Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?

iulian   Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:25 pm GMT
No, Reason is my religion , Ravinescu is just a victim of the communist brainwashing machine (that is how it can be explained his distorted way of thinking).

He is a poor sad bastard who spends hours to write posts on forums , and hours to search "reliable" books to back them up, as i said before history was written by the ones who held the power, history is driven by politics.

THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT ABOUT A PEOPLE WHO THEY ARE IS TO ASK THEM WHO THEY ARE!

Ravinescu = an obsessed person with no personal life , so i ask you HOW DO WE "KILL" THE ONE WHICH HAS NO LIFE?

As for the original question "Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?" the answer is again NONE. Lets start a new thread "Which Germanic language sounds more Chinese?" ( noticed the sarcasm?).

This will be my last post on this forum, my last statement would be : please try and ignore Ravinescu, let him be with his slavic crusade.

I salute you all with respect, all good things. LOVE:X
OriginalGuest   Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:44 am GMT
I see that you people talk about the Transylvanian School and I have a few mentions to bring here:

About the Written Romanian Language:

1. Most Transylvanian catholics converted to Protestantism during the Reform. Most political power was held in the hands of the Protestants
2. The Transylvanian Romanian Orthodox church was placed under Calvinist supervision and officially the church was of a mixed Orthodox-Calvinist nature, at least in the official teachings. For example the Orthodox Bishop was not allowed to visit parishes without Calvinist "companions" that had to control and make sure that the Bishops teach the proper Calvinist doctrine. The common Romanians were however not particularly impressed by Calvinism.
3. It is the Romanian Calvinists (not Orthodox or Catholic or Orthodox-Calvin) that were the FIRST to use Romanian for religious purposes, this happened during the Reform

About the Transylvanian School:

4. After the absortion of Transylvania into the Hapsburg Empire the power traditionally held by the Protestants swayed in the Catholic direction
5. It is under those circumstances that the Latinist Romanian identity was literally FABRICATED by Rome and it had as primary goal the conversion of all Romanians to Catholicism and the breaking of all historical identity connections that the Romanians had with the orthodox Slavs. This was helped by the mass conversion of the neighboring Russyn people to catholicism.
6. By 1918 50% of Transylvanian Romanians were Catholics and the Latinist and Catholic ideology regarding the Romanian people was prevalent in educated circles (almost all Romanians of good social stature were Catholics and somewhat culturally hungarianized).

About Wallachia and Moldavia

7. After the Reform, the Transylvanian Romanians "exported" the WRITTEN romanian language to Wallachia and Moldavia and the Transylvanian dialect was the standard written dialect
8. Moldavia was under a long standing Polish cultural influence (often political and military) which made the Moldavians traditionally more friendly towards the Catholics and the West than the Wallachians
9. It was mostly Wallachia where the Greek and Serbian influences were strongest
10. After the Phanariotes are kicked out of the country (despotic non-local christian greek&balkan collaborators with the Turks imposed as Domni(Lord/Prince/King) of Wallachia and Moldavia for 125 years by the Sultan despite the terms of the armistice) the Wallachians sought a new basis for their identity. They rejected the greeks and the other Balkan people (they were quite literally deported/kicked out, otherwise assimilated) and went first torwards the Russians but the Russians themselves begun to adopt western practices and French as language of the Upper Class. As a consequence the Wallachians did the same. By 1848 the Wallachians became mostly westernized but entered in conflict with the Russian Czar that refused western liberalism (by that time Romania was de facto under Russian occupation because it was never actually part of the Ottoman Empire but a vassal with restricted foreign policy).
11. It is after 1848 and the refusal of the Russian Czar to accept the Wallachian and Moldavian demands for liberal reforms did the Wallachians and Moldavians from Romania became anti-Russian and started to reject the Slavic culture and identity altogether. After the 1877 formal Independence from the Ottomans the Russians took Bessarabia which angered the Romanians and triggered a virulent anti-Slavic current.

