Did you read my comment? Or the article you linked? I'm genuinely asking because I literally stated the opposite of presentism:
> I think the problem is actually greater than you say: even the concept of "foreigners" vs "citizens" doesn't translate well as Rome distinguished between foreigners, residents and citizens differently than we do today and "race" didn't exist as a meaningful distinction in the same way. Even the nuances of the differences between different foreign "nations" worked differently so the concept of refugees doesn't really translate all that well to begin with.
Where you seem to disagree is that history is inherently political, which isn't "a fallacy and called presentism" but is literally calling attention to presentism. Presentism has been widespread in historical analysis throughout much of history. This is obvious in hindsight. What is less obvious is that we still engage in it today even when we think we don't.
The mere notion that presentism is even a thing is a relatively recent development (relative to the field of history as a whole) and that it should be avoided is in itself a political decision (i.e. the decision to try to avoid political bias is in itself informed by politics).
No, yours is a kind of fallacy and called Presentism [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysi...