ローマ帝国の滅亡は「難民キャンプ」から始まった
この歴史から得られる教訓は、流入し続ける難民の扱いを間違えて同化に失敗すれば、それが確実に国家の生存に直結するような大きな政治問題へと発展する、ということである。
ちょっとググると、
The ancient Roman Republic’s embrace of diversity, inclusion, and immigrants was the essential x-factor in its incredible rise to world superpower.
多様な人々を受け入れ、受容すること、そして移民の活躍が、ローマが超大国へ登りつめた秘密の鍵なんだ、と。
there is little indication in the literature of anything resembling the contemporary view in some circles that bringing in new people represents a threat to national culture or a drain on resources ＊１
現在一部に見られるような、移民を受け入れることが、文化への脅威になるとか、資源枯渇につながるといった議論は、ローマ帝国についてはほとんど見当たらない、と。
Roman citizens are by definition equal regardless of ethnic origin ＊２
ローマの市民は、種族的出身にかかわらず、、平等だった、と。
1,700 years ago, the mismanagement of a migrant crisis cost Rome its empire
WRITTEN BY
Annalisa Merelli
この記事が奥山氏の趣旨に近いですが、
On Aug. 3, 378, a battle was fought in Adrianople, in what was then Thrace and is now the province of Edirne, in Turkey. It was a battle that Saint Ambrose referred to as “the end of all humanity, the end of the world.”
What was arguably the most important defeat in the history of the Roman empire had roots in something else: a refugee crisis.
Two years earlier the Goths had descended toward Roman territory looking for shelter. The mismanagement of Goth refugees started a chain of events that led to the collapse of one of the biggest political and military powers humankind has ever known.
It’s a story shockingly similar to what’s happening in Europe right now—and it should serve as a cautionary tale.
Traditionally, the Roman attitude toward “barbarians,” though autocratic, had been pretty longsighted. Populations were often sent where the empire needed them the most, with little regard to where they wished to stay; however, there was a strong push toward assimilation that eventually turned foreigners into citizens. Descendants of immigrants would routinely be seen in the high ranks of the military or the administration. The recipe that kept the empire safe from attack from other populations was simple: allow them into the empire and make them Roman.
But things eventually changed. The military officials who were in charge of provisions for the Goths—an ancient version of the support offered to migrants arriving in Greece or Italy—were corrupt and profited off of what was meant for the refugees. The starving Goths were forced to buy dog meat from the Romans.
But why should they have fought for the Romans against her enemies if Rome was prepared to offer so little in return? Rome was the most powerful state in Italy, but Roman allies could not adequately participate in the political processes which increasingly dominated their peninsula. Moreover, the Romans were not confined to Rome: colonies of Roman citizens had begun to sprout up throughout Italy, and these possessed rights which were unavailable to the non-citizens of the socii. In a world progressively dominated by the Roman state, this was unconscionable for the allies. And so they fought.
They did so not out of a desire for freedom so much as for inclusion: the right to participate in the Roman state, with all the freedoms and obligations that this entailed.
Marcellinus has no doubt: “their treacherous covetousness was the cause of all our [the Romans’] disasters.”
The trust between the abused Goths and the Romans was broken several times before Adrianople, and the Goths went from wanting to become Roman to wanting to destroy Rome.
There are two ways to deal with refugees: one is to promote dialogue, and inclusion; the other is to be unwelcoming and uncaring. The second has led to disaster before—and in one way or another, is sure to do so again.
