I'm from Belgium and the thing I don't get is, at school I was taught how great the Romans were...

one respects their betters.
The Romans get praise because they excelled far beyond anything most of their neighbours accomplished, not because they were on "our" side or because they fit our modern norms on morality.

Colonialism gets criticism because people dont like imperialism anymore, and it isnt far away enough like Rome to give praise. It also co-existed with a lot of schools of thoughts valueing equality, justice and liberty and people think this sort of zeitgeist means everyone believed in it, and thus colonialism was hypocritical.

They wanted to make money. They made money. Their goal was achieved.

Combing your point with OP's question-

Slavery "wasn't" the bad part (I mean, it's bad)-

racism was

/pol/ can redpill you on how African warlords supplied the slaves to colonial powers, but to see your slaves as literal animals like monkeys as opposed to a lower class of citizen was a new concept.

Depends on which period of European colonialism, considering OP is Belgian the only colony they had was in the 19th century after they confiscated it from the king because of his inappropriate business practices so I'm assuming that's the historical lens they use

* combining

Victim culture

>my ancestors :)
Kys my man

>Le accomplishing meme

underrated post.

Life in the iron ages was exceptionally shitty. Romans made it slightly less shitty.

Life in the post-enlightenment period was the beginning of a great flowering of human achievement. The colonialists made the world slightly more shitty.

It's always a matter of placing things in historical context

Rome was still glorious despite its cruelty, Belgium was not.

Libshits are just mentally ill and want to drag rest of us down with their weak mentality. Transfer libshit to roman times and they would try to guilt trip them too.

West is/was great therefore fuck niggers and other animals.

But the Belgae were actually his ancestors Amerimutt.

But you arent related to ancient belgian, LARPer

Modern belgian people are just germanic, LARPer

All this "muh congo". Anglo lies. You literally invented concentration camps.

Xenephon told Greeks to treat slaves as domestic animals. Many Greeks saw other peoples as Barbarians that were good for nothing more than slavery. It may not have been as scientifically rigid or institutionalized but plenty of ancient peoples saw their slaves as closer to animals than men.

>comfy roman thread
>he brings up the greeks and their corruptive influences

>idolizing Romans
>not realizing they were people LARPing as Greeks who got a little out of control.

Go to bed Hannibal.

>but I do get the feeling Romans get off way too easy
Or the marxist propagandists just want you to hate your recent ancestors for literally no other reason than being better than everyone else

all other civilizations in the world worked the same way, the only difference was, western civilization was the most successful and crushed all other civilizations and conquered every single part of the globe. It's something you should take pride in, no matter what the ugly marxist cockroaches say.

Even by the standards of that time, exterminating entire cities was considered bad. I don't understand that Romans aren't portrayed as genocidal criminals by our current ethics.

This. This on so many levels.

>everyone who disagrees with me that might makes right is a marxist

Because it's questionable at best to say you're related to Belgic tribes from 2000 years ago where as there has likely not been THAT much of an ethnic "watering down" of Belgiums from the colonial times to modern day.

Also because our record of ancient history is 95% based on Roman propaganda as recorded by "historians" so they are always painted in the most positive of light.

>Belgian/Germanic tribes
Belgians were Celts not Germanics

As for Modern Belgians only Walloons descend from the Old Belgians, Flemish are invaders

>Belgians were Celts not Germanics

A statement rooted entirely in Caesar's Propaganda of the Gallic War.

Making cut and dry statements like this is not wise.

The Enlightenment happened before New Imperialism of the late 1800's and early 1900's.

It's by no means clear but given that the Belgae in Britain were certainly Celts we can say that at least some Belgic tribes were Celtic.

Belgian is a celtic name and so are the names of every Belgian leaders, tribes, gods, cities, and so on

Flemish are invaders, only Walloons are the Natives of Belgium

I hope the west collapses soon. I can't wait for the rise of Islam in Europe. We'll take over your countries and enforce Sharia Law.

Marxist cockroach here, the white race is about to see it's last stand. We've been working closely with the Jewish Bolshevist to import our people into your countries. Soon there'll be none of you left. Your culture and values will disappear.

The term Belgae was created to describe a zone where Germanic and Celtic culture and people became hard to distinguish.

This area is the modern day Low Countries, Northern France, and large areas of West Germany.

Also I've never heard of any Belgic people in Britain. Germanic people and cultural elements didn't spread there until the Anglo-Saxon Invasion.

There were Belgians in Cornwall, and there were Parisians in Yorkshire

This man knows of what he speaks. Belgae, Aquitania, Trans/Cisalpine Gauls all inhabited peoples, whose main written record comes from Caesar, that were neatly classified into artificial subcategories that was easily digestible for the Rome public. The term Gaul and Celt are used interchangably to point where they have literally meaning and since geneologically classifying these people is nigh impossible we have to do it culturally from reports as told by people invading or being invaded by Celts, chief among them Caesar.

