• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Because you are already another ethnicity (Pole if I understood correctly)

But being "Roman" is not related to any nationality. I can be a Pole living in Rome which would make me a Polish Roman. "Roman" in this case is just "person who lives in Rome". That's it. Nothing more.
If you moved to Warszawa (Warsaw) then you'd become a "Włoski Warszawiak" ("Italian Varsovian"). It works both ways and there's nothing racist here.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But being "Roman" is not related to any nationality. I can be a Pole living in Rome which would make me a Polish Roman. "Roman" in this case is just "person who lives in Rome". That's it. Nothing more.
If you moved to Warszawa (Warsaw) then you'd become a "Włoski Warszawiak" ("Italian Varsovian"). It works both ways and there's nothing racist here.
No, ethnicity is not based where you live but where you grew up, the people you interacted during your early life, the experience you have during your formation years. It's a shared background of a group of people. To be an ethnicity you have to be exposed and "live" that ethnicity during your youth.
If you had been adopted when you were 2years old in Italy and never knew anything about Poland you would have been Italian (Or more precisely one of the italian ethnic group); in Greece it would have made you a Greek. But you grew up in Poland and you are now a pole, you can't change ethnicity but your childrens would not necessarily be polish. If you migrate to america and you have some kids with another polish but the all your grand-children know are american things and the english language the would be americans with polish ancestry. That's exactly how America functions, people living there are mostly ethnic american even if all their great-grandfathers were from Europe
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
No. It isn't.
So how are you "english" and not Anglo/Saxon/Norman/Whatever? Would your kids, and the kids of your kids and so on be english till the end of time?
I'm curious to know your answer to this questions, because knowing you from youtube and twitch I think you are just heavely misguided and just "accidentaly racist"
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think you are just heavely misguided and just "accidentaly racist"
I am not a racist, accidental or otherwise, and there is nothing on my channel or in my posts on these forums that would lead any rational thinking person to that conclusion.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am not a racist, accidental or otherwise, and there is nothing on my channel or in my posts on these forums that would lead any rational thinking person to that conclusion.
You're saying that people are the ethnicity of their parents. That's racist and one of the main declaration of the extremist-right-wing who hate immigrants and say there is an "invasion".
You are saying a racist thing, the question is you're doing accidentaly or not. And at this point I'm starting to think you're not misguided

So how are you "english" and not Anglo/Saxon/Norman/Whatever? Would your kids, and the kids of your kids and so on be english till the end of time?
Why aren't you responding to these easy questions?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
You're saying that people are the ethnicity of their parents. That's racist and one of the main declaration of the extremist-right-wing who hate immigrants and say there is an "invasion".
You are saying a racist thing, the question is you're doing accidentaly or not. And at this point I'm starting to think you're not misguided

So how are you "english" and not Anglo/Saxon/Norman/Whatever? Would your kids, and the kids of your kids and so on be english till the end of time?
Why aren't you responding to these easy questions?
a couple definitions of ethnicity:

"the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent."

"a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a people of a common language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment."
 
Here, you should read it

For those who can't open the link:

a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups

From the same link, a bit below

"ethnicity | American Dictionary"
"a large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group"

So, there are characteristics of individuals that are passed on via genes. Some of those characteristics have been used to group people into races. That term is now considered racist. Then the term ethnicity or ethnic origin or something like that was used. Apparently that's not usable any more either. What is a currently acceptable term?

Please don't say that such groups don't exist at all. Yes, many people mate with people from other groups and thus the groups get mixed, but most mate within their own group and the groups continue to exist. In many cases, a person's origin can be guessed just by looking at him. But even when we ignore visible traits, there are genetic traits and hereditary medical conditions, evident from a blood sample without ever seeing skin color. Groups exist. What term can be used for them?

Also note that acknowledging the existance of those groups is not the same as valuing people differently by their group of origin or somehow actually oppressing them based on it. So that acknowledgement should not, by any sensible definition of racism, make a person a racist.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
a couple definitions of ethnicity:

"the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent."

"a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a people of a common language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment."
In the US (at least as far as I'm aware) we typically use the first definition. Or stated another way, ethnicity is mostly a synonym for ancestry. An Italian American is someone whos ancestors came from Italy. The only people we'd describe as "ethnically American" would be the native Americans.

My family has been in the US for a long time and yet I'd never describe my ethnicity as "American". The idea of doing so seems wrong in some nebulous way.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
So how are you "english" and not Anglo/Saxon/Norman/Whatever? Would your kids, and the kids of your kids and so on be english till the end of time?
Why aren't you responding to these easy questions?
I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with a response, but I will answer this. I consider myself English, because, though I have an interest and a love of pre-Norman britain, the ethnicity of those Anglo Saxons in England has been mixed so much with that of the Normans, and the Danes before them, that calling myself Anglo Saxon just... isn't correct any more.

