Читать книгу Off to Sea! - Deutsches Kulturforum östliches Europa - Страница 9

Introduction: Europe as a continent of migration

Jochen Oltmer

Human history is a history of migration. Since pre-historic ages, migrant flows of population across territories have been a central element of adapting to environmental circumstances as well as to social, economic, and political challenges. In recent centuries migration has changed the world: there are countless examples of the extent to which the composition of local populations, the development of employment markets and of cultural and religious orientations have been influenced by migrations related to employment, living conditions, flight, expulsion, or deportation. Migration is likely to remain a global topic for the future. This is made clear for example by current debates about the consequences of further growth in the world population, the ageing of societies in the rich Global North, climate change, or the shortage of skilled specialist workers for increasingly complex and tightly interconnected international knowledge-based corporations.

Migration can be understood as a long-term geographical relocation of the focal point of life for individuals, families, groups, or indeed for a whole population. Distinctions can be made between different manifestations of geographical population movements. This particularly relates to migrations for the purpose of work or resettlement, nomadic movement, migration for education, training, and cultural reasons, for marriage, for economic improvement, as well as forced migration. Disregarding forced migration for the moment (mainly flight, expulsion, and deportation), then people on the move between geographical and social locations, whether individuals, families, or groups, are mostly seeking to improve their opportunities for employment, places to settle, job markets, education, training, or marriage, or just to get a new chance in life. The decision to migrate is a result of personal choices or new arrangements in family economic situations. There may indeed be no alternative actions for individuals and families to take, especially not when there is a real threat of existential need because of economic, social, or environmental crises.

In that context belong the intercontinental migrations of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which led some 55 to 60 million Europeans to other parts of the world. The migration overseas of German-speaking settlers from eastern parts of Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries makes up one element of this extensive, continent-wide, and geographical movement of population. For these migrations, which were directed towards the transformation of economic and social opportunities, there was primarily an economic gap between the region of origin and the target region. This should however in no way be understood as referring to marked differences in economic development between two global or continental macro-areas, but rather more as being restricted to individual small-scale market sectors. Access to markets was driven by the specific social characteristics of individuals or members of families or groups, especially sex, age, and position in the family cycle, occupation and qualifications, along with personal attributes (especially with regard to ethnicity or nationality), all of which were often bound up with privileges and birth rights, and affected their perception of the opportunities offered by migration.

Systems of communication also motivated and gave structure to geographical movements of population, and the extent to which migration was understood as an economic alternative for individuals or families depended decisively on a knowledge of the target location, along with the route to get there and the opportunities available. In order for migrations for the purpose of work, education and colonization to reach a certain scale and a specific duration, there needed to be a continuous and reliable flow of information about the target region. The forms of communication were very diverse: a central element was made up of verbal or written transmission of knowledge about opportunities for employment, education, marriage, or housing by previous (pioneer) migrants who had already gone out there, whose reports were given greater weight on the grounds of connections of family relationship or acquaintance. There was however also the phenomenon, albeit rare, that the first settlers deliberately kept quiet about problems with the aim of overcoming these by attracting more of their friends and relatives to come out to the new homeland. Reliable and adequate sources of information affecting the genesis and the implementation of the decision to emigrate were predominantly only available to the potential migrants for one particular target location, or for individual settlements limited to a local area, or to specific segments of the employment or education market, so that realistic options for making choices between different target areas could not have been made available.

The importance of the sharing of information through networking with friends and relatives cannot be overestimated. As an example, relatives or acquaintance often provided the first place to stay, or else the final destination of the journey, for 94% of the Europeans who arrived in North America around 1900. At least a hundred million letters from emigrants were sent from the U.S. to Germany between 1820 and 1914 and were circulated around the circles of friends and relatives back in the home regions. We do not know exactly how many letters from emigrants went back to the German-speaking minorities in regions of East, Central, and South-East Europe, but there is plenty of individual evidence indicating that here, too, it was letters or the testimony of people who had returned that were the central instrument for sharing reliable information about the opportunities offered abroad. Thus, the places of origin and the target regions were linked up through transatlantic migration networks, by means of a communication system involving family relationships, friendships, and ethnic communities.

