First I have to say that the cheesmakers made me
laugh. Thank you. (did you mean the Life of Brian,
"Blessed are the cheesemakers" or the the cheeseshop
As to the question at hand,
> >Of course it is not the first time mass migration
> >failed to cause conflict. Look at the Irish
> >immigration into America. Their migration caused
> >social tension and an unfortunate lingering
> >predjudice, but there were no conflicts of the type
> >you mean. That is to say the Irish immigrants and
> >Americans didn't hack at each other to solve the
> >problem of living quarters and resources.
> Yeah, but you hack to selectively define "Americans"
> at this stage of
> the game. A lot of the incoming Irish, also went to
> the "West"--where
> they ended up fighting various Native American
I had not forgotten the Native Americans. It was
simply a choice of definition which you noted. It
seemed to me that the original point dealt with the
direct interaction of the migrants with the population
of the land they were migrating to. The Irish were
migrating to the United States and the United States
didn't include the western states at that time. I
don't know for a fact, but I suspect that few of the
Irish thought of themselves as moving to the Souix
I am well aware that we can debate the validity of
definitions in general and that definition in
particular ad infinitum, but we have to narrow an
argument somehow or we can never get anything done.
If it will help, you are perfectly correct. The Irish
(as well as the Germans and other Europeans) who
immigrated to the US created the conditions for the
invasion and colinization of the West.
But tying this back into the original post, perhaps
what we can learn from this example is that a mass
migration does not have to create violence if there is
some sort of governor. In the case of the Irish
migration it was land where the migrants could be sent
and kept, more or less out of sight.
> Take a
> look at the death list for the AlamoSo, to make the
> blithe statement they
> didn't come into conflict is an understatement.
I'm not certain that the Alamo applies in this case.
I wasn't talking of the hostilities between the US
government and the Republic of Mexico. One could just
as easily see the Irish in this case as mercenaries.
And the battle for the Alamo was a part of the Texas
revolution and there are far more complex issues here
than migration. As mercinaries, though, they die and
ease population pressures. So perhaps this is best
thought of as another governor?
> Second, for the ones who came in the 1860s, both the
> Union and the
> were also happy to harness them as soldiers...
Here you have a good point I hadn't thought of. But
as the immigrants were used on both sides equally,
they are perhaps best thought of again as mercinaries.
The war might have progressed just as happily without
them as with. I don't think anyone would make a case
that the mass migration caused the Civil war. And
again, the original question was if mass migration
necessarily caused conflict.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around