3 ms·
This came up before - the problem becomes that you then have "expats" who never actually go back, but never stop calling themselves such. So transiency is not r
by toyg 5y ago
This came up before - the problem becomes that you then have "expats" who never actually go back, but never stop calling themselves such. So transiency is not really the discriminating factor.
The term "expat" is indeed a leftover from British colonial times, when you look at things objectively. People who define themselves as expats are typically some sort of migrant for economic reasons, exactly the same as somebody coming from, say, Ethiopia; they just have enough money and culture to escape the label.
If we really want to look for something that differentiates expats from regular migrants, we'll find that it is a certain obstinacy to not "go native", to maintain a separatedness from the local culture even after years or decades. Which is, again, a typically colonialistic mindset.
- yarky 5y ago> they just have enough money and culture to escape the label. Exactly. But isn't that true about everything ? Isn't economic/cultural capital what makes us call someone a Doctor/Sir? An expat/immigrant ? > is a certain obstinacy to not "go native", to maintain a separatedness from the local culture even after years or decades. Not exactly, I've met tons of immigrants who never wanted to "go native" as well as several expats who adopted their new culture as theirs. All of this happens in people's minds and whether they ever end up leaving isn't really in the equation.
- Existenceblinks 5y agoAnd expat in asia gets more biased appreciation than the other way around. Ask asian countries' governments they know exactly how expats work (pun intended).