Our knowledge about the opportunities and the dangers of emigration and immigration, about territorial goals and transport routes, as well as the psychological, physical, and financial burdens involved, have come from verbal and written reports of official (state), religious, or private organizations and information centers. In addition, a wide range of different media agencies spread information which was relevant to the migration process. These included migration advisers as well as articles in newspapers and magazines. It is also the case that official or private advertising by migrants seeking work or housing – for example with the help of agents or advertisers – could be understood as a form of transferring knowledge by way of migrant opportunities.

In general, there were multiple drivers underlying decisions about migration, and a whole range of different motives affected the decision on emigration or immigration into a particular location. Mostly, a combination of economic, social, political, religious, and personal motives came together in a variety of different configurations and to different degrees. It is also the case that coincidence played a not insignificant role. For example, territorial movements might be interrupted because in the course of transit through an area, a location that had at first only been thought of as an intermediate stopover unexpectedly offered new opportunities. On the other hand, the planned goal could prove to be unsuitable or less attractive, resulting in an onward migration. A striking example of this is given by Mennonite settlers who started by moving from German-speaking regions into the Russian Tsarist Empire but then, after the important privileges that they had been granted since the early 1870s were taken away (especially in 1874 the lifting of exemption from military service), they moved away to North America. The Canadian government offered them their own settlement areas in South Manitoba. In 1872, the Canadian administration had sent William Hespeler into the settlement areas of the German Russians as their agent, partly in the hope of gaining immigrants to develop their own western areas, and secondly to encourage more Germans wanting to emigrate from the Tsarist empire. Hespeler, who had originally emigrated from Baden to Canada, travelled through the regions to the north of the Black Sea and returned to Canada in 1873 with a group of 284 Mennonites, who became the pioneers for the later Mennonite settlement in Manitoba. By 1880, the group had already grown to around 8,000 people.

Canada was attractive, not only because the state took on a good proportion of the travel costs, but also especially because of the possibility of an exclusive settlement in areas which were made available by the Canadian government. At the same time, the Mennonites were granted the right to introduce their own school system. In the Canadian census of 1886, the official enumerators recorded 11,000 inhabitants of German origin in Manitoba, of whom only 500 had been born in Germany, in comparison to the 5,700 born in Russia.

Onward migration or return migration was by no means a consistent sign of failure, contrary to what research has long believed. Indeed, success in the destination region might make it possible to return home, or else to an equal extent prevent a return that had originally been planned. Thus, the process of migration remained open-ended, with the intention of the migration and the outcome of the migration not infrequently being quite different. This could also be due to the fact that making a single direct journey from the place of origin to the destination point was only one of many possibilities, and the process of migration very often involved a number of stages, which could at any time turn into a permanent destination. Paid employment found at intermediate locations on the way also provided cash funds for the onward journey, or towards the cost of preparations for the settlement itself.

From the early 19th century onwards, the number of people who turned their backs on Europe grew rapidly. The background for this was an increasing imbalance between the growth in population on the one hand and the available resources on the other. This had far-reaching effects, with some regional variations, but in the course of time became widespread across Europe (although in some regions it then decreased). More and more areas of Europe were being affected by the advancing modernization and industrialization of agriculture which in many European regions did not compensate for the huge growth in the population of Europe from around 187 million in 1800 to about 266 million by 1850 and then about 468 million in 1913.

At the same time there were an increasing number of opportunities outside Europe. From the beginning of the 19 th century, due to the industrial upturn in west and central Europe, there had been a rapid increase in the export of manufactured goods and capital to other parts of the world. This was equally the case for the import of raw materials and foodstuffs from outside the continent. Both of these developments generated a need for additional labor forces in some parts of the world and led to the rise of new migration destinations for Europeans. In turn, the immigration of Europeans led to the establishment of mass markets for European manufactured goods, which further strengthened economic interdependence. On top of this came the increasing connectivity of Europe with other continents because of accelerated colonial conquests and exploitation across the world, which likewise opened up new migration destinations, as an “economic evaluation” of overseas possessions through the exploitation of raw materials or the production of agricultural produce meant that a much increased workforce and more settlers were needed.

