Humans, after originating in Africa, roam from the beginning, seeking livelihoods, greener pastures, even adventure and joy, populating the world. Humanity is in that sense interwoven with migration, and with that human “culture”. In an episode of the Migrant Journal, nr. 6, titled Foreign Agents (2019), the author/editor writes in the introduction: “the grounds of culture rely on a capacity to develop local traditions, which are then transmitted not only across social groups, but also across time and space. The very foundations of culture appear inseparable from the logics of migration”.
Of course, separate civilizations developed, urbanization, modernizations, distinct nation states, and hierarchies of power, up to the 21st c.. During this process, “migration” became “framed” as intrusive and disturbing an order. Man kind lost an essential and existential – and original! – freedom. Migration is essentially freedom.
Dutch critic of Neoliberalism, Ewald Engelen, justly argued that in today’s world, movement of “capital” is problematic and detrimental, not movement of “people”.
Yet, it became accepted policy to halt people crossing over to another piece of the earth, while using their natural freedom of movement. Most of this world is after all not an unorganized, small-scale and fragmented “society” through which one can freely roam around – unbound – like a Gypsy or nomad. There are upheld boundaries.
Rhetorics of “national protection” against all things foreign are widely accepted, being in fact an off-spin of warring empires and kingdoms from ancient times, the times of Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, way before AD.
In modern times, passports, visas, and citizenship cards keep people in control, and essentially bound to nation states. Loss of original human freedom, that many now even take for granted.
The large wealth inequalities in this world, shocked some humans into going back to that original and inherent “migrant” within, that always remained there. Illegal migrations from nearby poorer areas are well-known, such as from Mexico to the US, and from North Africa to Europe.
Not to dwell too much on an abstract level, I will now make it more concrete and topical.
CORONA
The “corona crisis” since Early 2020, in relation to a proclaimed pandemic, showed how we took more freedoms for granted: free migration we gave up already, now with unprecedented “lockdown” policies, which I personally am NOT in favour of, for a variety of reasons (Covid 19 is not severe enough, being a main one), but that’s not the issue here.
The long ago loss of free migration of humans was limiting “where” we go, while recent, enforced, international measures (like obliged facemasks, forced closing of places, keeping distance, gathering bans), deal with “how” we go. Other draconian measures, like travel restrictions and curfews, come closer to that “original loss of free migrating”, impacting on “where we go” , limiting even more and in a detailed manner our freedom of movement.
The Main Stream Media is lost and utterly corrupted in this stage in human history. The uncritical propaganda for the corona policies of mass media, raise suspicion of corruption (mentally or financially). As part of this, even large popular demonstrations against corona policies, lockdowns, curfews, etcetera, are either downplayed or ignored, like in fact all critics or opponents.
In reality, there are worldwide many opponents – and skeptics - of these corona policies, increasing with consciousness, lamenting the loss of freedoms. Justly, in my opinion.
PERSONAL STORIES
I wish to elaborate deeper on the human search for freedom though migration, by discussing personal stories of migration I have encountered – or am connected with. I live in the Netherlands.
I myself am Netherlands-born, and a son of immigrant parents, my father came from Northern Italy, my mother from Southern Spain, via Madrid, both in the 1960s. Both the different countries my parents came from, plus the fact that I was born in the Netherlands, while my family roots lay elsewhere, made it difficult for me to embrace a “national protection” or “national purity” idea. Many Dutch people have less difficulties with that, I noticed.
“The paradox is in the ugliness of vanity”, as singer Vaughn Benjamin from the Reggae band Midnite sang. The ugliness in this case being the judging by “locals” of people on their descent or presence, not their behavior or personality, of treating foreigners – in worst cases – as polluting hindrances. As absurd as it is cold and evil.
To make sense within this evil absurdity, I will discuss a few of the “migrant” stories I heard in my life, mainly from “foreigners” in the Netherlands I know.
One main fallacy, I soon learned, is the simplifying as “one-dimensional” of migrant motivations. Of course, escaping poverty is a main motivation (or sending money to poor families home), but even with that there are nuances. Others, refugees, escape political oppression or persecution in their own country.
