So what happens to nationalism if many more people are either moving from place to place or or at least relocating from where they were raised?
It depends...
If people are relocating across national boundaries, that could reduce nationalism, because they are not rooted anywhere. Say if they relocate because their job moves.
Or increase it, because they have moved on the basis of "I want to go to this particular place" (vs "I need to leave where I am.") See the immigrants to the US who embrace America to the point that they, or their children, volunteer for the US military.
On the other hand, there are those who relocate within a single country. It seems like they might embrace nationalism, simply because that is the level of group they still belong to. If you relocate from Alabama to Texas, you may not have strong ties to either. But you still have strong ties to the country overall.
2 weeks ago
I have tried to put down roots here, and I think I’ve done a good job, but given that it has been a conscious effort, I have to say that those roots aren’t deep, certainly not as deep as Japanese from here.
It's true that those who have moved tend to have shallower roots than those who have lived somewhere for a lifetime. And also, it's not surprising that some are better than others at developing new roots when they move. But I would point out that, while you feel your new roots are shallow, you are hardly someone who is perpetually moving. (I'd put the threshold for "perpetually moving"/rootless at relocating every couple of years or less.)
I acknowledge that my perspective is probably skewed by my personal experience. The US is called "a nation of immigrants" (suck eggs, Steven Miller!) for a reason. And California is a bit extreme, even for the US.
Growing up, I lived in a little farm town, just starting to evolve into a suburb. When my parents moved here, after WW II, the population was under 500. By the time I graduated high school, my graduating class was around 500. For all that there were a couple of families who had been here for a century, pretty much everybody in town was from somewhere else. Often, the kids in my classes had moved a couple of times already. Today, the town is up to nearly 50,000.
That sort of thing continues. I'm in the long time rooted category because, although I've lived in a half dozen different places over the years, they've all been within a hundred miles of here. But my family, my friends, my neighbors? All have moved or lived previously, far away. I've got a brother who, in his 20s and 30s, lived "in Europe" -- never settled anywhere for more than a couple of months, as far as I could tell. Definitely in the perpetually moving category.
2 weeks ago
“Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”
In reality, there have always been those who put down roots, and those who kept moving. As far as I can see, that is still true today.
There were also those who, from necessity, picked up and moved, sometimes a very long way, before stopping and putting down new roots. (I am put in mind of a story I read long ago about a guy who moved from Europe, but having arrived in New York City, never went west of Ocean Parkway.)
I suppose you could make a case that, at least in the US since the middle of the last century, it became more common for entire families to pull up stakes and relocate multiple times. They put down roots serially though; they weren't really moving constantly.
The one thing I think has changed is that those who just keep moving are now able to form lasting connections online. Before, they were largely isolated. Being able to make lasting connections allows them to form communities. Just communities not based on geography. That makes them more visible.
I suppose
2 weeks ago
London’s foreign-born population is 41%.
And the percentage of foreign born residents in New York City over the years would be what?
If you're going to cherry pick numbers, gotta expect folks here will notice.
2 weeks ago
Percentage wise, America saw way more immigration in the 1700s than in the 19th century. Also way more in the 19th century than in the 20th century. Certainly there were peaks and valleys. And the raw numbers climbed, but as a percentage of the (non-Native American) population? No.
I suspect that we also saw more in many decades of the 20th century than we have so far in either decade in the 21st century. The usual peaks and valleys may have impacted what we've seen this century so far. But by now, our population is just too big for the percentages to get that high.
2 weeks ago
It’s the guy blowing leaves off our roof.
Except he's not blowing leaves off, he's ripping off the shingles.
So what happens to nationalism if many more people are either moving from place to place or or at least relocating from where they were raised?
It depends...
If people are relocating across national boundaries, that could reduce nationalism, because they are not rooted anywhere. Say if they relocate because their job moves.
Or increase it, because they have moved on the basis of "I want to go to this particular place" (vs "I need to leave where I am.") See the immigrants to the US who embrace America to the point that they, or their children, volunteer for the US military.
On the other hand, there are those who relocate within a single country. It seems like they might embrace nationalism, simply because that is the level of group they still belong to. If you relocate from Alabama to Texas, you may not have strong ties to either. But you still have strong ties to the country overall.
I have tried to put down roots here, and I think I’ve done a good job, but given that it has been a conscious effort, I have to say that those roots aren’t deep, certainly not as deep as Japanese from here.
It's true that those who have moved tend to have shallower roots than those who have lived somewhere for a lifetime. And also, it's not surprising that some are better than others at developing new roots when they move. But I would point out that, while you feel your new roots are shallow, you are hardly someone who is perpetually moving. (I'd put the threshold for "perpetually moving"/rootless at relocating every couple of years or less.)
I acknowledge that my perspective is probably skewed by my personal experience. The US is called "a nation of immigrants" (suck eggs, Steven Miller!) for a reason. And California is a bit extreme, even for the US.
Growing up, I lived in a little farm town, just starting to evolve into a suburb. When my parents moved here, after WW II, the population was under 500. By the time I graduated high school, my graduating class was around 500. For all that there were a couple of families who had been here for a century, pretty much everybody in town was from somewhere else. Often, the kids in my classes had moved a couple of times already. Today, the town is up to nearly 50,000.
That sort of thing continues. I'm in the long time rooted category because, although I've lived in a half dozen different places over the years, they've all been within a hundred miles of here. But my family, my friends, my neighbors? All have moved or lived previously, far away. I've got a brother who, in his 20s and 30s, lived "in Europe" -- never settled anywhere for more than a couple of months, as far as I could tell. Definitely in the perpetually moving category.
“Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”
In reality, there have always been those who put down roots, and those who kept moving. As far as I can see, that is still true today.
There were also those who, from necessity, picked up and moved, sometimes a very long way, before stopping and putting down new roots. (I am put in mind of a story I read long ago about a guy who moved from Europe, but having arrived in New York City, never went west of Ocean Parkway.)
I suppose you could make a case that, at least in the US since the middle of the last century, it became more common for entire families to pull up stakes and relocate multiple times. They put down roots serially though; they weren't really moving constantly.
The one thing I think has changed is that those who just keep moving are now able to form lasting connections online. Before, they were largely isolated. Being able to make lasting connections allows them to form communities. Just communities not based on geography. That makes them more visible.
I suppose
London’s foreign-born population is 41%.
And the percentage of foreign born residents in New York City over the years would be what?
If you're going to cherry pick numbers, gotta expect folks here will notice.
Percentage wise, America saw way more immigration in the 1700s than in the 19th century. Also way more in the 19th century than in the 20th century. Certainly there were peaks and valleys. And the raw numbers climbed, but as a percentage of the (non-Native American) population? No.
I suspect that we also saw more in many decades of the 20th century than we have so far in either decade in the 21st century. The usual peaks and valleys may have impacted what we've seen this century so far. But by now, our population is just too big for the percentages to get that high.
It’s the guy blowing leaves off our roof.
Except he's not blowing leaves off, he's ripping off the shingles.