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

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: The last Romans are still around

#211

Post by carlosjobim »

ericmay wrote: post #200
carlosjobim wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter much if they called themselves American? The tribes and nations on the continent were certainly more related to each other than to the arrivals from other continents. Just as European tribes and nations were more related to each other than to faraway peoples. And African tribes and nations. The "American" described in your quote there by Crevecoeur is not an American in any ethnic sense. Any modern non…

If you’re following this line of reasoning then even the “native” Americans aren’t actually native because they migrated here too. Further, the concept of “America” referring to what is geographically the United States today isn’t a concept that was held be tribal peoples. It wouldn’t have ever made sense to describe them in this context as the original Americans because they never held such a concept themselves. Als…

America is a real physical landmass. Two actually. "American" is to be understood as those ethnicities from that physical and very much existing landmass. Whether they called it America or not, which they of course didn't. The same thing for discussing Australian native ethnicities for example.

Otherwise we have to argue that dinosaurs didn't exist, because they had never heard about Pangea.

> Also, tribal peoples, whether that’s in Europe or elsewhere are defeated and destroyed and swallowed up by other tribes and civilizations and over the long arc of history lose the status of being original as they are absorbed into a new entity.

Well it's not true, because of genetical heritage. It still exists, and now in modern times we can study the human genome better than ever. It is messy, it is overlapping, but it's not unworthy of study and curiosity. They weren't swallowed up and disappeared, genetically speaking. Very rarely would a genocide be complete, because conquerors would take the women at least from the conquered.

Being ethnically Roman was not the same as being a Roman citizen or Roman subject. The tribes which ethnically were Roman can be found listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_tribe

Here is more about Roman citizenship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

Just like in ethnical nations today, you can become a citizen by virtue of birth ethnicity, or by other procedures. And just like a foreigner cannot belong to any ethnicity or nation just because she has citizenship today, neither could they in Roman times.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#212

Post by TheGRS »

I feel like that wasn't nearly as interesting as the title promised. The stuff that I find fascinating about modern Europe against the Roman Empire is how it carved out the modern dividing lines in some areas, or seeded cultural roots that would become their own thing over time (the British being a pretty interesting one). But its all so long ago that all of the other influences that happened over time are probably bigger hallmarks than their Roman roots (like the British again, being invaded by the normans and vikings).

Re: The last Romans are still around

#213

Post by carlosjobim »

bloppe wrote: post #196
carlosjobim wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, as does everybody, all the way down to the core family level. Persons make up families, which make up clans, which make up tribes, which make up nations, which make up races. You are part of subdivisions within subdivisions, by heritage. Different persons give different value to each subdivision - or no value to them at all. The native Americans would absolutely consider themselves as more similar to each…

Your clean-sounding taxonomic framework tends to be much, much messier in practice, but ok. As so often happens, I think this boils down to a vocab disagreement. Normally, you would refer to the ethnolinguistic group as "Latins". "Roman" is much more closely associated with the populus romanus, which was defined by citizenship.

It is messy, but that's why it is beautiful and interesting. It couldn't be any other way, seeing as it takes a man and a woman to make a child.

Once you loose the knowledge of your ancestry that connection is lost forever, until the end of time.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#214

Post by carlosjobim »

notfromhere wrote: post #202
carlosjobim wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Native American Indians are exactly ethnic Americans. The rest are from other ethnicities. Just as there were (are) ethnic Romans.

"America" is a place name created by Europeans and "Americans" an identity created by their descendants. So there's no "ethnic" Americans because its an invented social identity.

No, the landmass physically exists and people existed there before European discovery, no matter what you call the place. They were and are the native people of America - hence the "Americans". As opposed to the people who came there recently from Europe, Asia and Africa mainly.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#215

Post by romanusrome »

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…

[dead]

Re: The last Romans are still around

#217

Post by gorfian_robot »

TheGRS wrote: post #212

I feel like that wasn't nearly as interesting as the title promised. The stuff that I find fascinating about modern Europe against the Roman Empire is how it carved out the modern dividing lines in some areas, or seeded cultural roots that would become their own thing over time (the British being a pretty interesting one). But its all so long ago that all of the other influences that happened over time are probably b…

plus roads

Re: The last Romans are still around

#218

Post by tar0m »

prox wrote: post #95
tar0m wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Roman, this is a bit painful to read. I will play fair and assume you are not trying to say that the only thing there is to my city is tourist attractions. The answer is no (and you can easily look this up). SPQR has been used continually since the Roman Empire, through the Middle Ages, by the Fascists and into the modern era by the current administration. You will find it everywhere, even far removed from touri…

Since the first word means Senate, does any of the Roman municipal bodies consider them to be a Senate like body? As a Roman, how do you relate to the far past? I mean you must have grown up with so many reminders of the Roman legacy in day to day affairs.

Interesting questions. For the "senate" part, I'm not sure but I would lean towards no. SPQR is mostly a symbol nowadays and doesn't necessarily refer to its original meaning. The modern political status of Rome is messy, with some degree of independence by virtue of being the capital, but not nearly enough when you compare it to other Western capitals. It's an ongoing debate.

In terms of the far past, well... there are reminders of it in every nook and cranny of the city. It's beautiful and you only realize this when you leave for a bit and then come back. Most people are just used to it. Personally, I feel a sense of continuity: you can read about some obscure anecdote in a history book and then walk over to the place where it happened. Or you walk by a building and find a plaque describing some event from 5 centuries ago. Many Roman roads and neighborhoods still exist today and have kept their original names. If you go to a big concert, chances are the venue will be the Circus Maximus. I think most residents don't realize how crazy that kind of continuity is. It's not just the Ancient Romans either: there's plenty of stuff from the Middle Ages, when Rome was essentially the capital of a theocratic state, very different in spirit from the Roman Empire.

The most interesting thing for me is looking back at the ancient Romans and realizing how much of a different mentality they (probably) had, compared to today. At least in the early and middle stages of the empire, they were efficient and ruthless, but also cosmopolitan and had a very clear notion of the public good. They had enormous resources and they would use them, for example, to build gigantic villas for the top guys, but also to build public housing for workers that they knew they needed. Today we don't have that kind of "laser focus", as we would call it. Modern Rome is messy and decadent, we can barely paint a few bike lanes and keep the wild boars off the streets. Times change :')

Re: The last Romans are still around

#219

Post by romanusrome »

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…

[dead]

Re: The last Romans are still around

#220

Post by salemh »

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!

[dead]
Post reply on HN