The resilient paradigm of ‘we vs. you’

History cannot be interpreted from a single point of view.

KIM SEUNG-JUNGThe author is an archaeology professor at the University of Toronto. A crisis is unfolding at the southern border of the United States. The state government of Texas single-handedly decided to block the border on Jan. 25, as it would not condone the surging number of illegal immigrants. The state government installed barbed wire and walls along the border and mobilized the National Guard to crack down on illegal immigration.

The Supreme Court ordered the wall’s removal. The state of Texas took over a park in Eagle Pass, a border city, to keep the Department of Homeland Security away, creating a deadlock.

The border policy of the United States has emerged as the biggest issue of the presidential election. Every day, more than 10,000 illegal immigrants risk their lives to enter the nation.

In the long history of humanity, one community’s attitude towards “others” has always involved conflict. Ancient Greeks’ attitude towards foreigners changed before and after the Greco-Persian Wars in the first half of the 5th Century BC.

While armed conflicts between city states had always existed, they shared the identity of Greeks through common language, culture and religion. For the first time in history, all Greek city states united to fight against Persia in the 5th Century BC, and the word “barbarous,” referring to foreigners, began to take a negative connotation.

Compared to the relatively nationalistic ancient Greece, the immigration policy of the Roman Empire was interestingly progressive. Aside from slaves, all men and women, regardless of age, were theoretically entitled to Roman citizenship. The condition was that one must give up the customs of their homeland and accept the language, culture and religion of Rome in order to receive it.

Unlike in Greece, slaves in Rome were often freed after a certain period of labor to become Roman citizens. The strategic cultural assimilation policy bolstered Rome’s ability to maintain vast territory. But some scholars point out that the adverse effects of the assimilation policy also resulted in the collapse of the empire. History cannot be interpreted from a single point of view.