ーーーローマの同盟国の人々を不平等に扱っていたので、同盟国の人々は、、ローマ市民としての地位を得るために紛争がおき、その結果、出身地にかかわらず、同化させ、平等な市民として地位を与えてローマは、繁栄したが、難民を扱う官僚の腐敗により、難民を酷くあしらったので紛争が激化し、滅亡が始まった、と。
難民に対して対話と受容の態度で望めば問題ないが、歓迎せず、配慮もしないと、滅亡への道につながる、と。
もちろん、スケールの大きさは違えども、現代のローマ帝国の末裔であるドイツ連邦が、同じような形で移民・難民問題に悩まされ始めていることは、実に興味深い。例えば、最近のドイツで注目されているのは、移民・難民による女性暴行事件である。
難民、移民の犯罪について、誤解がある、という
記事を以前
掲載した。
（１）
移民・難民が増えると犯罪が増えると脅かす政治家がいるが、事実は違う、と。
ドイツでは、2017年には、2016年の１０％犯罪率がさがっており、1992年以来最低の犯罪率を示している。たしかに、2015年から2016年に暴力犯罪が、１０％増加した地域があったが、２０１７年には、６％減少している。
男性難民は収容所をでると喧嘩をしなくなる。女性の難民が増えると、若い男性配偶者が家族の面倒を見始めて犯罪率も減る。
イタリアでも２００７年から２０１６年までに全体の犯罪率は２５％減少。スエーデンは、暴力犯罪が増加しているが、暴力犯罪は、特殊な暴力団の抗争であり、暴力団というものは、移民の背景をもっている場合が多い。これは、過去に、移民として入ってきて、社会に統合できなかった結果であり、最近、流入している移民の話ではないのだ、と。
（２）
ある地域では、難民申請者による犯罪が多い、と。
出身地域による違いがあって、アフガンやらシリアからの申請者は犯罪率が少ない。モロッコなど北アフリカからの難民申請者の犯罪がおおいが、例えば、殺人など暴力犯の被害者は、他の難民・移民が多いが、狭苦しい収容所に収容されていることが多いからではないか、と。また、窃盗もあるが、これは、就労が禁止されているのが理由かもしれない、と。性犯罪については、もしかしたら、自国でそれほど深刻な罪として認識されていない可能性もある、と。
ーー移民については、日本社会では必要不可欠。
もっとも、無制限な流入は社会的混乱を招く。
ただ、排外的態度をとっても、社会的緊張、分裂、紛争のもとになる。
例えば、在日コリアンも、最初から日本国籍のままでいる選択肢を与えていれば、いまほど不平はなかったかもしれない。
不法移民の子どもたちなど、日本で育った子どもたちについては、権利ではなく、重大な犯罪歴などなければ、恩典として、何年かおきに、正式な滞在許可を与えるべき。
（それこそが、歴史から学ぶ、というものであるし、本人たちも喜ぶだろうし、また、才能の有効利用にもなる）
人権意識や日本語能力など、日本に絶対的に同化させる部分と、同化しなくていい部分の両方の棲み分けが重要、
同化しなくていい部分は、それまでの日本の文化と時間の経過とともに、うまく統合していくのではないか。
ーーというのが私の意見。
＊1
What the Romans can teach us on immigration and integration
All for one
By the time of the events described above, for example, Roman citizenship had been extended to large parts of the Mediterranean population and could be acquired by people anywhere in the Roman empire, usually by serving in the army or in regional government. This bestowed the same nominal legal rights on the inhabitants of Egypt and Britain as were enjoyed by the citizens of the city of Rome.
Under the spirit and letter of Roman law, citizenship was generally less a matter of ethnicity and more one of political unity.
Of course, Roman literary sources are hardly devoid of bigotry and cultural chauvinism. But there is little indication in the literature of anything resembling the contemporary view in some circles that bringing in new people represents a threat to national culture or a drain on resources
＊２
Published on August 22, 2017
Yes, the Romans Were Diverse—but Not in the Way We Understand It
written by Ben Bassett
“Neither sea nor intervening continent are bars to citizenship, nor are Asia and Europe divided in their treatment here. In your empire all paths are open to all.” – Aelius Aristides, ‘Roman Oration’. trans. Oliver.
Clearly, the word ‘diversity’ needs to be deployed in a cautionary manner when discussing ancient societies, and Rome should not be confused for a modern post-Enlightenment state.
The Romans, as we will see, were aware of something approximating the modern notion of ‘ethnicity’ but by Aristides’ time such divisions had been largely subsumed by an embracing concept of Roman citizenship. It is this that Aristides is most acutely intent on celebrating in his speech
The emperor who followed after Trajan’s death in AD 117, Hadrian, would go on to consolidate the empire’s borders, establishing clear boundaries between the Roman world and the world of the non-civilized ‘barbarians’. This policy also had the effect of consolidating Roman identity as a form of political allegiance to the Roman state. Within the Roman Empire, the Roman citizen had access to the legal dispensations of the Roman state, guaranteed and ultimately personified by the emperor himself. It is this quality which Aristides lauds. Roman citizens are by definition equal regardless of ethnic origin.
Of course, the Roman Empire was a pre-modern world as I have mentioned, and disease, slavery, banditry and other afflictions were common. Likewise, Aristides is speaking from a position of privilege: the vast bulk of the peasant population would never have moved outside of their home village or town. Nonetheless, Aristides’ vision is of a world of disparate ethnicities united under the banner of just government.
This is the Roman model of ‘diversity’: conquest and subjugation, followed by full initiation into the Roman state.
Notwithstanding some exceptions, the Roman world in the second and third centuries was remarkably like that of the European Union in the twenty-first: disparate identities were united under a single political umbrella, and this was cause for celebration among elites who benefited from the support of the central government.
They inscribed their names on these buildings in Latin, and sometimes also in a local language, and thereby advertised their civic virtue. Self-serving perhaps, but also a virtuous circle: cities were not simply locations for elites to bask in indulgence, cut off from the people in their palaces or mansions. Elites were expected to use their wealth in service to their community. They could ‘code-switch’ between a more local identity, perhaps embodied in the language of everyday speech, and a civic identity expressed in the architecture of their towns and perhaps in their choice of luxury items, clothes and other material features of life
