There are indeed "push" (why leave place A) and "pull" (why go to place B)
factors involved in any and every act of migration. But the suggestion
that we were a magnet for people who had failed miserably somewhere else
and had no other options just doesn't ring true. It could be said instead
that people who migrate are risk-takers, adventurers, and enterprisers
looking for opportunities that match their talents and aspirations. The
key is how people adapt to failure or any other adversity, wherever they
are. Sure, there will always be an admixture of restless misfits among
those on the move, but my reading of our history and my observations of
out-migration from today's "rust belt" (the people leaving are young,
talented, ambitious--not failures at all) lead me to think that migration
is a positive selection process (adaptation via drastic change in
environment--which change always entails a rocky period of "adjustment"),
not a negative one. Failures and "losers" typically stay put, tethered by
inertia or genuine lack of options.

Douglas Deal
Professor of History and Chair of History Department
State University of New York at Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
[log in to unmask]
(315)-312-5632

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html