SYRIA
One such refugee I know told me a lot about his travelling and “migrations”. He is a young man from Syria, the civil war in which, seemed “eclipsed” in the global news, by everything related to corona/Covid 19. That Syrian civil war has been in fact going on since 2011, so now over a decade there is war in Syria. The war and conflict is still continuing in Syria during the now pandemic policies, though less intensely. This Syrian I know, was accepted as refugee, and obtained the Dutch nationality.
He told me stories of bombing by state forces where “rebels” hid, fearing it, when rebels hid near their building. He told about intense corruption dealing with Syria’s bureaucracy, state control mechanisms, obligated military service, and Syria’s wider political context under the Assad dictatorship.
I understood through him, that for all intents and purposes, Syria is a dictatorship, even in the classic sense. It can be compared to what we heard about Saddam Hoessein’s Iraq, but also harkened back to other known dictatorships: big photos of Assad in the streets and in every school, artists must first praise Assad in their work, before censorship might loosen. Hard to “breathe” in such dictatorships, is what you often hear. Another analogy is of a life “without colours”. Of course worsened with the tensions of civil war.
SPAIN
In fact, I found comparisons with the story of my mother, similarly “escaping” a dictatorship under Franco. The dictatorship with photos of the “leader”, state propaganda, censorship, reducing gathering and demonstrations, seemed to have parallels of the stories of my Syrian friend. One difference being maybe that in Spain “democracy” lost to Franco’s Fascist dictatorship in the period 1939-1975, while the ongoing conflict in Syria is between myriad forces, some of which are pro-democracy, but others not much more democratic than President Assad himself.
My mother was officially a labour migrant. Though not made easy, under Franco’s Spain travelling or migrating out of the country was partly allowed, also to limit the strain on the economy. Spain was then poorer than the Netherlands, surely, and she found a job in the Netherlands, near Haarlem, in 1966.
This was part of the “guest labourers” program, with labour migrants from the wider Mediterranean area, doing work that Dutch, German, Belgian, French, or Swiss people did not want to do anymore.
There’s more to it, though. Having talked a lot with my mother, I found out she was also a kind of a refugee.
“Bullied away” you can say, but anyway, she told me that having to work to contribute supporting her younger siblings and parents, she noted the harsh treatment and exploitation at virtually all workplaces in Spain. She felt treated “like a slave”, she even said to me. This related to the Fascist doctrine of Francoist Spain, where poor people’s “obedience” to bosses and work was promoted, and “Left-wing” democratization discouraged. My mother told me she did not feel “free” in Franco’s Spain: neither at workplaces nor in society as a whole (Spain was then more or less a police state), though with differing intensity (and arbitrariness).
Her migration to the Netherlands, was as much an escape toward wealth, as one toward “freedom”. This is an essential birthright of humans: finding another place, maybe better. Being a good guest when the host treats you good, is likewise natural for most migrants, I argue. Loyalty is however not an obligation, and human dignity comes first. Having crossed a border can never be an excuse for trampling one’s rights, though it has become that.
UNPLANNED
These, and other migrant stories, point at other aspects that are often disregarded in politicized “migration” debates. The haphazard, chaotic, and “unplanned” steps one takes toward eventually migrating to a foreign land. A land of which one does not even know or speak the language, as both was the case of my Syrian friend and my mother.
Many migrants, especially pre-digital ones, did not even know that the Netherlands actually had an own (Germanic) language. Even in European countries like Italy and Spain, some thought that people spoke French or German in the Netherlands. Of course, they found out soon enough about that own language.
INTEGRATION
Also, I learned from migrant stories, the confrontation with the other culture of host countries, in this case the Netherlands, was also multidimensional: haphazard, changing, and contradictory. Of course, some Dutch people likewise criticized immigrants’ behaviours and cultural customs, and still do. My Spanish mother attributed such demeaning remarks about South Europeans (such as the countries of my parents) to Dutch “jealousy” and thus a hidden inferiority complex. That is a way to look at it.
DIFFERENCES
Many irritations uttered about “other cultures” are also “guesses” about human behavior, less recognized from one’s own background. In time they understood or accepted the differences more, I noticed.
The “speaking loud (or fast)” norm among many migrant groups (including Spaniards) in the Netherlands, versus the “speaking soft” norm in the Netherlands, being an example of anecdotal difference. Controlled temper and emotions (Dutch “reserve”), or the Dutch fame for being “Protestantly” economical with money, other differences.