About The Union of Transylvania with Romania

12. After the Union of 1918 the Latinist current obliterated any residual trace of pro-Slavic sentiment.
13. But the Catholicism was not accepted as part of the identity by the Moldavians and Wallachians
14. The Wallachians started a period of glorification of the Byzantine Empire and the official ideology shifted towards an "Eastern Roman" one, with a basis on eastern Latinity rather than Western Latinity and the Romanians were declared as sole succesors of the Byzantine Empire (even though the Romanians were not part of the Byzantine Empire and most likely not even Christian at that time).
15. The Catholic Romanians were subjected to religious persecution
16. In 1848 they were forcefully converted by the Soviets to Orthodoxy along with the rest of the Catholic Ukrainians and Belorussians as the Catholics were seen as potential spies for the West and a "deviance" away from the Slavic Eastern Culture.

Communism

17. The post-war Russian occupation of Romania was pretty bad as Romania was their former enemy but it did not benefit from the lenience that was shown by the russians towards the Eastern Germans or the Hungarians.
18. An extremely violent and overall brutal pro-Russian Stalinist system was put in place, most communist leaders were non-Romanians at first as there were not enough communist Romanians at first.
18. In this context, Ceausescu came to power as a nationalist communist and became "inspired" by the Juche ideology and set up a heavy surveillance system and a propaganda system against the West, against the East (Russians), against the Central Europeans (mainly hungarians and poles), against the Balkan people, against the Turks, against the Smurfs and everyone else that was not Romanian :). Ironically Romania remained somewhat friendly towards the Americans. Isolationist Totalitarism became the official ideology of the state. All connections with the outside were meant to be cut because they were "corrupting" the romanian people. Independence and isolationism on all levels was sought (economic, cultural, political, military, etc)

After 1989:

19. The Ceaucescu history books were never fully removed but the anti-Western propaganda has been reduced
20. The Romanians are taught that they are the succesors of the Dacians and the Romans
21. There is downplaying of any cultural or ethnic relation with the Slavs
22. For some weird reason it has became fashionable in Bucharest "un"-educated circles to whitewash the Phanariote period and to seek out "oriental" stuff.
23. The historians have finally started to unearth what went on in Romania during the "missing" 1000 years link. The conclusion so far is that the romanians were mostly poor pagan peasants under turanic rule (probably there was present some sort of christianity but proof is unclear). The first informations about the strong turanic influences in Romania are publicly dispatched in the media in this period. The romanian public learns for the first time about the fact that the romanians were pagans, that their leaders were turanic, that the romanian military fashion and tactics were turanic not western or byzantine, etc.
24. The common public emphasizes mostly the cultural connection with Italy, probably seeking acceptance as immigrants in this country. Backwardness, corruption and lazyness are publicly heralded by some as "true" signs of being a latin people and proof of latin origin :).
25. The Moldavians from the Republic of Moldavia and their particular version of Romanian identity have made a strong re-entry in the public discourse, as a result some acceptance of relatedness to the Slavs has increased in Romania.
26. Things are very unclear about the future ideology and identity of the romanians ;)
ravinescu   Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:45 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Dude
Alright, so even if maybe the "Latinity" wasn't the biggest part of Vlach identity for a lot of their history, I do remember reading that Italian travelers or missionaries in the Renaissance era found people in the area that referred to themselves as Romans in some way or another, so they at least had that concept before the 19th century romantic movement.
====================================


The name used by a people is not a valuable proof that can be used to find out its major genetic heritage. For example the french people has its name derived from the name of a germanic tribe (the franks), but the frankish genetic contribution is low when compared with the celtic one (from the gauls). This may also be the case of the russian people, that has a name possibly derived from a viking tribe that established the first russian state, but whose genetic contribution to the formation of the russian population was minimal. So the romanian situation is not at all an exception.

The people encountered by the catholic missionaries referred at themselves as "rumāni", which is probably derived from "romanus". But the connection with the romans was lost from a long time ago, so even if the population used the name "rumāni", they did not suggest that they were the descendants of the romans, otherwise the italian catholic missionaries would have mentioned that. There were no memories left about the presence of the romans, which is absolutely normal, because there was no such presence in Muntenia (southern part of Romania) or Moldova (eastern part of Romania). And in Oltenia, Banat and Ardeal (parts of the former roman province of Dacia) the memories about the romans were also lost with the passing of time, because the colonists brought by the romans were mainly not from the Italian Peninsula and they did not have a strong historical bond with the roman empire.

