3 ms·

So prior to colonialism, there was peaceful free movement of populations?

by andybak 3y ago

tpm 3y ago
Not always of whole populations (though often that too) but individuals travelled much more freely.
- laverya 3y ago
  At least part of the reason that individuals traveled freely is that only rich individuals traveled. Paupers from London didn't get on ships to the new world - not without selling themselves into indentured servitude. When the economic barriers to migration fell to the point that subsistence farmers could travel between continents, we were always going to see either an equalization of living standards or the rise of political barriers.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Yes. Even before the adoption of visas, the traveling experience for a first class passenger on a ship was very different from third class getting routed via Ellis Island in the US.
- dijit 3y ago
  Not in the majority of Europe, especially places like England or Poland which had strict restrictions on what serfs could do for hundreds of years. Part of the reason for Britains diverse regional dialects is due to this.
  - rendaw 3y ago
    That was within the country though, right? Not between countries? And this article [1] says enforcement of serfdom was localized and costly and there was de facto serf mobility. [1] https://broadstreet.blog/2021/05/07/serfdom-the-state-and-the-problem-of-enforcement/ https://broadstreet.blog/2021/05/07/serfdom-the-state-and-th...
csomar 3y ago
I don't know about peaceful but you could move. There were no visas and in fact no passports. Though, trying to get inside a "city" (ie: citadel) might be tricky. I guess they used gifts before to convince the other party. That being said, if you settled somewhere in some large empty land, no one will complain.
- andybak 3y ago
  > That being said, if you settled somewhere in some large empty land, no one will complain. That's because any empty land would probably be entirely unsuitable for a settlement. Obviously we haven't specified a period in history but this all sounds suspiciously rose-tinted to me.
  - csomar 3y ago
    Plenty of land was suitable for settlement (ie: Argentina). Mostly empty and competing empires were too far. Of course, after the discovery of the "new" world, the amount of empty land reduced significantly.

So prior to colonialism, there was peaceful free movement of populations?

tpm 3y ago

Not always of whole populations (though often that too) but individuals travelled much more freely.

laverya 3y ago
At least part of the reason that individuals traveled freely is that only rich individuals traveled. Paupers from London didn't get on ships to the new world - not without selling themselves into indentured servitude. When the economic barriers to migration fell to the point that subsistence farmers could travel between continents, we were always going to see either an equalization of living standards or the rise of political barriers.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Yes. Even before the adoption of visas, the traveling experience for a first class passenger on a ship was very different from third class getting routed via Ellis Island in the US.
dijit 3y ago
Not in the majority of Europe, especially places like England or Poland which had strict restrictions on what serfs could do for hundreds of years. Part of the reason for Britains diverse regional dialects is due to this.
- rendaw 3y ago
  That was within the country though, right? Not between countries? And this article [1] says enforcement of serfdom was localized and costly and there was de facto serf mobility. [1] https://broadstreet.blog/2021/05/07/serfdom-the-state-and-the-problem-of-enforcement/ https://broadstreet.blog/2021/05/07/serfdom-the-state-and-th...

csomar 3y ago

I don't know about peaceful but you could move. There were no visas and in fact no passports. Though, trying to get inside a "city" (ie: citadel) might be tricky. I guess they used gifts before to convince the other party. That being said, if you settled somewhere in some large empty land, no one will complain.

andybak 3y ago
> That being said, if you settled somewhere in some large empty land, no one will complain. That's because any empty land would probably be entirely unsuitable for a settlement. Obviously we haven't specified a period in history but this all sounds suspiciously rose-tinted to me.
- csomar 3y ago
  Plenty of land was suitable for settlement (ie: Argentina). Mostly empty and competing empires were too far. Of course, after the discovery of the "new" world, the amount of empty land reduced significantly.