Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The last Romans are still around

signoregalilei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 245 posts

Re: The last Romans are still around

#131

Post by roysting »

derdi wrote: post #122
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #30

This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…

None of these statements are meaningful without a definition on your part of what it means to be "Ancient Roman" in a genetic sense. Do you mean, say, a handful of villagers living in the area of today's Rome on 21 April 753 BCE? I'll grant you that those were possibly a homogeneous bunch. Anything later? Definitely not. Trying to pretend that there is something like a clear genetic definition of "Roman" is... what d…

[flagged]

Re: The last Romans are still around

#132

Post by benj111 »

frollogaston wrote: post #104
benj111 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't know why this was down voted I have noticed a trend of challenges to unspoken assumptions being down voted. I don't know if it's being read as being argumentative/low effort. I agree with you and the parent. How do you define ethnically Roman? Those from the city of Rome? Some average of the empire? What about when it split in 2? Is ethnicity even important? What ethnicity do you have to be, to be USian??? Bri…

Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though

Ok. So is a french person more British than a 5th generation black person?

Surely 'ethnic americans' are Native North Americans?

This is the thing. Ethnicity gets wrapped up in a value judgement. We don't want to talk about ethnic Americans, but are willing to talk about ethnic Britons. Which then implies some rights those ethnic groups should have. But I would dare say the majority of 'ethnic Britons' wouldn't identify as British.

So I'd rather not use it in a way that conflates nationhood with ethnicity.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#133

Post by Tade0 »

r0m4n0 wrote: post #63

My name is Roman (father was Italian born in Rome and identifies as a Roman) and I always find it interesting that people try to speak something that sounds like Russian to me. Never thought about the fact they might think I’m Romanian and are speaking Romanian!

Like others stated, it's more likely they assume you have e.g. Russian roots, as among Slavs that name is the most popular in territories where Cyrillic is the primary script.

Romanian sounds way more like Italian than any Slavic language.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#135

Post by trashb »

parineum wrote: post #114
trashb wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethnicity is hard to define and a term that spurs a lot of debate. Therefore I think it is best avoided in serious discussion. For America (and in extension the american continent) it is quite clear who is ethnically native, actually it is probably one of the clearest examples there is partly because it is near in history. And already it gets messy when you dig deeper because of limited record keeping etc. Broadly in…

You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate. Ethnicity is entirely arbitrary, that's why it should be avoided. For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Ehy aren't they Asians or even Africans? There is cu…

  You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate.
I take language and debate serious.

  For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Why aren't they Asians or even Africans?
Yes I have arbitrarily decided, based on the later influx of people (in my view) other ethnicity from other continents. It is a divide I used as an example, there are more divides.

Ethnicity is arbitrary precisely because it is not clear what the boundaries of it are. I used Native Americans as an example, we all trace back to a few individuals in Africa. However Ethnicity is not just the genetics, it also includes culture, language, history, traditions and more. and it includes a component over time for example: "They have been living like this for x amount of years"(since after a war or similar displacement event) can be a divide in ethnicity.

You could subdivide ethnicity all the way until you reach the lineage and environment of a single individual. There are lots of ethnic differences between Native American tribes for example.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#136

Post by benj111 »

avadodin wrote: post #113
benj111 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also lb for Pounds come directly from Rome And pre decimalisation. In the UK Pence was shortened to 'd' which I understood to refer to the Roman Dinari.

It's denarii, barbar.

Sorry, Denarii. Barbar seems to refer to Denarii minted by barbarians? but the AI result didn't come up in English?

Ps And don't call me Barbar.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#138

Post by pm3003 »

derdi wrote: post #122
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #30

This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…

None of these statements are meaningful without a definition on your part of what it means to be "Ancient Roman" in a genetic sense. Do you mean, say, a handful of villagers living in the area of today's Rome on 21 April 753 BCE? I'll grant you that those were possibly a homogeneous bunch. Anything later? Definitely not. Trying to pretend that there is something like a clear genetic definition of "Roman" is... what d…

Well we've got to define something ... I'd opt for something like Latium natives of 750-300 BCE, adding Etruscans. My point is to exclude Magna Graecia, because it would make it harder to make an ethnocultural statement or conclusion.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#139

Post by pm3003 »

le-mark wrote: post #112
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #30

This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…

> Genetically, the nearest populations to Ancient Romans are Cypriots I’ve often wondered what the ethnicity of ancient Romans actually was. Looking at pictures of Greek Cypriots on google was enlightening. The “Roman nose” is quite prominent for many people!

Half of Italy was ethnically Greek / Hellenized (Kai tu teknon!).

Re: The last Romans are still around

#140

Post by throwthrowuknow »

trashb wrote: post #110
frollogaston wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though

Ethnicity is hard to define and a term that spurs a lot of debate. Therefore I think it is best avoided in serious discussion. For America (and in extension the american continent) it is quite clear who is ethnically native, actually it is probably one of the clearest examples there is partly because it is near in history. And already it gets messy when you dig deeper because of limited record keeping etc. Broadly in…

Comparing Britain and the Americas is a category error. Even comparing England to the USA would be incorrect.
Post reply on HN