Emigration map and pointer towards America by Gotthelf Zimmermann, published in 1853 by the Metzler bookshop in Stuttgart.

In addition, long distance migrations overseas, as well as in the destination areas themselves, became much easier because of the hugely improved transport situation in Europe as a result of industrialization – areas became more closely integrated. This led to a reduction in the time needed for a journey, and the cost also dropped considerably. More and more people and goods covered ever greater distances. Communication connections were quickly developed (postal traffic, telegraphy, telephone). Newspapers turned into cheap sources of news for everyone as a result of the rapid rise in quantity and circulation numbers. The most well-known newspaper, which was produced as a reaction to the need of German Russian immigrants to the U.S., is reckoned to be the Dakota Freie Presse, published from 1874 onwards. In its heyday between 1900 and 1930, it was delivered to over 1,100 post offices in the U.S. for distribution worldwide as well as to Europe.

Particularly in the correspondence columns of the newspaper was a virtually global network becoming widespread, where you could find comments, news, and messages, not just relating to the U.S., but also to Canada, South America, and to the home regions in Russia. By means such as these, there were also improvements in the possibilities for spreading information about opportunities offered in the settlements or for getting employment elsewhere. The accelerated expansion of transport and communication connections also facilitated the formation of markets in the migration zones. Globally operating shipping companies in Europe and North America, which were in competition with one another, made use of the most modern advertising methods and a widely developed system of agents in order to open up new migration destinations and to fill up their steamships with migrants. Among those who went to the regions settled by German minority groups were agents of the U.S- and Canadian railway companies, who owned large tracts of land along their railway lines, which they wanted to be colonized, as well as agents of the governments of U.S. states or Canadian provinces, who were concerned with encouraging settlements for the purpose of development. These agents, who were to some extent in fierce competition with one another, would outbid each other through aggressive advertising on behalf of their clients and even with downright threats to the rural populations concerned. This caused even Heinrich Wiegand himself, the Director General of the North German Lloyds, to refer to his agents in Galicia as the “scum of the earth.”

It was a smaller section of the European intercontinental emigrants who followed a land-based route and settled predominantly in Asian areas of the Tsarist Empire. The vast majority crossed the maritime borders of the continent. Of the 55 to 60 million Europeans who went overseas between 1815 and 1930, more than two-thirds of them went to North America, with the U.S. and Canada being clearly predominant with a six-fold increase in immigration. About a fifth emigrated to South America, about 7% reached Australia and New Zealand. North America, Australia, New Zealand, and South America, along with Siberia, formed the settlement areas of the socalled Neo-Europe.

There was an enormous increase in overseas migration to the U.S. in the 1820s, when around 152,000 Europeans came to the U.S. In the 1830s, this amount had already risen to around 600,000. The period from the 1840s to the 1880s then became the peak period for the immigration of about 15 million Europeans in total, coming mainly from the west, the north and the central areas of the continent. Over four million Germans, three million Irish, three million English, Scottish and Welsh, and one million Scandinavians emigrated to the U.S., the population of which grew during this half-century from 17 million to 63 million.

The background to this was an agricultural and industrial boom, with an ongoing demand for new labor forces. Economic growth was closely correlated to the permanent territorial expansion of the thirteen founding states of the U.S. The territorial area of the U.S. expanded fivefold in just a few decades. In 1820, almost three quarters of the total population of the U.S. still lived in the states along the east coast and only a quarter to the west of the Appalachian Mountains. By 1860, intercontinental immigration and inter-regional migration meant that half of the U.S. population was now to be found living west of the Appalachians. Above all, the population of the new settlement zones in the Mid-West was expanding, and their proportion of the total population of the whole country had trebled to 29%. In contrast, in 1860 the extreme west of the U.S. on the Pacific coast was still largely undeveloped. The areas that had come into the possession of the United States in the 1840s were home to only about 2% of the whole population of the U.S. in 1860. Their growth as a destination for European immigration and for North American internal migration, especially California, still lay in the future.

