I believe it was David who asked:
> > Is there any better way to judge what people actually
> >value other than to observe migrations?
I answered:
>unfortunately, migrations also reflect the relative ease of border
>crossing, the relative perceived attractiveness of the country moved to,
>along with such matters as U.S. foreign policy. The U.S., for example, has
>a program that actively seeks out Cuban athletes and convinces them to
>defect.
David ripostes:
>Sure, specific migrations are unique and complicated. But are you taking
>the position that you cannot examine migrations in a macro sense and obtain
>valuable information regarding what people desire and value?
No, I'm not taking that position. Rather, we can't take migrations as the
_only_ evidence of "what people desire and value." A deeper analysis is
needed than just looking at the fact of migration. Among other things,
people have mixed feelings on these matters. A "macro" analysis seems to be
a superficial analysis, further, because to some extent migrations can be a
result of panic (the bandwagon effect), which is sometimes encouraged by
partisan interests.
(One example is when a large number of people fled Vietnam at the end of
the war and TIME magazine said they were "voting with their feet," arguing
that this was _prima facie_ evidence that the US war had been just,
including all the dumping of napalm, etc., on areas that weren't controlled
by the US or ARVN troops or their allies (the ROK, etc.) which in fact
contributed to the exile along with all the other factors (including the
ROK troops). I wonder if their analysis was the same concerning the
significant percentage of the colonists who fled what's now the U.S. toward
the end of the Revolutionary War.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