########################################
Īn acest război [ce a dus la cucerirea Daciei] forţa de luptă a dacilor a fost profund afectată, iar fără Decebal īn fruntea lor nu au mai reprezentat o ameninţare pentru Roma, cum s-a īntīmplat şi cu Pontus după moartea lui Mithridates. Īnsă Traian nu a vrut să mai rişte nimic. Īn 107 a transformat Dacia īn provincie romană, repopulīnd-o cu colonişti care au fost aduşi aici forţat din alte ţinuturi dunărene şi din Asia Mică.

M. Cary, H.H. Scullard: Istoria Romei (editura ALL, 2008) - pag. 506

English translation:
In this war [which led to the conquest of Dacia] the fighting power of the dacians was profoundly affected, and without Decebalus at their command [Decebalus commited suicide after the defeat] they did not represent a threat anymore for the romans, just like happened with Pontus after the death of Mithridates. But Trajan did not want to take any chances [and risk another war]. In 107 he transformed Dacia in a roman province, repopulating it with colonists that were brought by force from another danubian territories [lands situated south of the Danube river] and from Asia Minor [land of present-day Turkey].

M. Cary, H.H. Scullard: A History of Rome (ALL Publishing House, 2008) - pag. 506
##########################################

The historians (romanians and non-romanians) agree on the fact that the colonists that came (or more precisely, were brought) to Dacia were mainly not of italian origin. Also, when the romans left Dacia, it is reasonable to believe that all the persons that could maintain a roman conscience in the population (the teachers, the writers, the artists, basically the intellectuals) also left. This explains why the inscriptions in latin found on the territory of the roman province of Dacia are dated only before the year 250 A.D., but not after that. There was probably nobody left that could write them.

The romanic population that stayed in the former roman province mixed with the autochtonous population not conquered by the romans (the free dacians, carpians, costobocae, etc.) and with the migratory populations that settled on the land. After 1000 years of mixing, one could not say it was a direct and exclusive descendant of the romans (who stayed on the territory for only 165 years). Of course, the romanic language persisted and the name "rumān" was created on the basis of "romanus", but genetically speaking, the romanians from 1275 were not at all close to the romans of the year 275, which is absolutely normal, given the territorial extent on which the romanians lived, much larger than the roman province of Dacia.

The theory of romanians as descending exclusively from roman colonists (of italian origin, no less) was concocted in the 19th century. Later on, the dacians were also added as ancestors of romanians, in order to gain some historical credibility. The daco-roman mix (actually the roman-dacian mix) was used as a method of propaganda meant to help in countering the hungarian claims that hungarians were the first to settle in Transylvania, which they say was a land without any population after the romans left Dacia. This theory of exclusively roman and dacian genetic heritage has no historical basis at all, but because it can serve propagandistic purposes it continues to be used. I presented in the previous message a recent use by the romanian foreign ministry, which wants the non-romanians to believe that the romanian people was formed before the romans left Dacia (3rd century A.D.) from roman colonists and assimilated dacians. This is a completely untrue assertion, because all the historians consider that the romanian people was not formed until the slavs were assimilated (8th to 10th century A.D.). But hey, when did propaganda respect the historical truth?


===================================
Quote from: Dude
And also, how would it explain Aromanians and Istro Romanians, who have somewhat similar languages and names for themselves. They were Romanized populations south of the Danube that instead of incorporating Slavic words into their language took in mostly Greek due to their location.
===================================


The origin of the macedoromanians and istroromanians is a true mistery, and no historian has succeeded in offering an explanation on how those peoples were formed. Based on linguistic data it is assumed that at one time a common romanian language existed, but due to the movement of the migratory peoples (especially the slavs), the population that spoke the common romanian has split into a northern part (romanians of today) and a southern part (aromanians, that live today in FYROM, Greece and Albania). The split occured some 1000 years ago or more. The aromanians of today may be the descendants of a population that lived at first just south of the Danube (on the territory of today's Bulgaria), but migrated southward toward Greece. This is just a theory based on linguistic analysis, not the confirmed historical truth, that must be based on much more than linguistics. As for the istroromanians, also based on linguistic analysis, it seems that they have migrated from Banat and adjacent regions some 600-700 years ago.

