Why does everybody hate western colonialism, saying it was exploitation, but at the same time loves the Roman Empire?
Was there any difference between the way Romans treated their imperial provinces and the way lets say Spanish handled their colonies? Wasnt their original intention to "civilize" America and make it part of Spanish realm too?
What the Romans ask is that you shut the fuck up and you pay tributes. You do that, you can keep your religion, your cultural identity, etc. and the Romans can keep you safe, safer than your military leadership that couldn't beat the Romans.
If you don't, and you rebel, they'll fuck you over.
They keyword being "if."
Colonialists want more. They want your delicious gold and other natural resources, and they want you to convert to Christianity.
There is no "if."
Yeah, but the Romans were brown people who conquered whites, so its okay.
>Was there any difference between the way Romans treated their imperial provinces and the way lets say Spanish handled their colonies?
YES.
THE ROMAN SYSTEM WAS AN IMPERIAL SYSTEM WHICH CONSISTED IN INTEGRATING TERRITORIES, AND PEOPLES, INTO THE IMPERIAL WHOLE; THE SPANISH SYSTEM —AND OTHER POSTROMAN EUROPEAN, AMERICAN, AND MIDEASTERN, SYSTEMS UP UNTIL NOW— WAS A COLONIALIST SYSTEM WHICH CONSISTED IN MERE POLITICAL ANNEXATION, MAINTAINING THE ANNEXED TERRITORIES, AND THEIR PEOPLES, AS LANDHOLDINGS, AND SLAVES.
An exemple are the French, they think the Roman bring them civilization and still consider themself as part of the heritage of Rome(in terme of culture and Right, french are Latin and consider the Roman Republic as their model).
The colonization of Gaulle see the introduction of Christainism and Latin, large Road and Roman theme city.
The caliphate was an exception I think, in that it was close to (and probably based on) the Roman system.
But the early Arab and early Roman systems were, however, colonialist no different than later Imperial European empires. The difference is the former changed to incorporate the conquered people while the latter did not.
>at the same time loves the Roman Empire
Citation needed nigger, there's plenty of sjw morons hating on the roman empire too.
I understand you see all posts authored by this guy Anonymous, but really he's not actually one guy.
>What the Romans ask is that you shut the fuck up and you pay tributes.
And also accept their colonists, who are unruly and can't be called to answer local laws in most situations, and make you literally a second class citizen in your own land.
And also send you the most rapacious individuals to govern you, after giving them basically a moral mandate to fiscally rape you to enrich themselves through bribes if not outright theft.
Let's be honest, Rome wasn't all that different from most other empires. Their strength was that they treated foreign cultures as subordinate (like federal law takes precedence over state law) rather than trying to eliminate or ignore them, which made the locals want to step up to citizen status rather than stay a shitty peregrine.
Because the ancestors of the people the Romans oppressed and subjugated went on to identify with the Romans as their ancestors, too. Same reason the French don't think of the Franks as invaders, but think that of the Moors.
Pretty sure colonialism is more about extracting resources and exploiting the territory to simply line the colonisers pockets.
Rome was simply interested in expanding it's territories, and people could often keep previous cultural practices as long as they pay money.
Not to mention that plenty of people do acknowledge some of the horrors of the Roman empire (watch Spartacus), but since it contributed so much to western culture, unlike colonialism, people give it a pass.
>but at the same time loves the Roman Empire?
Where'd you hear that? Romes been known for its brutality for quite some time.
>colonialism is more about extracting resources and exploiting the territory to simply line the colonisers pockets
>Rome was simply interested in expanding it's territories
And why do you think that was? Because money. Spoil money, trade money, land lease money (the state lended and sold public land conquered), resource money (like mines and shit), etc.
Hell Hispania Lusitana and Hispania Tarraconensis were basically conquered so as to access all them iron mines. Gaius Marius made most of his money that way.
this and this >Conquer other than your nation territories?
check
>Force your own culture on them?
check
>Force your own religion on them?
Okay, Romans win this one, but not by that much, see early Christian sects or Druidism in Galia. They basically only accepted Greek and Egyptian Gods and that is because they saw similarities with their own.
