The right to leave is pretty overrated and the author of that book, at least as people have presented it here, (and I don’t plan to read it, it doesn’t sound interesting or well written), seems to mostly assume it is a general positive when in reality it probably very rarely worked that way. It was completely non trivial to just leave your settled life in early history or late pre-history, and integrate somewhere else with people who speak different languages, have different cultural customs etc.
Mind you that being banished from your group / tribe / village / kingdom was not a very lenient punishment, and that’s sort of the flipside of the “right to leave.” Most people weren’t Jeremiah Johnson even back then, if you were driven out of your society your life was likely short and miserable before it came to an end. A settled agriculturalist in the bronze age would have poor odds of survival forced out into the wilderness, not terribly different than an office drone in 2022 with no outdoors experience being set loose in the Alaskan tundra or deep in Canada’s boreal forest.
They make the case that while non-trivial, it also wasn’t a “exiled into the wilderness” banishment-type deal. They aren’t talking about people “driven out”, they’re talking about people essentially going walkabout or just moving because they want to, but with a continent-wide support network that they could reliably turn to. Not “forced out into the wilderness”, just seeing life over the next set of hills.
It’s like every other group that shared clan affiliations was running a free AirBnB, across most of America.
And it sounds like they used a few examples (which I am certain they have no statistical data on, so couldn’t know the frequency) from indigenous tribes and then extrapolated it to be a global pre-history phenomenon? Sounds pretty specious to me.
No, they didn’t. They were quite clear that this was a North American clan system (although one with quite a long temporal persistence, which they provide evidence for). They describe a similar Australian system, but don’t extrapolate it to e.g Africa or Asia.
They do cover other mechanisms for exercising that freedom in other locales and times e.g the “joining the barbarians” strategy.
That’s good then, but that is how it’s been presented. As I said, as summarize this doesn’t sound like a very interesting or persuasive book, and pointing to it as an argument isn’t very compelling. I find little reason to believe that at any point in history the “right to leave” was a significant factor in human life, and its corollary “the right to starve in exile” is a pretty big negative that goes right along with it.
It was probably a lot less non-trivial for people who were used to moving around frequently anyway.
– come to think of it, while there are plenty of people in the USA who are essentially part of their living places, there are also quite a lot who think it’s no big deal to pack up and move on a moment’s notice; even to places where a lot of the customs and some of the language is different. Of course, due to modern legal and boundary systems, moving away from say a Supreme Court decision (or even away from the failure of one’s country’s system to protect one’s kids from starving or being murdered) is currently impossible for many.
Nope. Not at all.
If you’re not going to read the book, you might want to stop making assumptions about it.
As I said, I am commenting on how you have summarized it. It is generally not acceptable to briefly summarize arguments from a book, and then when pressed for more details say “read the entire book”, but responding to that behavior in kind, based on what you have said about it I find my comments reasonable and fair. It is not the job of other posters to read books, and this thread isn’t a thread about discussing a specific book–i.e. this is not a book club thread.
The claims you are repeating from the book simply sound significantly unsubstantiated at any kind of scale, and fly in the face of well known historical reality.
There’s a big difference between nomadic peoples who had societies that were mobile, and the idea that large numbers of individuals could leave their societies and wander elsewhere without problem. There is no evidence I have seen provided to support the assertion that such free wandering was anything but risky and prone to death before modern times, certainly no evidence has been offered to support that assertion in this thread. Also the very idea that people even had this freedom as a common thing in the past is also specious, we know of lots of ancient societies where you would not have had the freedom to leave at all–slavery is a many thousands of years old institution, as are various types of peonage.
Refute the evidence they provide, then. Show that the totemic system was just an early form of Pokemon and not a large clan network. Show that Native Americans always just knuckled under to their chiefs and the records of their disobedience G&B reference were made up. Refute the statements of fact, basically.
Of course, that’s going to be hard to do if you can’t be bothered to read the book.
Nor have I seen you provide any evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I know, you’re not the one who made the claim.
I don’t have the book in front of me, I took it from the library and have returned it. But you are in any case apparently expecting a quote of several hundred pages’ worth of argument. Maybe someone who is in possession of the book can sort you out a short bit of example that can show you that you’re making unwarranted assumptions both about the book, and about prehistorical societies.
The “right to leave” is not a right that people should have, nor is it a fundamental right. The fact someone wrote a book where (some stuff I won’t read) was said, and maybe it suggested it was an important right, does not change that.
The reason it is not a fundamental right is rights only matter in the context of society, leaving a society is outside the bounds of a rights based societal framework to begin with. The other reason people should not have it is without any real remaining allodial land, the right to leave also implies a right to “arrive” somewhere that other people may already live and may not want you there, it implies an individual right that transcends more important fundamental rights like property rights and rights of self-defense.
The right to leave is essentially an assertion to a right to banditry and vagabondism, it is a right to plunder and steal, and not something that should be promoted as a fundamental human right.
That wikipedia article even at briefest glances is clearly almost entirely about large scale migration of entire societies. Which does not line up with the “right to leave” as originally expressed in this thread.
Edit–you are also asserting by conflating the two that European colonization of the New World was an innate right of Europeans. Sure you want to go there?
You make the claim, you bring the evidence. “read the book” is not evidence.
This is neither an academic paper nor an academic work of literature. At the very, very least you are expected to summarise what the point is and perhaps an outline of what evidence there is for it is. A summary of what another work says is perfectly fine.
Telling people to go away a read “book x” is not.
How would that work for you as a means of counterexample?
If I say “book Y says you are wrong, go and read it” would that be acceptable?
And note that puzzlegal has done precisely that. Not so hard is it?
I’ve already said what I think about real property rights…
Only if you value dirt over people.
Lack of any inclination to read citations doesn’t make a counterargument, either.
Individual or small-band migration is nowadays considered a part of the migration process. It wasn’t all caravans of entire tribes. And that’s just the violent raids. We have plenty of evidence of movement of individual people other than that, like the Danish Egtved Girl coming from Peninsular Scandinavia, etc.
Strawman again. Conquest =/= migration.
The book is evidence.
Done that.
That’s what the book is for. Like I said, it has literally hundreds of pages of notes and citations. “An outline” is : read the book. It’s itself just an outline of the evidence it cites.
You’re free to say “Not going to read your cite”, but I’m not going to type up paragraphs for you, mate. puzzlegal is free to do as she wishes, but I’ve had enough of these sorts of arguments to know when I’m wasting my time doing so. I could say “They say the Wendat had freedom to ignore their chiefs’ commands”, and you’re going to come back with “quote the actual paragraph” and on and on it goes.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
That does not seem to be the same thing as the “right to leave” mentioned upthread. Were you confused about these two different concepts, or do you believe they are one and the same? I would suggest the right to leave a society completely and permanently is different from a right to travel from America to England back to America again.
I value property rights over the desires of people to take what is not theirs.
Which seems to have nothing to do with the purported “right to leave”, or why it is a good thing (supposedly.)
I don’t believe you can easily sort through what is conquest and what is migration in any reasonable sense for a huge number of migrations. Many of them will be pretty strenuously contested “matters of opinion” to begin with.
It’s actually one of the most interesting and persuasive books I have read in years, and while it’s long, I highly recommend it. It’s extremely well-documented, and has changed my opinion on a number of issues.