But the things are much more complicated, for example many aromanians (macedoromanians, meglenoromanians) do not consider themseleves as being romanians, not even of romanian origin. They call themselves "vlahi" ["vlachs" in english] or "armćni", not "aromāni", as they are called in romanian. And they consider themselves as greeks (those that live in Greece) or macedonians (those that live in FYROM), not romanians. This is normal, they have been separated from romanians for 1000 years or more. The romanian language and the aromanian language are related, they have some striking resemblances, but they are not mutually intelligible. A romanian that hears aromanian speech would most likely not understand very much from what is said. Even the aromanians that live today in Romania have not reached a consensus on what they want to be, full romanians (that speak a dialect of the romanian language) or an ethnic minority (a different people with a different language).
ravinescu   Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:49 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: iulian
Ravinescu - i have nothing more to say to you. If the fact that you are romanian and from București is true, than you are a self-hating romanian. I feel only pity for you and sadness; you have no trace of patriotism left if you never felt PROUD TO BE ROMANIAN AND LATIN; you are a confused sad person who doesn't know WHO he is.
===================================


Being a patriot does not mean that someone should lie or spread propaganda. This is the opposite of patriotism, this is something that tarnishes the image of a country and of its population. One cannot know its true origins without reading history books. If you think that you know your origins because you attended history courses at school you are just fooling yourself. You were brainwashed and you are not even aware of that.

There is no hate in knowing and presenting the historical truth about a people and its language. This truth is already present in the books and anyone (romanian or non-romanian) can learn it by buying those books or reading materials from the internet. If someone wants to be an officially-brainwashed romanian that hates the historical truth, it can do that as a personal option. But spreading lies about the romanian history and language is just plain stupid, because it does not work anymore in the information age. It was bad to spread propaganda 20-50-100 years ago, but today it is bad and also stupid, because lies are easily debunked with the aid of the internet. The romanian propagandists are persons that hate the romanian people, making it to gain a reputation of a people that is not sincere, that always wants to use deception. Who has any respect for a person that is caught lying? Who has any respect for a people that is caught lying about its history? Nobody.


===================================
Quote from: iulian
I can asure you that to the majority of real romanians our national anthem still brings tears of joy when heard. I can only pray and hope that you come to your senses one day althought i think you are lost.
===================================


With every message that you post here, you offer the proof that you are completely out of touch with reality. You are probably living in your own world, one in which romanians are proud of themselves and of their "latinity". Or more probably you are just trying to fool the non-romanians in believing something that is not present in today's Romania. You are completely caught in your own web of lies and you cannot escape from it. And now you are trying to use the emotional trick on the audience in making them believe that you are the typical romanian, proud of his country and latin origin. Wake up and ask the people around you how they feel, do not consider that how you feel is how the others also feel. Do you want to know how romanians feel today, I mean true romanians, not brainless propagandists? Here you go, straight from the romanian internet, so as all the Antimoon audience could decide who is right about the feelings of "romanian pride".

There is a newspaper article written recently in september 2009, that is just 4 months ago. Its title is "I am proud to be a romanian in France, not in Romania". The article was published by a well-known romanian journalist and it actually contains an e-mail sent to the journal by a young romanian physician (M.D.) that emigrated to France. The title of the e-mail is "I am not proud of being a romanian". There are more than 400 comments, and not even 10% of them are written by persons that say they are proud to be romanians and disagree with the content of the published e-mail. The other comments agree with the opinion of the e-mail's author and even offer their own experiences and feelings, similar with those described in the e-mail. The article can of course be translated with Google Translate for those that don't know romanian.

http://translate.google.com/

I provide below the shortened URL to the newspaper article.

http://tinyurl.com/romanian-pride

But there's more. Let's hear another opinions, this time expressed on a gaming forum. Those that participate on these forumus have the age between 10-30 years, so they are a sample of the romanian young population.

The title of the discussion is "Am I proud to be a romanian?". The conclusion of the forum debate is that there is nothing to be proud today in being a romanian.

http://www.linkmania.ro/forums/index.php?showtopic=292817

This forum thread can also be translated with Google Translate.
===================================
Quote from: iulian
Please STOP posting on this forum or any forum my friend cause i can't call you anymore my brother, go where ever you feel accepted. My heart cries when i read your posts. Be what you want to be , be slav if you wish but don't impose your opinions on others, keep them for yourself.
===================================


