3 ms·

It's like everything, one small part of a groups give the rest a bad name. There are a small group that "make the most noise" and give a bad impression. I can

It's like everything, one small part of a groups give the rest a bad name. There are a small group that "make the most noise" and give a bad impression. I can admit I did have n impression from bad experiences and did find myself generalising but after working with and meeting many more Romanians, great friends and great people overall, it sounds stupid saying it out loud now, but they're just like everyone else. Personally I try to be more aware of those conceptions, articles like this though just seems to want to put "Romas" into a group too.

throaway89 2y ago
Roma and Romanians are two different things.
- misinfo2024 2y ago
  > articles like this though just seems to want to put "Romas" into a group too. GP is well aware of the distinction but wants to erase the unique, Indian in origin, identity of Roma - classic european cultural genocide. Also this article is a hit piece on Romania. It claims: "When slavery was finally abolished in 1856, the 250,000 Roma slaves – around 7% of the Romanian population at the time – received no reparations, while their abusers were handsomely compensated" Yet Romania was founded in 1859. Furthermore, Roma people were not enslaved by the Orthodox Church. They were already enslaved when brought by the mongols from India during their campaigns of invasion. And finally, many of these "palaces" are built using stolen money usually from western europe. Such acts have done great damage to Romania and Romanians.
  - bilekas 2y ago
    > classic european cultural genocide Umm.. What ? > They were already enslaved when brought by the mongols from India during their campaigns of invasion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, that all Romanians are Indian in origin ? You're grouping everything all in together as the article did. > And finally, many of these "palaces" are built using stolen money usually from western europe. Again im lost here as to what you're referencing, some links maybe to follow up with this.
    - misinfo2024 2y ago
      [dead]
    - adrian_b 2y ago
      "Romanians" may refer to citizens of the country "Romania", or to a nationality to whom the majority of the citizens of the said country belong, together with many others who are citizens of the countries located around Romania. "Roma people" or "Romani people" is a synonym for gypsies, which is considered less offensive and politically correct, like using "African-Americans". "Roma people" exist in all Europe, but most of them are in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. There is no special connection between "Roma people" and "Romanians", except that Romania is one of the countries of Eastern Europe where many "Roma people" live. The accidental similarity between the politically correct name for "Roma people" and "Romanians" has produced thousands or tens of thousands of incorrect news and comments in the media of USA and Western Europe during the last few decades. The most plausible hypothesis about the origin of the name "Roma people" is that they have taken this name during their passage through the Byzantine Empire, because the Byzantine Greeks called themselves "Romaioi", i.e. "Romans".
pfannkuchen 2y ago
> after working with and meeting many more Romanians Just want to mention that Roma and Romanians are two different peoples. I have also worked with a bunch of Romanians, and I agree they are just like everybody else. Though I’m a little confused why there is both the Italian looking type of Romanian and the Dracula looking type. I’ve never looked into the history there. I don’t think either one is Roma broadly speaking (though there are Roma in Romania I believe, as there are in Germany and elsewhere). I think the issue people have with groups like the Roma isn’t that they are fundamentally defective or something like that. It’s that they don’t consider themselves to be part of the broader national society, and so they put the interests of their own group above the interests of those outside of their group, to the extent that they may go so far as to harm those outside of the group to benefit those inside the group. This is actually a very natural human tendency, and I think it has to be socialized out of most people during childhood, or else they would do it too (assuming they had a group to do it with). It’s basically the same as how Americans put their interests above the interests of people from most other countries. Except instead of happening between people in different countries, it happens between people in the same country.
- misinfo2024 2y ago
  > Though I’m a little confused why there is both the Italian looking type of Romanian and the Dracula looking type. It's self explanatory. Romania was the name of the Roman Empire, in vulgar latin, starting around Diocletian, and Romanians are descendants of Romans (lierarily colonists from spain, italy, the balkans, and anatolia mixed with what was left from the dacians), as documented by literarily all classic and modern historians starting 80 AD after the Roman invasion of the former kingdon of Dacia by emperor Trajan. Not even Romania's arch enemies dispute that. Over thousands of years, the country was invaded by various peoples, including slavs, hungarians, and mongols - the latter bringing in Roma (Indians) as slaves. Thus the genetic mix and variation in apperance. It feels like this article is classic misinformation and classic british anti Romanian propaganda. Does not belong on HN. Edit: be great if whoever downvotes would actually disprove my comment with facts. I am happy to provide links ranging from Cassius Dio to modern historians to those interested in genuine facts.

