“A Brief History of Border Walls” Analyzed — A Response

Trying to come to terms with the success of the worst article I’ve read in a while

Yesterday, I saw on the front page of Medium an article titled “A Brief History of Border Walls”, and it was maybe the worst thing I’ve ever read. It was a series of incredibly weak, flawed comparisons between historical walls and Donald Trump’s proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall. Every line it drew, every analogy it made was so riddled with holes and incorrectness that I was fuming with disappointment when I saw the amount of positive response it had garnered, and I felt absolutely compelled to say something about this atrocity of an argument.

So, let’s go step-by-step and analyze the comparisons that Nick Kolakowski makes. If you’d like to read the article first, I’d recommend it.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of Trump, nor am I a proponent of the border wall.

What I am a proponent of is good arguments and dialogue around these issues. Debating the real problem, offering real solutions, and making real comparisons.

I’m not defending the wall, I’m defending rational dialogue around it.

With that, let’s begin:

The Great Wall of China

The article opens by comparing Trump’s theoretical wall with what is perhaps the most famous wall in the history of walls: China’s. The assertion is that the Great Wall was breached by the Qing dynasty’s forces, who then went on to topple the Ming dynasty, who had been responsible for building much of the wall to begin with. Thus, if this big border wall still allowed outside forces to march in and overthrow the ruling power, then Trump’s big border wall would be just as ineffective and difficult to defend, right?

The Great Wall of China is the most frequently cited when it comes to comparing Trump’s proposal to historical equivalents, because it’s the closest thing to a historical equivalent there is. However, there are such painful holes in this analogy that I cannot believe it hasn’t been put to rest yet.

Firstly, the Great Wall is nearly three times the length of the U.S.-Mexico border. I don’t think I need to explain why that makes it significantly harder to man than Trump’s wall would be, not to mention that the people manning it at the time could, at the very best, only expect to travel along it by horse.

Secondly, despite the massively increased length and the far less effective means of travel, the Great Wall could very well be considered a success! Yes, a number of times large armies broke through the wall and invaded China in force, but the goal was only to prevent marauding horsemen from raiding Chinese lands — which it did! The Great Wall significantly inhibited the ability of steppe raiders to attack China by forcing them to concentrate on breaking through the wall in order to get into the land worth plundering, which their mounted combat strategies were not equipped to do.

So, now that we’ve thought about it, maybe the Great Wall of China isn’t a fantastic comparison. Let’s try…

Hadrian’s Wall (aka Roman Wall)

Next, Kolakowski draws a comparison to Hadrian’s Wall, a wall built by the Romans in northern England in order to keep the Picts out of Roman-occupied land. At least, that’s the purpose he asserts it had.

We’re off to a better start here. Hadrian’s Wall ran a humble eighty miles, making for a much easier time defending against northern aggressors. Except, defending against northern aggressors probably wasn’t the point. Historical records indicate that hardly any fighting ever occurred along the wall, and the troops stationed there didn’t even have the training that soldiers garrisoning cities did.

So, what was it for? Hadrian’s Wall was much more likely to have been built as a show of force for the native Britons, who had been unrestful (to say the least) under Rome’s occupation, and as a symbol of Rome’s might and the divide between civilization and savagery. In this regard, its success is still debatable, but seeing as it stood until the Romans pulled out of Britain in 410 A.D., I question Kolakowski’s claim that “soon the Roman occupation collapsed due to a number of issues.” Soon? I mean, the meaning of “soon” is relative, but I wouldn’t consider abandonment three hundred years after construction (due to a steady collapse of the empire (completely unrelated to Hadrian’s Wall)) “soon”.

Well, the Hadrian’s Wall analogy wasn’t a 100 percent success. Let’s try a more modern one. How about…

Walls of Constantinople

This is a good one.

The claim is that Constantinople’s walls fell to the Ottomans once cannons were introduced to the battlefield, thus walls are no longer relevant since the advent of gunpowder, thus Trump’s wall won’t work as a military fortification.

Okay? No need to mention that Constantinople’s walls stood for a thousand years before the Ottoman conquest.

No need to mention the city didn’t fall until about two hundred years after the cannon was introduced to the middle east.

No need to qualify how a medieval city’s war fortifications apply to a wall intended for immigration control.

As long as Mexico doesn’t start handing out high-grade artillery to immigrants, I don’t think this will apply much to the border wall. And if they do, I think we’ve got bigger problems.

But, this is also the section where Kolakowski introduces his idea that a wall needs to be 100% impermeable in order to be effective. In big bold words he highlights his revolutionary claim that “ Throughout history, no wall has offered 100 percent impermeability.” I mean, yes? You’re correct, but I don’t think anybody is expecting it to be 100% impermeable either. This is obviously inane, but I’ll get more into it later.

So, um, maybe we should choose a more modern example of a wall…

Israeli West Bank Barrier

Finally. A barrier that is actually comparable to Trump’s proposed wall. Thank you, Nick.

Problem is, it’s not nearly the invalid wall you try to paint it as.

The West Bank Barrier is a 440 mile stretch of wall, fences, and wire running between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. It’s a very controversial structure, so I’d like to again disclaim that I am only defending its efficacy as a barrier, not the morality of the barrier itself.

The article (obviously) claims the barrier is ineffective, citing a piece by the New York Times discussing the tens of thousands of illegal Palestinian workers that cross the barrier without permits. It doesn’t mention that the very same New York Times article explains Israel is lax in clamping down on illegal workers, believing that Palestinian economic well-being contributes to overall national security, and that “the illegal workers are generally accepted as part of the economy.”

And, as usual, this wall has a different purpose than Trump’s: to stop Palestinian terror attacks. How effective is it at that?

Between 2000 and 2003, before the first contiguous section of the barrier was completed, there were 73 Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel. Between 2003 and 2006, that number dropped to 12. That’s an 80% decrease in terror attacks. Kolakowski doesn’t mention these numbers, just vaguely states that “that’s not zero”.

No, it’s not. But it’s significant. It’s over two hundred people that didn’t die in sixty-one terrorist attacks that never happened. Chemotherapy isn’t one hundred percent. Surgery isn’t one hundred percent. Pregnancy isn’t one hundred percent. A 100% certainty isn’t a metric we judge things by. There are valid criticisms of the wall. “It isn’t invincible” isn’t one of them.

So, um, maybe that one didn’t totally work either.

What does this mean for Kolakowski’s Article?

The U.S.-Mexico border wall is obviously a huge talking point. It has been since Trump first mentioned it. It should be. It’s a big deal.

But if we’re going to talk about it, we owe it to ourselves to talk about it intelligently. Holding it to ridiculous standards and then stating it failed doesn’t move the discussion forward. Making painfully weak analogies to try and discredit it doesn’t add anything to the conversation. It makes you look stupid, and it makes the position you represent look stupid.

It’s far easier to discredit the opposition when they do the job for you. Articles like this do the job for them. This is the exact sort of thing conservatives point at when they talk about “delusional libs” and their terrible arguments. If you want to convince Trump supporters that the wall is a terrible idea and a failed investment waiting to happen (Pro-tip, you do), using arguments this flawed and easy to pick apart is a big step in the wrong direction.

When making an argument, don’t make it for the ones who already agree with you. That doesn’t do anything. Remember who you’re arguing against, what you’re arguing against, and try to convince them to see the issue your way, using sound, well-thought-out arguments. The things we talk about are important. Talk like they are.

You can rail against the wall all you want. If you don’t say meaningful things, and say them well, then it won’t change a thing.