Duly Noted by George Handlery
Inconveniently the often denied key issue of our day is the consequence of mass migration. Let us for a moment use our past as the screen to project the present on it. While this is not about history nevertheless if you recognize in the past the present and then detect the future then so be it.
We begin with the elementary. Our days mass migration and historic immigration seem to be similar but their substance is even if unwelcome to many different.
Yes immigration has been a factor in the luck of some societies. English speaking countries come to mind. At the same time this does not apply to Latin America which tells that by itself immigration was not an unqualified blessing. When immigration became part of a success story it was subject to controls. It considered the hosts needs the entrants qualities and the mass to be absorbed.
On the canvas of projection immigration also plays a role in the decline of societies. A movement of peoples into areas where they were not indigenous could show an imperial powers desire to create new ethnic facts. Alternatively the generous open door for refugees could create a new local majority followed by secession. Southern and East-Central Europe provides examples. Several cases of todays instability and backwardness relate to such occurrences.
Due to the writers background the progression refugee immigrant - settler secessionist lost province will remain unelaborated in favor of another often misquoted aspect of past experience. Western Civilization provides an example for a migration of peoples. A consequence was the (overly maligned) Middle Ages.
The migration of peoples and its impact upon our civilization contemporary parallels. Apologies are due for bringing up events that might provoke a feeling of discomfort.
Not unlike contemporary Europe the Roman Empire of the first centuries of our time was a large state around the shores of its lake" the Mediterranean. In time its original military power and its cultural- economic achievements became a mismatch. Although made by the sword this civilization lost its ability to maintain itself. The reason is manifold. In part rational self-esteem gave way to a fashion that liked to imitate and to overstate the enemys virtues. An ideological vacuum developed that sucked in those that the states economic policy disregarded. Decline became accelerated by state-dependent entitled elements. Misgovernment nurtured self-doubt and a welfare dispensing - but not value creating- economy supported an inner crisis. Thus the old system broke down while nothing to replace it emerged.
The significant difference to the present state of western and western-inspired civilization and it antagonists is in the technological balance. The economic power productivity and the applied military hardware of developed countries towers over Islamic entities. Ancient Rome only had technical equivalency with its foes.
Only regarding the harnessing the potential of horses had the invading hordes an advantage. On the other hand a declining Europes Germanic Slavic and Oriental enemies had other motives than the presents challenger. Our jihadists wish to destroy a sin-based civilization to be replaced with what they claim to have fled when they applied as refugees. Thus the motives of those that set up their successor states on Romes ruins differed fundamentally from the presents challengers.
Attila might have called himself the Scourge of God" however most invaders of Europe did not really intend to smash what they found. This is the reason why for centuries German tribes and Rome could coexist along a boundary. What the Germanic tribes wanted was to share the Roman way of life. The destruction and the cultural reverse we call the Dark Ages were not their intended outcome.
Joining" and sharing" failed for a reason. A destructive component was that open borders did not respond to a need for the contributions of the newcomers. Much rather the inflow expressed the hosts weakness. Masking material-spiritual weakness by claims of magnanimity is unconvincing because debility cannot be covered up by claims about generosity. Also the arrivals did not enter the Empires as individuals but as organized groups. Then and now the term migration of peoples" fits the facts better than immigration". Concessions that surrendered the hosts sovereignty as in the case of the no-go-zones" of the present- followed.
Concurrently Rome had lost its ability to integrate new peoples because its system ailed as severely as is the magnitude of the coming financial collapse of the Euro-zone. Also the mass of those that demanded entrance into the empire meant that regardless of the attempted dialogue" the numbers to be assimilated were too towering. Additionally Rome neglected to maintain her order and to defend herself militarily. Albeit willing German mercenaries could not even when they tried fill the gap created by the hedonism and the bad citizenship of the indigenous.
On this level then the classical cultures attempt at multiculturalism" might be depicted as open minded flexibility. However in reality it also expressed decadence and a death wish paired with lost bearings. Looking back what Rome lacked was the contemporaries ability to perceive that the decades of confusing turbulence experienced had a connecting theme. No one could then tell them what the Romans did not realize but what we know nowadays. It was that they were living through a process we now properly term as the Fall of the Roman Empire".
Measured according to that insight the threat of our time is that there are too many Romans" around. That condition prompts this question: Will they allow their past to become our future?