throaway89 2y ago

Roma and Romanians are two different things.

misinfo2024 2y ago
> articles like this though just seems to want to put "Romas" into a group too. GP is well aware of the distinction but wants to erase the unique, Indian in origin, identity of Roma - classic european cultural genocide. Also this article is a hit piece on Romania. It claims: "When slavery was finally abolished in 1856, the 250,000 Roma slaves – around 7% of the Romanian population at the time – received no reparations, while their abusers were handsomely compensated" Yet Romania was founded in 1859. Furthermore, Roma people were not enslaved by the Orthodox Church. They were already enslaved when brought by the mongols from India during their campaigns of invasion. And finally, many of these "palaces" are built using stolen money usually from western europe. Such acts have done great damage to Romania and Romanians.
- bilekas 2y ago
  > classic european cultural genocide Umm.. What ? > They were already enslaved when brought by the mongols from India during their campaigns of invasion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, that all Romanians are Indian in origin ? You're grouping everything all in together as the article did. > And finally, many of these "palaces" are built using stolen money usually from western europe. Again im lost here as to what you're referencing, some links maybe to follow up with this.
  - misinfo2024 2y ago
    [dead]
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    "Romanians" may refer to citizens of the country "Romania", or to a nationality to whom the majority of the citizens of the said country belong, together with many others who are citizens of the countries located around Romania. "Roma people" or "Romani people" is a synonym for gypsies, which is considered less offensive and politically correct, like using "African-Americans". "Roma people" exist in all Europe, but most of them are in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. There is no special connection between "Roma people" and "Romanians", except that Romania is one of the countries of Eastern Europe where many "Roma people" live. The accidental similarity between the politically correct name for "Roma people" and "Romanians" has produced thousands or tens of thousands of incorrect news and comments in the media of USA and Western Europe during the last few decades. The most plausible hypothesis about the origin of the name "Roma people" is that they have taken this name during their passage through the Byzantine Empire, because the Byzantine Greeks called themselves "Romaioi", i.e. "Romans".

pfannkuchen 2y ago

> after working with and meeting many more Romanians Just want to mention that Roma and Romanians are two different peoples. I have also worked with a bunch of Romanians, and I agree they are just like everybody else. Though I’m a little confused why there is both the Italian looking type of Romanian and the Dracula looking type. I’ve never looked into the history there. I don’t think either one is Roma broadly speaking (though there are Roma in Romania I believe, as there are in Germany and elsewhere). I think the issue people have with groups like the Roma isn’t that they are fundamentally defective or something like that. It’s that they don’t consider themselves to be part of the broader national society, and so they put the interests of their own group above the interests of those outside of their group, to the extent that they may go so far as to harm those outside of the group to benefit those inside the group. This is actually a very natural human tendency, and I think it has to be socialized out of most people during childhood, or else they would do it too (assuming they had a group to do it with). It’s basically the same as how Americans put their interests above the interests of people from most other countries. Except instead of happening between people in different countries, it happens between people in the same country.

misinfo2024 2y ago
> Though I’m a little confused why there is both the Italian looking type of Romanian and the Dracula looking type. It's self explanatory. Romania was the name of the Roman Empire, in vulgar latin, starting around Diocletian, and Romanians are descendants of Romans (lierarily colonists from spain, italy, the balkans, and anatolia mixed with what was left from the dacians), as documented by literarily all classic and modern historians starting 80 AD after the Roman invasion of the former kingdon of Dacia by emperor Trajan. Not even Romania's arch enemies dispute that. Over thousands of years, the country was invaded by various peoples, including slavs, hungarians, and mongols - the latter bringing in Roma (Indians) as slaves. Thus the genetic mix and variation in apperance. It feels like this article is classic misinformation and classic british anti Romanian propaganda. Does not belong on HN. Edit: be great if whoever downvotes would actually disprove my comment with facts. I am happy to provide links ranging from Cassius Dio to modern historians to those interested in genuine facts.