Reading “Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present: Diaspora” by Van Hear and “Comparing Diasporas” by Cohen, it is possible to define several similarities and many differences in the opinions of these authors’ approaches. The main idea discussed in these articles is the types of diasporas.
We will write a custom Essay on Immigration and Asylum specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Van Hear and Cohen have different visions of this process. Speaking about the reasons for immigration, these two authors have one similar idea devoted to immigration Jewish people and Africans, they both define such types of diasporas as the victims or traumas. Even though these two specific types have different names, the main idea of them is similar.
The authors speak about such types of diasporas as about the reaction on catastrophic events which made people migrate contrary to heir personal desire to stay. Further, the authors of the article offer similar ideas, however, they structure the issues differently.
Van Hear offers the following classification, apart from victim diasporas, he is sure that there are imperial diasporas, labor diasporas which is divides into imperial auxiliary diasporas and trade diasporas; moreover, he presents three new diasporas, such as Afghans, Sri Lankans, and Somalis.
Considering each of the types is detail, I would like to disagree with some ideas presented by the author. Thus, speaking about imperial diasporas as about a historic reason for immigration, he adds trade diasporas as one of its category. However, speaking about new diasporas, such as Afghans, Sri Lankans, and Somalis, the author defines those as separate type and does not refer them to victim diasporas.
This specific moment is important, as for me, as it creates a kind of failure structure to this particular classification. Even though Van Hear is sure that nowadays there are no pure classified diasporas and all the formed ones represent the fusion of different types. Specifically, the author denotes a kind of diasporas which began to form from the time of the USSR collapse, this is the returned diasporas.
There are a lot of people who return to their native lands from the former USSR, such as Germans, Polish, Jews, etc. The return to the ethnic motherland is important for the, however, these people cannot be called the citizens of the countries they have come from as well as they cannot be called pure immigrants.
Studying Cohen’s diasporas, it is obvious that the author has divided those on the following types, traumatic diasporas (similar to Van Hear’s victim diasporas), work, trade and colonization purpose diasporas. The further discussion of Cohen’s diasporas is focused on “fibres of diasporic rope”, as he said.
There are seven such fibres mentioned by the author, myth and remembering about the homeland, idealization of such homeland, return movement, ethnic group consciousness, troubles with the host country, solidarity with co-ethic members, and the desire to live better in another country.
This classification is fuller as for me. It presents more detailed discussion of the reasons why people migrate and form diasporas without being too specific which is unnecessary on this specific stage of discussion. The Van Hear’s and Cohen’s visions of the types of diasporas deserve the right to be discussed. Being similar in the ideas presented, these two authors offer various classifications which are not ideal and deserve further improvement and development to make sure that the presented classification is ideal.