You're an emotional wreck, you can't take it anymore, you break in tears. Or more probably you're just a lousy forum troll that offers a very bad "dramatic" performance. Just remember that you are on a forum, not on a stage, and if you want to impress the audience you should do more than cry like a baby who learns that Santa Claus does not exist. Be a man before being a "proud romanian", otherwise the audience will believe that all romanian men are intellectual pussies that are not capable of participating in debate of ideas, because they are prepared only for "emotional" debates.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:51 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Anonymous romanian
The way you act on this forum makes me believe that you have a problem, boy! I've noticed you on other "blogs" as well and you just cannot get rid of your obssesions about Romanians and Romanian; I'm sorry but I ahve to say that I"ve never seen something like this. Take a break man, you are about to lose your mind; these are not normal reactions to fill up dozen of pages with Roesler's theories; we are here to discuss at a unacademic level about languges and languages perceptions and nothing more for God sake!
===================================


The above quote is from another romanian that doesn't like to read history books, but likes to lie through his teeth. Hey Anonyromanian, do you happen to know what was the theory of Roesler on the formation of the romanian people? Of course not, you wouldn't be caught reading a history book, it's too much for your brain. Let me tell you then. The historian Roesler wrote that the romanian people was formed on a territory south of the Danube and then migrated north of the Danube in the 13th century and beyond. He suggested that dacians did not took part in the formation of romanians. Where in my interventions of this forum and "blogs" do you have read that I support the Roeslerian theory? Nowhere, because you did not read what I have written and you just tell lies, believing that the audience has not had enough with trolls like you who are only "capable" of failed personal attacks.

The mention of Roesler is another telltale sign of a romanian propagandist. Roesler was an obscure 19th century german historian from Austria-Hungary that launched an hypotesis in his 1874 book "Romaniche studien. Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Rumäniens". The theory was thoroughly destroyed by the romanian historians of the 19th century, but today's historians do not care about it, it was just a theory from 150 years ago. However, in school every romanian is taught that he must hate Roesler for advancing such a theory. The romanian propagandists know that psychological trigger, so when they do not like someone, they say it is a roeslerian so that the romanians would automatically hate that person by associating it with the most hated historian. Very old trick, that probably worked some decenies ago, but today it's just ridiculous and even counterproductive to use it. In a country where a large part of the population wants to emigrate, it is stupid to talk about a historian that denied the continuity of the romanian population on the current romanian territory. Those that want to emigrate are denying themselves this continuity by choosing to settle in another country with their family and consequently depopulating Romania.


===================================
Quote from: Reason Is My Religion

As far as I've read, Ravinescu is a Romanian that smells the bullshit in romanian nationalism and propaganda. He backs up his well thought-out statements with sources. As far as I've read, people against Ravinescu seem to just shout what seems like talking-points that they've been taught as school. Ravinescu is making far more sense here then any other poster here.
===================================


You got it right. But of course they accuse me of posting messages under another pseudonym. It's a big problem with some romanians, they do not want to learn the history of their country, people and language. They have an intellectual laziness that seems completely insurmontable. Propaganda, not the truth, is the friend of the lazy minds and it goes hand in hand with aggressiveness. Do not let you be bullied by those brainless propagandists, they are nothing to fear of, because they reject the knowledge of the truth.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:55 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: iulian
No, Reason is my religion , Ravinescu is just a victim of the communist brainwashing machine (that is how it can be explained his distorted way of thinking).
===================================


When will you stop destroying your credibility? When will you begin to post meaningful arguments, instead of personal attacks? When will you demonstrate that you also have a brain, not only a bad mouth ? Never, because you do not have a brain, you're a propaganda robot and nothing more.


===================================
Quote from: iulian
He is a poor sad bastard who spends hours to write posts on forums , and hours to search "reliable" books to back them up, as i said before history was written by the ones who held the power, history is driven by politics.
===================================


You said you are a student, which I seriously doubt. Otherwise you would have learned that a debate means research and reading from multiple sources before posting conclusions. If you think a debate is a succession of shoutings ("I am right!" , "No, you're wrong, I am right!"), then you must be in elementary (primary) school. That's the age of your mind, based on the refusal to reason like an adult and the continuation of thinking like a child, very emotionally and superficially. Do you really think that there is censorship in today's Romania and only "approved" history books are being published? Then you're living in your own fantasy, that has no relation with the real world. Just enter in a bookshop, it's not that hard, and if you don't have money, go to a public library where you can read books for free. And also learn that there is no censorship on the internet, so anyone can publish anything, there is no need to go to a publishing house these days. Anyone can write about history on the internet, so again your theory of history written by the "powerful" is untrue, just take Wikipedia as an example where anyone can write.