Saying these people on this bank are Celtic and this people on that bank is moronic as even Caesar relates that there was constant cross-cohabitation between tribes.

Belgae isn't a cohesive group as a just explained though. And Parisi are a definite Celtic tribe from the area we call Paris today, not Belgic.

Belgian is derived from what the latin word Caesar used to collectively refer to the region where specific tribes resided. The names of the majority of famous Belgae are AGAIN as reported by Caesar after transcription from what was reported to him by other tribes, in the most charitable assumption, or fabricated to draw a connection between peoples to justify hostilities, in the least charitable assumption. Please read a book.

>Belgae isn't a cohesive group
There were Atrebates too, the same tribe than in Belgium

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrebates

>Belgian is derived from what the latin word Caesar

Wrong

Belgian comes from the Proto-Celtic *bolg "to swell"

>Please read a book.

Do the same

>The term Belgae was created to describe a zone where Germanic and Celtic culture and people became hard to distinguish.

No, it's a Celtic word used to denote part of Gallia. Modern scholars are divided on whether they were Celtic or Germanic, the ancients (who coined the term) were not.

>Also I've never heard of any Belgic people in Britain.

So you're completely ignorant of the topic but feel the need to lecture others about it? Fuck off back to wherever you came from, dinky-dick homo newfag.

Caesar never used the term Gaul, this is a Germanic word meaning "foreigners" or "Romanized Celts". If you can't even get something this basic right, I'm certainly not going to take anything else you claim seriously.

I can Ad Hominem too. Thankfully I'm a more cultured restrained person who can admit when he doesn't know things.

So, I concede, there were Belgic people in Britain. But for your first point. You're wrong, it was still invented by the Romans.

The Romans invented a Celtic word? And you admit there were Belgae in Britain and that they were Celts, but still deny that any Belgae were Celts?

>invented by the Romans.

Germanic is a name invented by the Romans but certainly not Belgian

It's not an ad hom when I address your argument and then insult you, moron.

>The term Belgae was created to describe a zone where Germanic and Celtic culture and people became hard to distinguish.

I never said they weren't Celts. I said some were Celts, but some were possibly Germanic or a mix of the two. Hence, hard to distinguish. Since it was an area of interaction between two cultures.

I don't think you understand what derived means. The Belgae did not refer to themselves as Belgae, if that isn't entirely obvious from the latin root on the word I don't know what is. What the etymology of the word is has NOTHING to do with the relations to other peoples during that time. That same article you want to quote to substitute for a lack of knowledge base on the subject as states:

"but that at least part of the Belgae may also have had significant genetic, cultural, and historical connections to peoples east of the Rhine, includingGermanic peoples, judging from archaeological, placename, and textual evidence.[19][20]It has also been argued based on placename studies that the older language of the area, though apparentlyIndo-European, was not Celtic (seeNordwestblock) and that Celtic, though influential amongst the elite, might never have been the main language of the part of the Belgic area north of the Ardennes."

So please read a book.

It is not a Celtic word you dunce. It's a latin word that was a transcription from a Proto-Celtic root word.

>Caesar never used the term Gaul
thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml

For the last time, read a damn book.

>>Caesar never used the term Gaul
>thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml
>For the last time, read a damn book.

Show me where Gaul appears in that book. I'll wait.

You keep failing to explain how a word like Bolgos was transliterated as Belgae and applied arbitrarily to a vast group of people. Also Germanii supposedly comes from a set of Celtic words too.

When I say it was invented, I mean it's a misleading term applied to a lage group people for political reasons.

The people who lived in that region were a group of many tribes with many names and origins. Most did not ascribe to being "Belgae."

>The Belgae did not refer to themselves as Belgae

Do you have any proofs ? Or are you making shit up ?

>if that isn't entirely obvious from the latin root on the word I don't know what is.

I am a retard the paragraph

Belgian is an obvious Celtic word, the Roman version of the Celtic "Bolgos" is the Latin "Fulgus"

>The Belgae did not refer to themselves as Belgae

Except you're wrong, at least some of them did. For example, the Belgae of southern Britain, or the Atrebates who called themselves "Belgae" despite having another, more specific, tribal name.

Show me where I said he specifically uses the word "Gaul."

I'll wait.

So when I asked you for evidence that Caesar used the term Gaul, you thought I meant "Show me that Caesar never used the term Gaul"? Fucking moron.

>>Caesar never used the term Gaul
>thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall1.shtml
>For the last time, read a damn book.

See how YOU linked this book specifically to refute the claim that Caesar never used the term Gaul?

>Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres
Are you seriously arguing over the difference between Gaul and Gall(ia)?

I didn't think someone was actually making the argument that Caesar literally used the word "Gaul", an anglicized version of Gallia since we are after all not conversing in latin. The link was to prove that Caesar's literal words had "Gallia" and it's derivatives in it and that the Romans used that term. I underestimated the depths to which the bickering has sunk to distract from the ancestryfagging occuring here.

Who cares about what people say.
they dont think or care themselves faggot.
all they care about is sex,food,status.

