If people under the ottomans were still roman, why did only few islands still refer to themselves as roman when ottoman rule fell?
- 4
- 2
-
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.
How long it took them to become "richest region in Europe"? 500 years? More?
So these advances were as great as during the late republic - late empire era? Dark age Italia had it's own famous library of Alexandria? They were building great aqueducts and basilicas? Because, from what I remember, they were basically mostly scrapping and reusing ancient monuments instead.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about "dark age" - that is early medieval. Not late medieval. "Medieval age wasn't dark" people usually like to focus on the late medieval states while somehow forgetting it took them more than 500 years to reach that state.
Kingdom of Naples. Founded in 1282. So it took them only 800 years to catch up then. Great success!
Ah, yes, the dark age city of Rome. Fantastic example of dark age supremacy over the ancient Rome. The desolated shadow of itself, full of abandoned or reused ruins of old monuments which no one could rebuild is a true example of Italian dark age supremacy!
I consider them Romans because they were Romans (explained many times earlier). I also never said that you are not a Roman, so again I have no idea what you're talking about and I suspect you also have no idea what you're talking about.
If it's true that you live in Rome (I have no reason to not believe you) then you're Roman, in the "resident of Rome" sense. I also told you that you have Roman ancestry. But you're not "ancient Roman citizen" since there is no ancient Roman state anymore.
Oh, what a shameful racist I am! Woe! I openly dare to say that immigrants from anywhere (be it Africa, other European states, Asia or whatever) can become exactly the same Italians as Italians with 100% Italian ancestry, what a shame! Why I can't be as anti-racist as you, who said that "Polish people won't become Chinese if they receive Chinese citizenship"! Why I can't share your anti-racist belief that African immigrants with Italian citizenship can't become Italians! Shame on me!
That's cool. I have no idea why you wrote it since it's basically what I'm saying since the beginning, but it's cool that you shared it.
Stop writing nonsense please.
First of all we don't know how many people referred to themselves like that and second thing 400 years and attempts to convert/asimilate probably did its job.
When it comes to "why Greeks did not restore the Roman Empire in the XIX century" - it's a bit complex topic. It doesn't mean some of them didn't try:
Megali Idea - Wikipedia
- 4
- 2
Everybody talks about what is Rome, but no one ever asks how is Rome
- 9
- 1
If you think someone is being racist on the forums, then report it. Get the mods to check it out.
- 7
You didn't answer my question. The genetic heritage of people used to be called race, and is still called so by some. Then it used to be called ethnicity, and is still called so by quite a lot of people. If some newspeak committee has now decided that the term ethnicity is racist, at least in that context, then what is the currently acceptable term?
- 1
- 1
I'm ignoring you because what you are writing doens't even make sense. Since where the term ethnicity is racist? I didn't claim it to be and I am using it; what I'm saying is that some people are using the term ethnicity while meaning something different while carrying a racist argument
- 2
- 2
And
I have noticed that while you both disagree with me you also disagree between you. Since I have very little time during the week I'll ask you two to agree about whatever and I'll argue against only one of you. I think it's only fair since I'm only one roman
Still, you both have something in common. So touching...
- 1
- 1
I have to say this, the works for the next year jubilee are giving some headache to to the cityEverybody talks about what is Rome, but no one ever asks how is Rome
Again....
Became Italian (because he was granted citizenship) but that didn't remove his Ghanaian ancestry. He's an Italian citizen with full Italian rights equal to all other Italian citizens but he's of Ghanaian ancestry/heritage/ethnicity. His ethnicity didn't change. It's Ghanaian. His citizenship changed from Ghanaian only to both Ghanaian and Italian (unless he volutarily revoked his Ghanaian citizenship, such things are possible, but it's pretty unlikely since on instagram he posted he's proud of it).
If you emigrate to Poland and get Polish citizenship you will become a Polish citizen, therefore a Pole. But that won't make you lose your Italian ancestry. You'd be Polish of Italian ancestry. Or Polish Italian. Or both Italian and Polish, however you'd like to consider yourself, all these options are valid.