>Force them to speak your language?
check
>Enslave resistant original population?
check
There was seriously no difference. Romans even also considered racial differences as a factor, same as empires post 1700
>but since it contributed so much to western culture, unlike colonialism, people give it a pass.
>unlike colonialism
Spot on comrade, humanity made no progress what so ever in the last three hundred years. God, kids like you deserve to be slapped.
If you think the cultural contributions of colonialism are anywhere near the same level as Rome then I think reddit will be more to your speed.
>Druidism in Galia
I'd like to point out that Rome wasn't averse to celtic religion, which really they considered (and mostly was) as a local version of their own, which equivalent gods and all. Rome was averse to the druids specifically, because they incited rebellion all the time (not only against Rome, against any chieftain that didn't agree with their diktats too), and they were basically religiously sanctioned brigands, kidnapping and murdering their own people all the fucking time. Most celtic tribes were extremely happy to help out the romans in weeding them out.
Tanned ! = brown
You know, i could waste my time and write ten to twenty posts, thoroughly explaining my opinion.
But the issue is, if you see the progress humanity made in last three hundred years as lesser than progress humanity made in 400BC - 400AD, then you are a literal retard and it would be pointless.
Well let's be fair here, Rome literally civilized half of Europe, whereas most former colonial nations are nowadays no more civil than before colonization.
Not trying to side with anybody here, but could anybody please explain why do people ignore the fact that Roman statues have white facial features and as of latest research, their skin (on the statues) was literally white?
>most former colonial nations are nowadays no more civil than before colonization.
They have fucking Iphones in Peru. Do you people even think about what are you saying?
Perfidious Albion cares not for truth
>could anybody please explain why do people ignore the fact that Roman statues have white facial features and as of latest research, their skin (on the statues) was literally white
For the same reason why people think modern italians: ideological/political convenience.
>white facial features
When it comes to the religious differences between the empires, its about the religion.
Romans had no "ultimate truth" in religion, so they felt no need to force anything on other. Whereas most of early colonialism idealism was powered by "bringing the truth of God to the unbelievers"
>Force your own culture on them?
>check
Rome did nothing of the sort.
>They basically only accepted Greek and Egyptian Gods and that is because they saw similarities with their own.
Wrong, interpretatio graeca involved the Celtic religion as well.
>racial differences
They had no concept of race and mixed with everyone.
And then Rome converted to Christianity, and suddenly it did.
>They had no concept of race
True.
>and mixed with everyone
Hilariously false until at least the adoptive emperors if not later. The romans were so unbelievably racist (in the national rather than biological sense) they considered borderline foreigners even other italians. Just go read all the shit the likes of Cato (born 15 miles out of Rome) and Marius (born in Latium) had to deal with.
>Rome did nothing of the sort.
They made the administration Roman, started Roman colonies, forced people to learn Latin, made any non-Romans non-citizens etc. That is more or less how west "forced" colonials to accept their culture as well.
>Wrong, interpretatio graeca involved the Celtic religion as well.
Okay, i went a bit overboard there, all those polytheist religions seem pretty acceptive toward each other.
>They had no concept of race
Call it a nationality then. No matter how you call it, they still had a sense for people of a certain group having certain attributes.
These are two different groups of people though, maybe there is some overlap at the edges
this, I feel like a lot of the people who would have circlejerked over the glory of britannia ruling the waves, savages being conquered just moved their area of study over to the ancients, since it's far more acceptable to glorify Roman generals and accomplishments
They didn't make the administration roman, they only placed a governor there to act as a supreme executive to command troops, deal with diplomacy, and arbitrate disputes. Cities retained their own administration model, the local ethnarchs were in charge of actual administration.
They also didn't force anyone to learn latin. Of course it's kinda convenient to understand what your ruler wants from you (and he's sure not gonna bother learning your language), so people still learned it.
>brown
/pol/ please leave
holy shit do you not even understand how stupid you seem right now
you people are the reason why discussion on this board is impossible
>but could anybody please explain why do people ignore the fact that Roman statues have white facial features
Err... not really.
>most former colonial nations are nowadays no more civil than before colonization.
Protip: After the Romans left there were a few hundred years where the former Roman colonial territories weren't much more civil than before colonization either.
Most plebs call that period the Dark Ages.
Fucking moré is masculine???? Lrn 2 Slav