By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, June 02, 2016
When standing today at Hadrian’s Wall in northern
England, everything appears indistinguishably affluent and serene on both
sides.
It was not nearly as calm some 1,900 years ago. In A.D.
122, the exasperated Roman emperor Hadrian ordered the construction of an
80-mile, 20-foot-high wall to protect Roman civilization in Britain from the
Scottish tribes to the north.
We moderns often laugh at walls and fortified boundaries,
dismissing them as hopelessly retrograde, ineffective, or unnecessary. Yet they
still seem to fulfill their mission on the Israeli border, the 38th parallel in
Korea, and the Saudi-Iraqi boundary: separating disparate states.
On the Roman side of Hadrian’s Wall there were codes of
law, habeas corpus, aqueducts, and the literature of Cicero, Virgil, and
Tacitus — and on the opposite side a violent, less sophisticated tribalism.
Hadrian assumed that there was a paradox about walls
innate to the human condition. Scottish tribes hated Roman colonial interlopers
and wanted them off the island of Britain. But for some reason the Scots did
not welcome the wall that also stopped the Romans from entering Scotland.
The exasperated Romans had built the barrier to stop the
Scots from entering Roman Britain, whether to raid, trade, emigrate, or fight.
Today, the European Union has few problems with members
that do not enforce their interior borders. But European nations are desperate
to keep the continent from being overwhelmed by migrants from North Africa and
the Middle East. Like the Romans, some individual EU nations are building
fences and walls to keep out thousands of non-European migrants, both for
economic and national security reasons.
Many Middle Easterners want to relocate to Europe for its
material and civilizational advantages over their homes in Algeria, Iraq,
Libya, Morocco, or Syria. Yet many new arrivals are highly critical of Western
popular culture, permissiveness, and religion — to the extent of not wanting to
assimilate into the very culture into which they rushed.
Apparently, like their ancient counterparts, modern
migrants on the poorer or less stable side of a border are ambiguous about what
they want. They seek out the security and bounty of mostly Western systems —
whether European or American — but not necessarily to surrender their own
cultural identities and values.
In the case of Hadrian, by A.D. 122 he apparently felt
that Rome’s resources were taxed and finite. The empire could neither expand
nor allow tribes to enter Roman territory. So his solution was to wall off
Britain from Scotland and thereby keep out tribes that sometimes wanted in but
did not wish to become full-fledged Romans.
The same paradoxes characterize recent, sometimes-violent
demonstrations at Trump rallies, the controversy over the potential
construction of a fence on the Mexican border 25 times longer than Hadrian’s
Wall, and the general furor over immigration policies.
Mexico is often critical of the United States and yet
encourages millions of its own people to emigrate to a supposedly unattractive
America. Some protesters in turn wave the flag of the country that they do not
wish to return to more often than the flag of the country they are terrified of
being deported from. Signs at rallies trash the United States but praise Mexico
— in much the same manner that Scots did not like Roman Britain but were even
less pleased with the idea of a fortified border walling them off from the
Romans.
What are the answers to these human contradictions?
Rome worked when foreigners crossed through its borders
to become Romans. It failed when newcomers fled into the empire and adhered to
their own cultures, which were at odds with the Roman ones they had ostensibly
chosen.
There were no walls between provinces of the Roman Empire
— just as there are no walls between the individual states of America — because
common language, values, and laws made them all similar. But fortifications
gradually arose all over the outer ring of the Roman world, once Rome could no
longer afford to homogenize societies antithetical to their own.
If Mexico and other Latin American countries were to
adopt many of the protocols of the United States, their standard of living
would be as indistinguishable from America’s as modern Scotland is from today’s
Britain.
Or if immigrants from Latin America were to integrate and
assimilate as rapidly as possible, there would be less of a need to contemplate
walls.
Historically, as Hadrian knew, walls are needed only when
neighboring societies are opposites — and when large numbers of migrants cross
borders without necessarily wishing to become part of what they are fleeing to.
These are harsh and ancient lessons about human nature,
but they are largely true and timeless.
No comments:
Post a Comment