They will be Italians (born to an Italian parent) of Ghanaian ancestry (because his parent is of Ghanaian ancestry). They will have Italian citizenship since birth, but they will be eligible for receiving Ghanaian citizenship due to "right of blood", since they will have "Ghanaian blood" given to them by their father. Again - it's nothing racist, that's simply how jus sanguinis works and how a lot of governments decide who can get citizenship and who can't that way.
It can change in the course of centuries because that "blood mix" can change significantly in time. If Balotelli's descendants will stay in Italy and marry people only of Italian ancestry for few generations - their Ghanaian ancestry will still be there, but it will be weakened by the growing "Italian ancestry" to the point where it would be probably quite unlikely for them to regain Ghanaian citizenship (because the government of Ghana may decide that having one Ghanaian ancestor 150 years earlier isn't enough to automatically grant it to such person).
I have one confirmed ancestor of Rus/Vlach ancestry in particular generation at the beginning of the XIX century. It means I have a tiny amount of Rus/Vlach ancestry. But that doesn't make me of Rus/Vlach ethnicity mostly, because my ethnicity is dominated by Polish ancestors. That Rus/Vlach woman on my tree is one of the 28 direct ancestors of the same generation, that means in that generation she's responsible for about 3,6% "blood". In short - that heritage is still there, but it's negligible. I can say I have Vlach/Rus ancestors, but until few months ago I wasn't even aware of it at all - not because it didn't exist, but because no one remembered it after all those years.
EDIT: my bad, one of 32 ancestors (counted wrong because my tree is incomplete, but the number has to be 32 since it's 2>4>8>16>32). That makes the "blood %" even smaller than 3,6%.
Again - you're desperately trying to read what's not there.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
That haha reaction is from me. For me, what I wrote makes enough sense, but unfortunately I can't make sense out of many of your arguments. Again you're saying that the term ethnicity does not mean something and people are using it in a racist way. What I was asking for, what then, could you tell, might be the term for those things that in your view aren't ethnicity but so many people use the term ethnicity for.
But I'm actually quite happy to be ignored, a nice way out of this.
On Roman citizenship, Caracalla granted it to nearly every free inhabitant of the Roman Empire, and Claudius before him granted it to many Gallic provincials. The importance and value of Roman citizenship diminished over time, and by the time of the late empire, being a Roman citizen was more a formality than a mark of elevated status or significant privilege. Only in the East did Roman citizenship continue to maintain some level of significance until at least the 7th century.
But to be honest, I'm a bit lost trying to follow what exactly is being discussed now.
But to be honest, I'm a bit lost trying to follow what exactly is being discussed now.
- 2
As an American, this remains absolutely fascinating.
For what it's worth I would say my ethnicity is Norwegian-American, even though the youngest member of my family that speaks Norwegian was born in the 1920s. So Mario Balotelli's ethnicity is Ghanaian-Italian, and the greeks were greek-romans, until they dropped their roman identity throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
For what it's worth I would say my ethnicity is Norwegian-American, even though the youngest member of my family that speaks Norwegian was born in the 1920s. So Mario Balotelli's ethnicity is Ghanaian-Italian, and the greeks were greek-romans, until they dropped their roman identity throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
- 5
The Anglo-Saxon to English "ethnicity" thing is actually quite simple.
They because English once Normans, who were much more culturally different from Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were to each other, took over and they were lumped together as "English" by the conquerors.
A better one would be to examine when Romanized Britons became Welsh, Cornish, or Bretons (the last one required a move to the former Gaul).
Ethnicity is semi-sticky but also socially shifting depending on the viewer. But, since it generally is highly localized, West African migrants to the USA will all simply become "Black African immigrants" or even just "Black" upon arriving to the bulk of society. They can of course identify with whatever ethnicity they choose, but at some level the bulk of people in any area decide how a person's ethnicity will be assigned for culture as a whole. I don't know for sure how this works in Italy. I am somewhat skeptical that indigenous Italians simply accept the incoming black migrants as "simply Romans, Latins, or Italians" without any additional hyphen or other "dividing line" being involved. But, perhaps you're right and Italy doesn't work like everywhere else in the world I've ever had experience enough with to get how this works well. I also know that even if an immigrant identifies as Ghanan-American or even simply American in the USA, most people are just going to see "black" or "black with an unusual accent".