The phase of accelerated colonial development across the world and economic globalization that happened in the last thirty to forty years before the start of World War I marked the peak of the global long-distance migration of Europeans during the “long” 19th century.

On average 50,000 people per year had left Europe by sea at the beginning of the 19th century. The 1840s created a turning point: between 1846 and 1850 there were on average year by year more than 250,000 migrants crossing the Atlantic. In this phase, researchers have identified a first small group of around thirty families from the German minority living north of the Black Sea, who reached New York in 1849 and travelled on to Ohio and Iowa. With the world financial crisis of the late 1850s and the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865, European migration to the U.S. declined significantly. Yet, immediately after the end of the Civil War it soon exceeded the level of the earlier 1850s, but only to reduce yet again in the world economic crisis of the 1870s. From the 1880s onwards, European overseas migration reached its peak.

In the second half of the 1880s, European overseas migration comprised on average almost 800,000 people per year, with the majority going to the U.S. The peak levels were reached in the decade and a half before the outbreak of World War I, when on average more than 1.3 million Europeans per year left the “old world.” Only about one third of the migrants now came from Western, Northern, and Central Europe, where the modernization of agriculture and increased industrialization required a larger workforce, and the level of wages had also risen. In contrast, two thirds of them originated from the economically weaker south and east of the continent. Whereas up to 1880, the U.S. immigration authorities had for example only counted a total of 150,000 immigrants from Russia and Austria-Hungary. Between 1900 and 1910, they registered no fewer than 2.1 million immigrants from the area ruled by the Habsburg Monarchy and 1.6 million from the Tsarist Empire. This phase also includes the comparatively extensive transatlantic migration of German Russians. Between 1870 and 1914, about 116,000 of the German-speaking population alone migrated to the U.S. from the Tsarist Empire, whose population roughly totaled 1.8 million according to the 1897 census. The largest section of the German Russian transatlantic migrants left Russia after the turn of the century. The peak years for emigration were 1904-05 and 1912. A proportion of these then continued their migration northwards from the U.S., in particular Mennonite settlers who moved into the large settlement centers of their faith community in western Canada.

The main settlement areas for the German Russians were in Oregon and Washington, as well as the prairie areas particularly of states situated in the Great Plains such as Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, which had begun to be settled by both Americans and Europeans in the 1860s and reached their peak in the phase involving the German Russian immigrants. In the two Dakotas there was a self-contained “German Russian Triangle” in 23 counties, where the population had a particularly high proportion of German Russian migrants, who predominantly came from the Black Sea region.

The proportion of urban settlers was also by no means low. Migrant members of the German minority in the Tsarist Empire also turned up in considerable numbers for example among the workforce of the cement industry in Chicago, the roadbuilders in Portland, Oregon, or the seasonal workers for the processing of sugar beet in Lincoln, Nebraska.

With regard to the total emigration from the continent of Europe around 1900, there was also an increase in other ‘Neo-Europe’ areas other than North America, including above all Australia, Brazil, and Argentine, but also New Zealand, Uruguay, and Chile. Before 1850, the U.S. had taken in about fourth fifths of all European emigrants. In the second half of the 19 th century, it was about three quarters, and from the turn of the century round about half. The increase in importance of the destinations outside North America was mainly a result of the opening up of large new settlement zones for European farmers and the discovery of mineral deposits which offered the development and opening up of new work opportunities. For the above mentioned German Russian overseas migrants in this situation, it was not just the United States and Canada that were the core destinations: Members of the German minorities north of the Black Sea and to a lesser extent those from the Volga and Volhynia, bought land in Brazil (here mainly Roman Catholics) or in Australia, or else took up new opportunities for settlements in Asian areas of the T sarist Empire that were being opened up by the Trans-Siberian Railway, and which within a few years also became another ‘Neo-Europe’. From the start of the building of the railway in 1891 up to the outbreak of World War I in 1914, four to five million people settled in Siberia from the European regions of the Tsarist Empire.

Awareness of the opportunities for settlements in Siberia spread rapidly. Settlers who went to Asia without recourse to government organizations, came mostly from the region immediately to the west of the Ural Mountains and already had family contacts in Siberia. Settlers from the European core zones of the Tsarist Empire on the other hand mostly needed first to depend on state support. From 1896, the state encouraged the designation of “scouts,” which made it possible for families and groups willing to establish settlements to send out someone in advance, who would report back on the migration opportunities and make preparations for the settlements. This was to some extent a case of state-funded pioneer migrants. In addition, loans were made available for travel costs – which were at a reduced price for settlers – and favorable conditions for the settlements. Land was parceled out and assigned and in some places the state cultivation of farmland was alongside the line of the railway track. Many of those belonging to the German Russian minority found themselves put together in relatively closely confined settlements, as was already the case in the European part of the Tsarist Empire. In 1914, the year of the start of World War I, the number of Mennonite colonies alone had risen to 93 in Western Siberia.

It is a frequently overlooked fact that transatlantic migration by Europeans was not a one-way street. During the 19th century the migration of predominantly families for the purpose of finding agricultural land for settlements decreased, alongside an increase in the migration of individuals seeking employment in industry, leading to an increase in the rate of return migration. From 1880 to 1930, four million people returned from the United States to Europe with enormous differences between the individual groups. Only 5% of the Jewish transatlantic migrants returned, but 89% of the Bulgarians and Serbians. For those from central, northern, and western Europe the average was 22%. Above all, the overseas migration from Eastern, East Central, and Southern Europe which was dominant at the turn of the 20th century, came less and less to signify definitive emigration and was increasingly a case of frequent returns and repeated, circulatory migration. Half of the Italians, for example, who reached North and South America between 1905 and 1915, returned to Italy. Not infrequently, the money that had been earned overseas was used for the purchase of land, which can also be seen to be the case with the extensive migration to North America of the German minorities in Banat and Bachka (Serbia). A large proportion of the transatlantic migrants returned after only a few years and achieved their goal of using the wages they had saved up for the establishment and expansion of agricultural land.

The Yearbook of German and East European ethnic folk studies volume 54 (2013), brought together contributions to the conference held in November 2011 on the subject of “German overseas migration from Eastern Europe.”

The migrants, including those from the German minority groups in Eastern, Central, and South-Eastern Europe, developed far-reaching networks made up predominantly of family and friends, which contributed to the fact that the majority of their overseas migration in the 19th century led to the formation of geographically tightlyknit communities from their areas of origin in the destination locations. This overseas migration was certainly far from being a unified movement. It can be broken down into groups from different regional, social, and religious backgrounds, which can be differentiated according to the various phases of migration and their motivation, and which have predominantly stayed together in particular settlements, especially in rural areas. This had some repercussions insofar as, in contrast to the attributions made by the Anglo-American host society, they were not identified as “Germans,” “German Russians,” or “Danube Swabians.” It was mainly in the towns that associations developed which contributed to the spread of a “German” identity and bridged the divide between communities with different regional origins. This was less oriented to a territorial “Germany” but rather to a broad cultural area to which Germans from Eastern, Central, and South-Eastern Europe felt they belonged. In the early 20th century, this lost its significance in favor of a German-American identity.

Dr. Jochen Oltmer, born 1965, is Professor for Modern History and member of the board of the Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) at Osnabrück University. Author and editor of books on the history of migration: (ed. with Klaus J. Bade et al.), The Encyclopedia of Migration and Minorities in Europe: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2013; Globale Migration. Geschichte und Gegenwart [Global Migration: Past and Present], Munich: C.H. Beck 2016; Migration: Geschichte und Zukunft der Gegenwart [Migration: History and Future of the Present], Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2017.