As for my child, he's half English, half Finnish, what with my wife being Finnish and all.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You're saying that people are the ethnicity of their parents. That's racist and one of the main declaration of the extremist-right-wing who hate immigrants and say there is an "invasion".
You are saying a racist thing, the question is you're doing accidentaly or not. And at this point I'm starting to think you're not misguided

He's saying it because that's how it works. Unless you want to think that the entire Italian state is racist because of the jus sanguinis ("right of blood") which is the current law in Italy (and many other states) when it comes to determining citizenship. According to the wikipedia:

Automatic Acquisition of Italian Citizenship:

Descent: Italian citizenship is automatically conferred on individuals born to an Italian parent, adhering to the principle of jus sanguinis.

Birth in Italy: Children born on Italian soil to stateless, unknown, or parents unable to transmit their nationality may acquire Italian citizenship, aligning partially with the principle of jus soli.

Acknowledgement or Legitimation: Children gain Italian citizenship through the acknowledgement or legitimation of an Italian mother or father.

Minor Children of Citizens: Children without Italian citizenship, including those legally adopted under Italian law, can acquire citizenship if a parent holds Italian citizenship. This provision applies from 27 April 1983.

Former Citizens: Former Italian citizens who previously renounced citizenship due to naturalization in another country can regain Italian citizenship after two years of residency in Italy. This provision was governed by the Citizenship Law 555 of 1912 until its replacement.


In short - one automatically become an Italian if at least one of their parents was Italian (works also if the child was adopted). If the child was born in Italy it works only if the parents were "stateless, unknown or unable to transmit their nationality".

That's why Mario Balotelli had to wait until 18 for his Italian citizenship, because while he was born in Italy his parents were not Italian, they were known to be Ghanaian. Therefore he had Ghanaian citizenship. His Italian foster parents never officially adopted him, so he wasn't granted citizenship through adoption.

It all fits, it's all there, that's how it simply works and there's nothing racist in it, you just don't want to accept it.

So how are you "english" and not Anglo/Saxon/Norman/Whatever? Would your kids, and the kids of your kids and so on be english till the end of time?
Why aren't you responding to these easy questions?

Since you so desperately need an answer I can help a little. At the time of Saxons and so on Poland was also divided into tribes which were later united in a single Polish state. Back then people referred to themselves with the tribe names. One was "of the Polanie" and other "of the Wiślanie" and so on. But, after the tribes were unified - the sense of ethnicity started to change. Tribes stopped to matter that much and people were just thinking of themselves as "of the [insert name of the region]". Then the early modern times arrived and the concept of nations and nationalities. People living in Poland noticed that they speak basically the same language, follow similar customs and feel united to other people within their state and different from other nations in other states. At that time no one really remembered to which tribe their ancestors belonged 800 years earlier because no one cared anymore. It wouldn't make any sense after all, since 800 years is a lot of time and every person who lived in the XIX century had more than 100 000 or more direct ancestors in the time of tribes, so all those XIX century people were a mix of dozen different tribes of Polish and even non-Polish origin, so it'd be difficult for them to track their origin to one particular tribe.

So - the genes simply travel down the line, transmitted from parents to kids. We can poetically call those genes "blood". 1000 years ago there were tribes and kids born in a tribe became members of that tribe. People married within the tribe, intermarried between different tribes and kept track of who is a member of which tribe. When tribes stopped to matter they forgot which tribe they belonged to (some forgot after 100 years, some after 200 years... it's a lot of time, especially when you're not a scholar, can't write/read and have to work hard on your farm). When the idea of nations emerged descendants of those people started to think that they are Polish. And therefore, just like in the time of tribes, kids born to Polish parents are Polish by "blood".

The kids in the future will still be Polish, as long as they will remember that their "blood" is Polish. It'd be difficult for them to consider themselves Polish if for 300 years they lived in Australia and had no idea they had any Polish ancestors after all. But, at the same time, there are millions of Poles in foreign countries, descendants of Poles who emigrated or were forcefully resettled by Russians who still remember their heritage and are part of the Polish nation and though they usually don't have Polish citizenship (as they were born in foreign countries without the Polish government's knowledge) they have the right to regain it without any problems as long as they will present a proof (document) that at least one of their parents or grandparents or two great-grandparents were Polish.

When Polish parents move to Italy and have kids - those kids will be Polish. Even if born in Italy, speaking Italian since the age of 2, eating pasta every day and not knowing the taste of żurek. That's how it works, since that's what both Polish and Italian law say. Parents were Polish - therefore kids are Polish according to Polish law. Nationality of the parents is known and they aren't Italian - kids aren't Italian according to Italian law. They can speak Italian fluently and know zero words in Polish and yet they will still be Polish, not Italian. That's what the law says.