- 4
I can't speak to white America as a whole, but I definitely see a major difference between modern African immigrants and black Americans, the many cultures of the first are definitely not part of the second, from what I have seen at least.
- 3
- 2
I reccomend you to read this reddit post about it"Charanis is known for his anecdotal narrations about Greek Orthodox populations, particularly those outside the newly independent modern Greek state, who continued to refer to themselves as Romioi (i.e. Romans, Byzantines) well into the 20th century. Since Charanis was born on the island of Lemnos, he recounts that when the island was taken from the Ottomans by Greece in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to each village and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the island children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. "What are you looking at?" one of the soldiers asked. "At Hellenes," the children replied. "Are you not Hellenes yourselves?" the soldier retorted. "No, we are Romans," the children replied."
Peter Charanis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
- 3
- 3
- 1
Now I understand what you're saying:
Aquila SPQR is using the term ethnicity as "nationality" and some mix of ancestry ex: he's saying that if someone is given a nationality he becomes that ethnicity
Lord Lambert is using the term ethnicity as "race" ex: immutable and assigned at conception, mute over the course of many generation
The term ethnicity means neither of that, while it interact in some form with both concept.
It usually refers to group identity based on culture, religion, traditions, and customs.
Balotelli is a good exemple of this discussion:
I say he's italian (lombard if we want to be extremely precise) with gahanian ancestry and italian nationality
Aquila is saying that he was gahanian untill he received italian nationality, and this is how nationality works and not ethnicity
Lambert is saying that he is gahanian and his descendent will be gahanian (in part) too, and that's how race works
I kind of agree and disagree here, anthropology it's not the easiest argument.
The first immigrants are usually the ethnicity of where they came, like the first wave of italian in american were sicilians, neapolitans etc...; but their children will grow in an american context with american people, the italian-american ethnicity it's an american sub-group and it's very disconnected to the italians ethnicity; west africans immigrant's descendents if they remain in the Usa will became an american ethnicity. If I remember correctly they call themself "black american" and not "afro-american" and there is some tension between the two groups (but this is another -interesting- story
We don't really use hyphen (italian-american in italian is italoamericano) and we usually merge words to indicate the italian ancestry (ex: an argentinian with italian ancestry is a italian-argentinian / italoargentino) while to indicate italians with foreign ancestry we usually don't say or if it's important to the discussion we say directly the ancestry (ex: Balotelli is italian, but if we're talking about immigration we could call him italian with african parents/african ancestry). Italy it's the original melting pot of the western world, even since the roman republic the ancestry of someone did mean very little
Here you can identify an immigrant or a local just by accent, the italian dialects are pretty wild and hard to replicate even by other italians; it would take many years to have a "natural" accent of a place if you're not local; Balotelli for exemple has a very heavy bergamasco accent. Now that I think about it, I believe that in Italy the dialect and accent of a person is the strongest cultural indicator.
That said, to anyone that wants to argue about ethnicity you can do it against the literal definition:
a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
- 4
Forgot to reply to you.
I'm not 100% confident when speaking about other culture but my take about america is that most ethnic subgroups are sometimes divided by ancestry, like italian-american, norwegian-american, irish-american; and this is on a group basis: you're Norwegian-american because you're part of the Norwegian-american (ethnic) group and you lived in the Norw-Am culture. It's not the same for Balotelli, there isn't a Ghanaian italian group and he grew up in an italian (lombard) context.
American and italian's way to assimilate a migrant population are different and while I'm not confident enough to point out the reasons I can clearly see the effects; immigrant's descendents in american base part of their identity on the ancestry while in Italy immigrant's descendents "go all in" on the identity of where they live; almost every immigrant's descendent I met has strong ties to the local community and has some of the most typical and stereotypical characteristic of their place
- 2
Thanks. So, I gather that the currently acceptable term for race would be ancestry. I think that in some contexts there could be some ambiquity on whether one is talking about racial/genetic ancestry or noble/royal ancestry. Or if one says "his ancestors include many good footballers" does that refer to the person's direct ancestors (father, grandfather, etc) or more generally his race or ethnicity. Oh well, language is hard.
- 2