Politeness with strangers is not very common anymore in the Netherlands, causing some cultural misunderstandings. Harsh insults as sarcastic “jokes” are for instance sometimes accepted among close friends in countries like Spain or Italy, but not by strangers just met on the streets, as occurred with Dutch people making harsh (racist?) jokes toward them. Like in Britain and Ireland, Spain and to a lesser degree Italy still have a norm of “public politeness” in social life. The Netherlands is in that sense “freer” and rougher (especially in the cities), but even to that many migrants become accustomed, dealing more with Dutch people.
Often, such traits are both admired and ridiculed concurrently. At the same time, noting them shows a genuine curiosity in people with other cultures. It is no cold detachment or dehumanization. This curiosity is not static, but always continuing and changing. All too human, and as natural as the original human urge to travel.
The interesting thing is that even poor, individual immigrants over time tend to influence local cultures, but organically and voluntary. Cultures with not very developed cuisines (Britain, the Netherlands) enriched their food choices, and for instance Jamaican migrants attributed to British youth culture, and also in part Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands.
Even other migrant groups are influenced by other migrant groups, such as Moroccans in the Netherlands, using Surinamese terms, or in the choice of music genres. There is no force in such processes; it is all voluntary and organic.
Only racist or nationalist ideas, or feelings of cultural superiority or conservatism, make many object to such “multicultural” mixtures and ways. In reality, it innovated and broadened culture and creativity. It increased options for all.
Even without “bigger”, geopolitical contexts, highly individual stories of migrations – often involving simply sense of adventure – migration is not by definition “negative”. Somehow that was put in our heads: migration is a bad thing.
Falling in love, just wanting a change in life, or limited options due to direct family or surroundings, are less “sensational” than heroic stories of “escaping deep poverty”, “escaping war”, or “escaping a dictatorship or repression”. They are still “all too human”. I think they are also legitimate migration reasons for free human beings.
ITALY
The northern Italy, where my father came from, became soon after World War II, more industrialized and wealthier than Spain, where my mother came from. Like in Germany (but less disciplined), Northern Italy experienced a kind of “economic miracle”, after being on the wrong side during the preceding devastating war. Many industries developed, e.g. manufacturing, textile and automobiles. My father even told me that because of this rapid growth, wages in many companies in parts of Northern Italy for low-wage workers, were even higher than in the Netherlands he migrated to. He just migrated for several reasons, partly economic, largely relating to personal circumstances, and including the search for freedom.
There is nothing wrong with that: that is personal freedom.
The crux of the matter is that the now politicized “migration” falsely is depicted as an ‘invasion”, as if it were an invading army “taking over” and imposing its will. An inappropriate and unfounded “war” terminology, especially when dealing with individual poor, virtually powerless immigrants.
REGGAE
Being a Reggae fan for decades now, I more or less specialized in Reggae music, including its lyrics. Relevant to this post, I can mention that “migration” is a theme in Reggae lyrics, but especially with regard to Jamaicans going to wealthier countries like US or Britain.
Also, the Jamaican national hero and intellectual – important for Rastafari adherents – Marcus Garvey, was migrating for various reasons: economic (labour- and poverty-related), political, and personal. It can be seen as part of Garvey’s studying of the wider world, and particularly the downtrodden position of Black people in it.
In Reggae lyrics, other, contemporary migrants are also discussed, including common Jamaicans who went astray, as they got caught up in urban and modern confusion and temptations abroad.
Linton Kwesi Johnson’s classic song Inglan Is A Bitch exemplifies in its autobiographical lyrics adequately the poor Black immigrant labourer’s life – and social position of poor newcomers - in Britain.
Mutabaruka’s Johnny Drughead, and Don Carlos’s Cool Johnny Cool deal with a Jamaican migrating to New York and it going wrong, ending up addicted, or involved in crime.
Also Lutan Fyah’s discusses this “migrants gone astray” theme in the lyrics of Rough A Yard, also as a “cautionary” tale against losing yourself.
This may seem a negative or pessimist take, yet only goes to show that with freedom of course should come responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is dangerous. Responsibility without freedom is slavery.
More positive, in some lyrics, hard-working immigrants are praised.
