Madonna booed in Bucharest for defending Gypsies

It is, for how the Romans integrated themselves in with the Dacians.
That's what the Romanian nationalists would like you to think, but Daco-Roman continuity as the Vlachs is only one of the competing theories about the origin of the people eventually called Romanians. There are several others, including a slower cultural influence, from the south (for many think it to be unlikely that a hundred years of Roman occupation in Dacia would have created a sufficient basis for a Latin-speaking population that would survive for centuries longer despite innumerable migrations by non-Latin-speaking peoples), and the migration of Thraco-Romans northward during the Völkerwanderung.
 
That's what the Romanian nationalists would like you to think, but Daco-Roman continuity as the Vlachs is only one of the competing theories about the origin of the people eventually called Romanians. There are several others, including a slower cultural influence, from the south (for many think it to be unlikely that a hundred years of Roman occupation in Dacia would have created a sufficient basis for a Latin-speaking population that would survive for centuries longer despite innumerable migrations by non-Latin-speaking peoples), and the migration of Thraco-Romans northward during the Völkerwanderung.

Call me indoctrinated then, since I can only conceive the Dacian-Roman integration as the logical explanation. Don't get me wrong, it probably was a bit more complicated than that, so culture and influence would have played a part in it, but the main theory still holds water IMO.
 
Call me indoctrinated then, since I can only conceive the Dacian-Roman integration as the logical explanation. Don't get me wrong, it probably was a bit more complicated than that, so culture and influence would have played a part in it, but the main theory still holds water IMO.
I myself am not that familiar with the subject but it seems unlikely that the native tongue would have been totally Latinized in the space of about a century and survive invasions by other peoples, viz. Goths, Huns, Alans, Gepids, Magyars, Slavs, and Cumans/Qypchaqs, all of whom settled in whole or in part in that territory. Obviously the Romans had at least some lasting impression in Dacia, but I wouldn't credit their occupation with all that much weight. Then again, I'm not really sure how much the following centuries could have contributed in terms of the spread of a Latin language among the general populace, either. :dunno: So no, I wouldn't call you indoctrinated.

Just don't ask a Romanian or a Hungarian about this (or about any points of history having to do with their countries really :3), neither side can see the other's point of view and generally ignore salient events or points in the other's favor. It's not even confined to the Internet either.
 
Defiant47 said:
Except I don't assume there is an association with two similar names.

Of course there is...? I assume that the Romulans are a happy coincidence as well!

Defiant47 said:
You know, there is also a Roma city in Romania. So which did they come from then?

Copy of the original.
 
Of course there is...? I assume that the Romulans are a happy coincidence as well!

Usually when you make assumptions, you're wrong. There's a saying around here:

When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Here's what Wiki has to say about it, anyways:

Romani usage

In the Romani language, rom is a masculine noun, meaning "man, husband", with the plural roma. Romani is the feminine adjective, while romano is the masculine adjective. Some Romanies use Roma as an ethnic name, while others (such as the Sinti, or the Romanichal) do not use this term as a self-ascription for the entire ethnic group.[17]
 
Defiant47 said:
When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

STBalofTerror.jpg


The Romulans approve of your lack of humour. I would have thought that the whole Romanians = Roma = Romans = Romulans thing was kinda obvious considering the circumstances. Heck, even if I didn't make it blatantly obvious, kulade certainly did.
 
I dont know if it will help, but Gypsies in West were called Bohemians because was thought that its their homeland. From its also derived life style called Bohemianism. There is also some difference between Roma and Romani.
 
The thing you all need to remember is Madonna is a baby stealing whore. Even if she's right, even a broken clock is right sometimes, she's still a baby stealing whore.

I've got to tell you Bast, this post alone has made you absolutely skyrocket in my estimation
 
Romania was formed in 1859.

So? riiiight... I'm sure all the institutions and, well, everything in Romania began in 1859. I doubt it.

Romania existed, it just wasn't a state in 1859, in fact it wasnt even a state after that.

some gypsies were indeed slaves in the 19th century

Not some, but most.
 
STBalofTerror.jpg


The Romulans approve of your lack of humour. I would have thought that the whole Romanians = Roma = Romans = Romulans thing was kinda obvious considering the circumstances. Heck, even if I didn't make it blatantly obvious, kulade certainly did.

:lol::lol::lol:

I have failed gloriously! :lol:
 
STBalofTerror.jpg


The Romulans approve of your lack of humour. I would have thought that the whole Romanians = Roma = Romans = Romulans thing was kinda obvious considering the circumstances. Heck, even if I didn't make it blatantly obvious, kulade certainly did.

Is the one up front getting raped:eek:
 
Defiant47 said:
I have failed gloriously!

On a more serious note I probably shouldn't have been calling Romanians dirty Gypsies :blush:. I now know to reserve that for the actual Gypsy scum.
 
Back
Top Bottom