They will become Italian if they get their citizenship through application, since Italian law states:

Continuous Residence: Individuals born in Italy to foreign parents who have continuously resided in Italy from birth to adulthood are eligible to apply for citizenship.

After that they will be Italians of Polish ancestry, but also Polish as well, since no one can take that away from them. And since they will be Italians (of Polish ancestry) now, their kids will automatically be Italians due to "blood", as they will be as Italian as any other.

I would suggest you to read a bit more about how it works and stop with this rather pointless distraction.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I'm not going to dignify your ignorance with a response, but I will answer this. I consider myself English, because, though I have an interest and a love of pre-Norman britain, the ethnicity of those Anglo Saxons in England has been mixed so much with that of the Normans, and the Danes before them, that calling myself Anglo Saxon just... isn't correct any more.

As for my child, he's half English, half Finnish, what with my wife being Finnish and all.
Why you consider yourself english and not Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Dane? You said ethnicity is determined at concepition by the ethnicity of the parents, so at what point your ancenstors became english while not having english parents?
Your child would be half-english-half finnish. Would your grandkid be a quarter english, yur grandgrandkid an eighth and so on. There is a point when this english ethnicity just doesn't exist? You don't consider yourself part dane or saxon (only as an exemple, ndr) even if probabily one of your ancestor were.
 
the sense of ethnicity started to change
as long as they will remember that their "blood" is Polish


But isn't ethnicity a "unchangeable and given by the parents"? So you think people can be a different ethnicity from parents and granparents

Btw ethnicity and citizenship are two distinct things, you can be ethnically something while having a cityzenship (like basque people have either spanish or french cityzenship)
 
From the same link, a bit below

"ethnicity | American Dictionary"
"a large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group"

So, there are characteristics of individuals that are passed on via genes. Some of those characteristics have been used to group people into races. That term is now considered racist. Then the term ethnicity or ethnic origin or something like that was used. Apparently that's not usable any more either. What is a currently acceptable term?

Please don't say that such groups don't exist at all. Yes, many people mate with people from other groups and thus the groups get mixed, but most mate within their own group and the groups continue to exist. In many cases, a person's origin can be guessed just by looking at him. But even when we ignore visible traits, there are genetic traits and hereditary medical conditions, evident from a blood sample without ever seeing skin color. Groups exist. What term can be used for them?

Also note that acknowledging the existance of those groups is not the same as valuing people differently by their group of origin or somehow actually oppressing them based on it. So that acknowledgement should not, by any sensible definition of racism, make a person a racist.
Racial origin can be one of the element, like for the afro-american. But this is an exeption and not the rule.

While the aspect of a person can be an indication of his ancestry it usually has very little to do with his actual ethnicity. Since there are ethnically italian people with a very black skin we can easily conclude that one's appearance doesn't define his ethnicity.
 
But isn't ethnicity a "unchangeable and given by the parents"? So you think people can be a different ethnicity from parents and granparents

It is unchangeable. The problems start to arise when both parents don't remember they are Saxons anymore because Saxons stopped to matter few centuries earlier. Also, because number of direct ancestors doubles with each generation (two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so on) each modern person had about 1 000 000 direct ancestors in the times of Saxons, so basically each one of us is a huge genetic melting pot of almost everyone living in the entire area, so it is rather difficult to pinpoint one specific tribe their ancestors belonged to. These modern people of course still have Saxon ancestry, so theoretically can be considered "Saxons" (Russian propagandists often calls English "Anglo-Saxons" today), but since Saxons doesn't matter anymore as they lost their statehood 1000 years ago (do not confuse with Saxony) - it would look a bit strange.

Btw ethnicity and citizenship are two distinct things, you can be ethnically something while having a cityzenship (like basque people have either spanish or french cityzenship)

The same rule works within Basques. Ethnically Spanish person from Sevilla won't become Basque just like that. In order to be Basque you need a Basque parent. When it comes to Basques it's even more evident since Basques are quite an enigma and there is a lot of articles about their "genetic uniqueness". Genetic = "blood".


I do remember that I have roman blood. Am I roman?