Success stories are discussed less in Reggae lyrics, beyond the impressive movement Marcus Garvey – against all odds - set up for Black Americans in the US since 1917, pioneering even the Black Power movement as such in the US.
Meanwhile, being a poor and problematic country, many Jamaican artists migrated too, some temporarily (such as Bob Marley to Britain, following a shooting of him), some for good.
POLITICIZED
Over time, many Right-wing politicians raised objections against “free migrations” (especially of poor people with “other” cultures) as disturbing. They used economic and cultural arguments, and some Extreme Right parties even racist arguments. This denies the fact that, as I outlined above, humans are inherently migrants, historically. As natural as walking or breathing, and therefore limiting it, simply infringes on humans’ natural freedoms and rights.
CORONA AGAIN
The “freedom of movement” came under attack again with the current corona policies, and its increased “control focus”. Some opponents even speak of “psychological warfare”, in this regard. This did not lead to a massive global uprising, as many world citizens thought the restrictions had actually to do with a pandemic or health (I myself lost that belief in the course of 2020). I see it as an aim of a world elite to control the world population even more strictly than before, and indeed a psychological warfare.
Curfews, lockdowns, or gathering bans, in essence make that where before you were impeded to “cross national borders” – limiting that freedom -, these stricter corona policies now go further: even impeding leaving your own house (curfews), or limiting what you can do outside of your house, forced to show you are not infected with a flu virus, which is not even that grave or extra infectious.
While “the whole world” did not stand up against this as one (unfortunately, in my opinion), of course there was protest, critique, and opposition to such corona policies.
CONTRADICTORY
Somewhat contradictory in all this was that the formal political opposition was - at least in the Netherlands - not of (most of the formally “Left” parliamentarians), who were remarkably supportive of this elitist new order plan, but more often of Right-wing parties, combining corona policy critique in some cases with anti-immigration stances. This I consider contradictory. Migration is after all freedom, and represents the essence of human freedom: the same essence now trampled upon with these corona policies. Open up the society, but do not let those poor immigrants with other cultures in to be part of it?
A somewhat smaller political party (FVD: Forum for Democracy) in the Netherlands is critical about the corona policies and its negative effects, saying some sensible things in this regard. On the other hand it also pleads to not allow much more “poor” migrants entering in the Netherlands, and for instance proposing to send back Syrian refugees to “safe areas” in Syria (with less war activities).
The biggest and governing Right-wing political party in the Netherlands, the VVD, holds similar (though more diplomatically worded) views, but supports strongly the corona policies and the nonsense of ineffective lockdowns (for whatever reason). At least they are consistent in their attack on and fight against human freedoms and rights. Consistently wrong and immoral.
Also Right-wing presidents like Trump in the US and Bolsonaro in Brazil (both having made some anti-immigration and xenophobic statements), were a bit downplaying regarding the Covid 19 virus, with fewer restrictions on freedoms.
Again contradictory, also because those Right-wing policies do the same as what in my opinion is fundamentally wrong with this “lockdownism” of international corona policies: it “dehumanizes” people, reducing them to soulless – potentially annoying - “numbers” or “factors” that can be manipulated without consent or involvement. Without respecting their freedoms, fundamental rights and desires, their humanity, physical integrity, and birthright to self-determination.
Some things the mentioned Syrian friend of mine also told me can bring this point home.
When I mentioned that idea of some Dutch politicians of having Syrians return to “safe“ parts of Syria, he responded that “if I could return to live among my people and family there, I would”. Politicians not knowing actual situations in countries, and like so often (and now with the corona policies) reducing individuals to abstract, one-dimensional factors to be controlled, not as complex persons with complex stories.
Even more significant was therefore another thing this Syrian friend said to me, as we were facing more and more absurdly strict “anti-corona” measures in the Netherlands: besides the patronizing facemasks and “1,5 m distance between persons rule”, these included a ban on groups over 2 or 3 people, and there was even a curfew, where Dutch citizens could not leave their own house between 21:00 and 04:30, as in more countries around the world. Meanwhile demonstrations were roughly disbanded, and dictatorial methods like censorship became more common in Dutch mainstream press, especially against anti-corona policy voices.
In response to this police state-like measures, my Syrian friend said: “I exactly left Syria because of these kind of things, for a free country like the Netherlands. Now it’s here in the Netherlands too..”
Nuff said.
