Speaking twenty-two years ago, when the phenomenon of the south-to-north global migration had not yet taken on today’s epic proportions, Eco predicted that, in the new Millennium, Europe would be witnessing a great cultural métissage, similar to the one that had occurred in New York at the start of the 20th century or, even earlier in some Latin American countries– a movement that “no racist and no nostalgic reactionary” could have prevented.
The fundamental point of Eco’s public reflection was that of the distinction between the concepts of “immigration” and “migration”; the first, he argued, occurs when a group of individuals, “even many individuals, but in numbers that are statistically insignificant with respect to the indigenous stock,” move from one country to another. Such a movement – according to Eco – may be controlled politically, limited or encouraged, according to the needs of the receiving country. The process of migration, on the other hand, would be comparable to those found in nature: “They occur and no one can control them”.
“We have migration,” declared Eco, “when an entire people, little by little, moves from one territory to another, and what matters is not how many remain in the original territory, but to what extent migrants change the culture of the territory to which they migrate.” He then offered examples of some of the great migrations of the past: from east to west, “as a result of which the peoples of the Caucasus changed the culture and biological heritage of the natives”; those of the so-called “barbarian” peoples who invaded the Roman Empire, creating new kingdoms and new cultures; or the case of European migration to the American continent.
// Parafrāzēts caur
La Voce di New York, jo bija slinkums pārrakstīt no viņa grāmatas.
![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}