

You said the contrary, by arguing that migrations were treated as military invasions and prevented with a military force.

My point is that you are confusing actual invasions with (peaceful) migrations - and I give you example of a peaceful migration to support my view that peaceful migrations were not prevented.

What else is there to understand, beyond the usualy Yi artful dodging?

Clearly, if a horde of Mexicans or Syrians was storming the US or EU border, respectively, burning and looting as they go, it would be quite normal to prevent this militarily.

What there is to understand is what I got it backwards.  You said preventing migrations is new.  It is clearly not new.  History is replete with examples of migrations which were opposed.

If you're changing your thesis now to there are at least a few examples of non-opposed migrations, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I got anything backwards.

[Norgy]

This is bollocks. Mass migrations are a constant feature throughout history. Actually trying to prevent it is a relatively new phenomenon.

I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a historical mass migration that was not contested militarily.  Typically it has been synonymous with invasion.

The colonisation of Iceland. The Faeroes, the Hebrides, Shetland. They all happened relatively peacefully. Migration also happened peacefully in much of Scandinavia between the 5th and 7th century due to increased numbers of people. They basically moved into empty lands. Although the area where I live has been populated for 5000 years, population density has varied a lot.

On most counts, though, I'd say you are right. The Great Migrations were contested militarily. Only the Greek Empire really managed to survive. And others carved out states in Europe. Later on, they carved out states in the Americas.
The Mongols created the biggest entity ever. And if they weren't contested militarily, they certainly took that as an affront.

Migration out of Africa is in human history the norm rather than the exception. I honestly believe we should take them in. They are friends in need.

[Martinus]

I guess my point is that Neil is wrong by saying that empires fall because they cannot oppose migrations into their territories. Rather that migrations happen because the empire is successful and so it attracts people wanting to move there. It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either. Empires fall but migrations are not a cause but a symptom.

[Valmy]

Anyway, the German burgher migration to Poland in the 12th century is an example of a non-military mass migration. History knows countless of examples of settlement like this - the reason why you can't think of any is exactly because when they were not military invasions they were treated like pretty much a normal occurrence.

Yeah that went well for Poland. Ah well they got Silesia back 800 years later.

It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either.

Well yeah once you are successful people don't let you be isolationist anymore.

[Valmy]

Just read an article about a town in Libya where IS terror reigns and the only opposition is al-Qaeda. You know it's pretty bad when al-Qaeda are the good guys.

Going from the Iraq War experience the good guys are usually five idealistic twenty year olds in a basement calling themselves the 'Democratic Liberal Happy Hippy Party of Arabia' that nobody takes seriously. There are no good guys only less bad guys which is why we always lose even when we win.

[grumbler]

I guess my point is that Neil is wrong by saying that empires fall because they cannot oppose migrations into their territories. Rather that migrations happen because the empire is successful and so it attracts people wanting to move there. It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either. Empires fall but migrations are not a cause but a symptom.

Much as I hate to agree with you, I do.  There are many examples of non-military migrations that were, by and large, welcomed by the receiving country; the Huguenots, the Greeks after 1452, the Irish, the Nepalese.  Some were simply not opposed, though not officially welcomed:  the Chinese and Indians, the Circassians, and the like.  I can't think of a peaceful diaspora that was actively opposed by the receiving country's government until fairly modern times (19th C +).  There probably were a few, but I don't know of them.

[PJL]

I guess my point is that Neil is wrong by saying that empires fall because they cannot oppose migrations into their territories. Rather that migrations happen because the empire is successful and so it attracts people wanting to move there. It's not like there are many successful isolationist countries in history either. Empires fall but migrations are not a cause but a symptom.

Much as I hate to agree with you, I do.  There are many examples of non-military migrations that were, by and large, welcomed by the receiving country; the Huguenots, the Greeks after 1452, the Irish, the Nepalese.  Some were simply not opposed, though not officially welcomed:  the Chinese and Indians, the Circassians, and the like.  I can't think of a peaceful diaspora that was actively opposed by the receiving country's government until fairly modern times (19th C +).  There probably were a few, but I don't know of them.

There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.

[grumbler]

There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.

Which Jewish diaspora was opposed by force, or even discouraged?

[Norgy]

There were quite a few opposed to the Jews I believe. Even as far as throwing them out.

Which Jewish diaspora was opposed by force, or even discouraged?

The Norwegian 1814 constitution stated that "Jews and Jesuits are not welcome". It was changed in the 1830s after public pressure.