Being modern "Roman" is not something transmitted by "blood", as it means just "person who lives in Rome". Anyone can become Roman by moving to Rome and any Roman stops really being Roman when they move out of Rome (Roman who moved to Warsaw stops being Roman and becomes Varsovian. He can still think of himself he's Roman, but officially he isn't anymore as he doesn't live in Rome anymore). It has literally nothing to do with any blood or genes and that's something we told you few times already.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why you consider yourself english and not Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Dane? You said ethnicity is determined at concepition by the ethnicity of the parents, so at what point your ancenstors became english while not having english parents?
If every one of my ancestors only bred with other Anglo Saxons, then maybe I would still call myself an anglo saxon. But they didn't.
What point they became English? No idea. As I am from the North of England, and as far as I am aware, my ancestors werent great movers, then in all likelihood, it was later than those in the south adopted English. But when exactly it was I have no clue.
Your child would be half-english-half finnish
Is. He is 8.

Would your grandkid be a quarter english, yur grandgrandkid an eighth and so on.
Well that all depends on who my son ends up having children with.
There is a point when this english ethnicity just doesn't exist?
Yes. I am not American, so I don't track blood down to the 1/256th ;)
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What point they became English? No idea
But you agree that there was a point when one of your ancestor were english but none of their gandfather were. Then ethnicity it's not predetermined by the ethnicity of the parents and you were wrong
Well that all depends on who my son ends up having children with.
So at some point one can lose the ethnicity of one ancestor, so it's not determined by the ethnicity of the parents and you were wrong

It is unchangeable. The problems start to arise when both parents don't remember they are Saxons anymore because Saxons stopped to matter few centuries earlier.
Which one? It is or it isn't, there is no inbetween. If a kid is adopted and learn of this very late in life they're the country of origin ethnicity or the ethnicity where they grew up?
any Roman stops really being Roman when they move out of Rome
All my parents outside the city still are roman, I would still be roman if I go everywhere else. It's my ethnicity not my citizenship.

If a polish person go to china they don't became chinese, they remain polish. Their children may be chinese maybe
 
But you agree that there was a point when one of your ancestor were english but none of their gandfather were. Then ethnicity it's not predetermined by the ethnicity of the parents and you were wrong
No. I consider it the same way I do evolution. Our ancestors way back were Homo Erectus. We are now Homo Sapiens. There was not a specific individual that was Homo Sapiens with Homo Erectus parents. It is a gradient.
So at some point one can lose the ethnicity of one ancestor, so it's not determined by the ethnicity of the parents and you were wrong
Yes, ethnicity does not change over an individual scale, but it does over the scale of many many generations. And no, I wasn't :)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So at some point one can lose the ethnicity of one ancestor, so it's not determined by the ethnicity of the parents and you were wrong

You don't lose anything, you can only forget about it because your ancestors stopped to care about it and the knowledge disappeared, just as it happened to 99,9% of everyone's ancestors. But that ancestry is still in your genes what you can easily check by taking any commercial "DNA Ancestry" test.

Which one? It is or it isn't, there is no inbetween. If a kid is adopted and learn of this very late in life they're the country of origin ethnicity or the ethnicity where they grew up?

They are both. If an Italian citizen found out that he had Polish grandparents then he would be both Italian and Polish, more commonly referred to as Italian of Polish ancestry. What is it so hard to understand here?

All my parents outside the city still are roman, I would still be roman if I go everywhere else. It's my ethnicity not my citizenship.

Well, you're free to believe it just as you're free to believe in literally anything else, but that won't automatically make it true.

My dad comes from a small village in the south-eastern part of Poland. I was born in central Poland, raised here and spent all my life here. I visit my dad's village every year because I have family there, but I would never consider myself as "of that village". Simply because I don't live there. And it doesn't matter that my dad was born there and spent first 20 or so years of his life there and that his parents spent all their lives there. Residency is not something transmitted by blood, but by keys to your apartment.

If a polish person go to china they don't became chinese, they remain polish. Their children may be chinese maybe

They will become Chinese when they will receive citizenship. They will be both Chinese (were granted citizenship) and Polish (did not lose citizenship). Their children will be both Chinese (children of Chinese citizens) and Polish (children of Polish citizens).

Sweet Jesus, you asked me to "stop being racist" while you constantly cling to the ideas like "immigrants can't become X", so it seems that in your opinion Black people from Africa "can't really become Italians, even after receiving citizenship" but at the same time you adamantly claim that Ghanaian child who gained Italian citizenship at the age of 18 is 100% Italian. Someone can't transmit their Polish or Chinese ethnicity by blood if they move abroad, but you can transfer your "Roman one" by blood even if you move outside of Rome. Just make up your mind because nothing you write makes any sense.


Returning to the topic - you've just wrote:

If a polish person go to china they don't became chinese, they remain polish. Their children may be chinese maybe

So, according to your logic:

If a Greek person lived in Roman Empire they don't became Roman, they remain Greek. Their children may be Roman maybe.

Finally you admitted that "Greeks" can become Romans, even though you constantly refuse to accept the fact and effect of 212 edict of Caracalla. So, because you finally admitted it - can we just move on?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: