Emerging Diasporas
How do the newly emerging diasporas, particularly those due to traumatic, violent events, force us to reconsider our conventional ideas of diasporas? We conventionally consider diasporas as William Safran defines them, consisting of people who:
1) have been dispersed from a common center to two or more foreign areas
2) have a collective memory or myth of their homeland
3) are unable to fully integrate into their host nation’s society
4) believe that their homeland is their true home.
The Rwandan diaspora, Iraqi diaspora, Venezuelan diaspora, Chilean diaspora, Intra-African diaspora and the Intra South Asian diaspora (specifically the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh and the Sri Lankan Tamils in India) have all been separated from their homeland due to war, natural disasters and extremely oppressive regimes. The collective memory of the trauma of these events and being forced to leave their homelands results in these diasporas having an extremely strong diaspora consciousness and desire to return home once the situation is safe again. They stay up-to-date with what is occurring in their homeland and try to send aid back if they can and support it however they are able to.
The forced dispersal has also made these diasporas to consist of many people with refugee status, fleeing with only what they could take with them rather than going to the host nation comfortably and with high status. Many go to neighboring countries and end up in refugee camps, where they can stay for years. This is another boundary between the diaspora and the host nation, though more physical than other ones, such as language and culture, preventing integration but also keeping the diaspora close together rather than dissolving into the host nation. The political situation and relationship between the host nation and homeland also affect the diaspora’s ability to integrate and with many emerging diasporas, it does not aid them in doing this. New alignments help the diaspora connect with other groups in the host nation, such as those suffering similar effects of war or those who share languages or culture but the diaspora still maintains a strong consciousness.
Though individually unique, the emerging diasporas seem to be extremely well-defined by Safran’s definition of diaspora due to how recently they have been dispersed and the forced nature of the dispersal, resulting in a very strong diaspora consciousness.
But many of them, excluding the Chilean diaspora due to the earthquake, also reveal how the impact of colonization and Western interference in nations is giving rise to these diasporas. They bring up the issues of dictatorships and the conflicting idea of national and ethnic identity from the new nations born after colonization, which R. Radhakrishnan notes is also an issue in the host nations determining how to define their diasporas. He states how the conflict between the national and ethnic identity brings the question of “How do these two selves coexist and how are they unified into one identity?” (105). In dispersals due to war such as the Rwandan diaspora and the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, the clear answer is that they do not coexist and that it is the ethnic identity that dominates, resulting in the wars. The diasporas make it very clear that the past actions of developed nations are having very damaging consequences.
Radhakrishnan, R. “Ethnicity in an Age of Diaspora”. Transition 54. 1991: 104-115.
Safran, William. “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return”. Diaspora: A journal of Transnational Studies 1.1 1991: 83-99.