From a common sense stand point, why would all these people share a common identity. And then continue to exist as warring tribes. It's not like they were in competing city states like Greece, but with a general cultural inheritance? Why would any of these tribes ever see themselves as related to their enemies? The fact that we're arguing about there origin should be proof enough that they weren't a homogeneous group.

hubpages.com/education/The-ancient-Belgae-tribes

>Atrebates
>Ambiani
>Morini
>Menapii
>Nervii
>Aduatuci/Tungri
>Eburones
>Condrusi
>Paemani
>Remi
>Treveri
>Caeresi
>Ubii

Gallia is not related to Gaul, they have completely different etymologies. The modern form of Gallia is Jaille, which is used in several French placenames.

>an anglicized version of Gallia

No, an unrelated word that coincidentally looks similar. "Read a book", as you like to say.

>might never have been the main language of the part of the Belgic area north of the Ardennes

Now i know who you are

You are a Flemish and you claim that Celts and their descents aka the Walloons are not Natives to northern

Let me tell you that archeology-wise(money, graves, and so on) the entire area South of the Rhine was purely Celtic til 300AD, then (You) Frankish invaders came

You are not Natives to Belgium

These might be the dumbest posts I've read in this entire thread.

Walloons are not descended from Celts, the name is a cognate of Gaul and means "romanized Celt" but the people living there today are purely Germanic.

>HURR

I accept your totally graceless admission of failure.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia_(disambiguation)

Does shitposting know no bounds?

Stop LARPing about history. Germanic peeople were already settling west of the Rhine before the Franks even existed as a confederation of tribes.

>wiki

Hahahaha what a dope!

>Jaille
Jaille mean "trash" in French(Angevin and Nantais dialect) not "Gaul"

Gaule is the French of Gallia and Gaulois is the French version of Gallus, Welsche/Wallon/Gallois are the French version of Walha

Isn't the root word of Walloon, Cornwall, Wallachia, and Welsh, all mean something along the lines of "traitors."

collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/gallia
thefreedictionary.com/Gallia
vocabulary.com/dictionary/Gallia
wordreference.com/definition/Gallia

I guess it does not know no bounds.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul
I stand corrected
Somehow, the two words (Gallia vs Gaul) happen to sound the same but are derived from different roots. Gaul does come from German, Walula, in which the w is pronounced ga, and the al becomes an au.
Interesting.
Whats this argument about anyways though? They both mean the same place.
This is me btw

>Gaule is the French of Gallia

Nope. Gaul is a cognate of Wales, it means "foreigner". The fact it bears a passing resemblance to Gallia is a coincidence.

>HURR modern English speakers use Gaul as a translation for Gallia

No shit retard. Now check out the etymology of Gaul and prepare your ass for pain.

>West Germanic *walkhoz "foreigners" (see Welsh)

Since we're finished with Belgica, can we argue whether the Aquitani were Celtic or Proto-Basque people too now.

It doesn't mean anything, your meaning was 100% clear, I am just a massive pedant.

"Vascone" is unarguably related to "Basque".

I know. I was just curious whether people agreed on it.

>Claim to know French better than an actual French
You're truely clueless

fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/jaille
fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gaulois

>The fact it bears a passing resemblance to Gallia is a coincidence

"..."

The fact Caesar singled them out as being unlike the Galli and Belgae suggests they were different.

Go on then mr French speaker, decline for us the Latin Gallia to it's modern French form. Show your working.

Massacring Europeans is ok OP it's when you start killings brown people that things get problematic.

I don't need to decline anything, retard

Ask any French what the French word for "Gallus" is, and he will answer "Gaulois"

>modern usage determines etymology!

Moron.

The jews considered slaves lower than animals in the 600's bc

The muslims considered blacks lower than animals

>claim that "The modern form of Gallia is Jaille"
>prove him wrong
>use the wiktionary
>call me a moron

You stand at the bottom of this pic

Shit map the Irish didn't have any cities until the Vikings built them

>>prove him wrong

Except you skipped this step and went straight to a modern dictionary. You know why you did this? It's because you're a moron.

based flashy

Do you really believe Europe could've supported enlightenment philosophers without the incredible wealth brought in by colonialism?

Yes, the French revolution happened because everyone was starving and France lost most of it's major colonial holdings.

the problem with the above defences based that romans were too far in the past is ignorant due to meta-history where tiny parts of roman civilization still affect us post-enlightenment however with colonialism because of its recency has a direct and large impact on african societies and ways of living thus what the belgians did in the congo still had a roman aftertaste in execution however the enslavement and abuses cannot be compared because of the emergence of classical racism and direct colonial capitalism. in a sense roman enslavement was race neutral and based more upon maintaining general dominance whereas belgian colonialism was more racist and exploitative for profit and not dominance over central africa

>it's only wrong when white people do it to non-whites

Hi /leftypol/

It's not though. We recognize that Arabs practiced race based slavery too. Please don't make false assumptions.