Migrants should actually be called Nomads. Human beings are nomads by nature, is Sam Miller’s daring central hypothesis. At least, some of them are. Is there such a thing as a wanderlust gene? He brushes on the topic, already fairly studied and documented. Current science may be unable to give a definite answer, he says, but his own wanderlust has taken him across the globe and back and shows no sign of abating. For me, he adds, living “somewhere else” is a necessity not dictated by the living conditions in my birth place. It is a frame of mind.
A significant portion of human beings have an atavistic need to move. Nomadic by nature, they have been pinned to a particular location in recent history due to the rise of the nation state, when central powers started capitalising on food surplus. I read this thesis for the first time in Cyprian Broodbank’s The Making Of The Middle Sea. This is not the most commonly accepted opinion. It is generally believed that human beings lived a nomadic life to follow their food supply. Agriculture was so successful, we are explained, because it allowed humans to adopt a settled lifestyle, believed to be safer and more comfortable. The truth is, supporting evidence (archeological for the most part) is scarce and open to interpretation. What is certain is that the settlement of nomadic people is not the evolutionary fatality presented to us by mainstream history. Many people, past and present, have pursued their nomadic lifestyle out of choice – and have been actively hunted and slaughtered by settled central powers, eager to put a stop to these uncontrolled migrations.
Sam Miller’s book goes through what archeology and history flag as the main migratory movements of the past 100,000 years. He is careful to warn his readers about the biases of these disciplines. What they present as a punctual and unidirectional movement of populations often occurred over several decades, centuries even, and saw many back-and-forth. As a journalist, he is aware that history is a (re)tale which builds a tidy narrative off of uncertain and/or chaotic events. Miller also takes the time to question the terms he uses. Migrant, immigrant, emigrant, expatriate: all these words, of equivalent semantic value, have different connotations. These differences are contextual. They depend on the relative situation of the country from where a person is coming and the country to where they are moving. Poor country to rich country: you are a immigrant. Rich country to poor country: you are an emigrant. Rich country to rich country: you are an expat. All of these are migrant workers (migration from poor country to poor country is of no interest to the media and the politics).
For all his care, Miller did not attempt to clarify what, in modern English, differentiates Migrant from Nomad. Words tend to specialise. Migrant may have started as a subcategory of Nomad. The feeling we get from English speakers these days is different. From Cro-Magnon spreading to Northern Africa and Middle East to the Syrian refugees entering Europe, Miller’s history of migrations is a violent one: repression, imprisonment, civil unrest, war, genocide (Neanderthal, for instance). In contrast, Nomad has come to denote a way of travelling which does not seek conflict – perhaps because the Nomad is a wanderer and does not claim any right to settlement. If Miller and Broodbanks’s hypothesis is correct, then we have to admit that the central powers who sell us the myth of nationality have been pretty successful. We are so convinced of our birth right to belong where we were born, or more accurately that the place where we were born belongs to us by natural right, that an increasing proportion of us think that whoever attempts to settle on “our soil” deserves death.
It does not cease to amaze me how quick we are to forget our own history. Our parents, grand-parents, great-grand-parents, or in my case, myself, had to go through the same struggle. My dad’s granddad had to settle in Belgium from his native Holland for what we suppose were financial reasons. My dad’s dad had to move from Belgium to France during the second world war because he and his newly wedded Belgian wife could not afford a farm in Belgium. My mum’s granddad moved from Belgium to France for similar reason and almost died when, in 1914, the German troops came to his door to demand that he give his farm away and enrol in the German workforce. I migrated to the UK in 2000 because… I am not sure why, it probably has to do with the quantity of beer I was allowed to drink in one session here. I stayed because I fell in love. We moved to Singapore for no other reason than curiosity. On the French side I have been accused of deserting the motherland and not repaying the money the French state had invested into me. On the British side I have been accused of stealing jobs and not paying taxes (well, people, British citizens on average tend to evade taxes more that migrant workers). Denying the migrating nature of human beings takes a lot of blindness and self-delusion. Migrating is inherently human and at the same time the least human-specific of our traits. Many animal species migrate. Even plants migrate. Without migration, one could argue that there would be very little evolution.
Nomadism, then, would be the wandering version of Migration. However, basic research shows that the idea of the peaceful nomad is an illusion. What we are seeing today is not so much a denaturation of humanity’s nomadic instinct into a sedentary lifestyle as a complete dominance, a dictatorship, of one lifestyle over another. For, and Sam Miller is absolutely right here, nomads are also persecuted. They have been and are being physically exterminated by political regimes. They are also persecuted in our own minds, their image distorted by the nation-state ideology for which any individual or community who does not abide to a particular national flag is suspect. It is all well and good to condemn the nazi regime for killing half a million Romani and Sinti in six years. But the first persecutions against gipsy population in Germany predate Hitler’s accession to power. The first anti-gipsy law was voted in 1926 by the Weimar republic and came at the back of decades of persecution by the German empire (the first “Information Services on Romani” dates from 1899). In France in 1666, the king Louis XIV (May God keep his putride head) signs a decree saying that “all male Bohemians should be arrested and sent to the galleys without trial”. Reasons for this ostracism and these persecutions are multiple and complex but given what we now know of European culture, I think they can all be safely related to the expression of central power.
And now to Sam Miller’s demonstration and conclusion: in the context of an almost exclusively sedentary humanity, nomadism is an essential human freedom. It should be greeted and given space to express itself. Instead, it is fiercely fought against and repressed even by the more moderate political regimes on the planet. We have been indoctrinated to distrust it. Try to explain to anyone that you do not believe in the idea of nation, that you do not consider yourself a citizen of a particular country, that you feel uncomfortable at the sight of ANY national flag: you will be regarded as suspicious. Try to claim it your right to settle ANYWHERE on the planet and live there, provided you participate in the life of the local community. Try to live without a passport. Not only will the official power flag you as suspicious: your friends, your family, your community will ignore you at best, challenge you most of the time, sometimes violently.