===================================
Quote from: iulian
THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT ABOUT A PEOPLE WHO THEY ARE IS TO ASK THEM WHO THEY ARE!
===================================


Of course this is "the only way", because, you know, people are born with historical knowledge or they absorb it from the atmosphere. So there is no need for specialists. The historians, archeologists or linguists are just parasites that are paid for a thing that is inherited from the genes or inspired with the breathed air. Just ask a romanian who he is, he'll know automatically the "good" answer, without reading history books, because he remebers the history classes from school, and they are enough for all his life.

The above quote from iulian, written in capital letters, is an overt advice for non-romanians to let them be fooloed by romanian propagandists. My advice for non-romanians is to read history books written by romanian and non-romanian historians, they are the specialists that can be trusted, not the anonymous posters on the internet that have all their knowledge from history classes in school.


===================================
Quote from: iulian
Ravinescu = an obsessed person with no personal life , so i ask you HOW DO WE "KILL" THE ONE WHICH HAS NO LIFE?
===================================


Ha, ha, ha, do you think that a quote from "South Park" will recommend you as a person that can participate in a serious debate? Think again, you are just showing what is your intellectual level. Instead of watching animated cartoons you should read books, if you really want to be more than a pathetic propagandist.


===================================
Quote from: iulian
As for the original question "Which Romance language sounds more Slavic?" the answer is again NONE. Lets start a new thread "Which Germanic language sounds more Chinese?" ( noticed the sarcasm?).
===================================


The audience did not notice not the sarcasm, because you are not capable of it. However, it did not go unnoticed your ridiculous attempt to suggest that slavs are for romanians just like the chinese are for germans. Is it all that you can to squeeze from you brainwashed mind? You're irremediably lost for humanity, but you could try a life as an industrial robot.


===================================
Quote from: iulian
This will be my last post on this forum, my last statement would be : please try and ignore Ravinescu, let him be with his slavic crusade.
===================================


Oh the poor iulian, he's tired after posting so many "insightful" propaganda...
Go and wash your brain again iulian, surely you will come for another round of propaganda. This ilness has no cure for you, because history books just burn your fingers and you cannot read them.


====================================
Quote from: OriginalGuest

After 1989:
19. The Ceaucescu history books were never fully removed but the anti-Western propaganda has been reduced
====================================

Not only the anti-Western propaganda was reduced, but it was reversed, so that after 1990 only pro-Western propaganda is present in Romania.


====================================
Quote from: OriginalGuest

After 1989:
24. The common public emphasizes mostly the cultural connection with Italy, probably seeking acceptance as immigrants in this country.
====================================


This is very true. Actually in my opinion the romanian propagandists that brag about their "latinity" are just liars, they do not believe in such a thing. However, they spread "latinist" propaganda because they want to eventually emigrate in Western Europe, USA or Canada and they think that a reputation of "latin people" will help them not to be regarded as some backward eastern europeans, but as the descendants of the romans.

It must be said that there is no real preoccupation with anything latin in Romania. The romanians do not usually read history books about the roman empire or the roman emperors, although such books are available in the bookshops. They are not interested in learning latin, or in reading romanian translations of the classic latin authors, like Vergilius, Horatius, Ovidius, etc. After 1990 not a single romanian documentary about the roman empire civilization was produced, although there is a television channel (TVR) that has enough money from the population to do just that. The roman archaelogical vestiges present on the romanian territory are in a lamentable state and nobody cares. So, all this talk about the "latinity" of the romanian people is only "lip service" and propaganda, nothing serious. And it's used mostly to gain acceptance in the western world.


====================================
Quote from: OriginalGuest

After 1989:
24. Backwardness, corruption and lazyness are publicly heralded by some as "true" signs of being a latin people and proof of latin origin :).
====================================


Again, so true. Some negative behaviors are reinforced by presenting them as "latin" or "italian". For example the cliché about italians as being a people that always speaks/laughs loudly and argues violently is reinforced by the media in romanians, who are subliminally taught to do the same, because by doing that they seem more "latin". This has the potential to transform the romanians in exhibitionistic clowns, incapable of thinking rationally and acting responsibly.
Portuguese   Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:53 pm GMT
Portuguese
Q.E.D.   Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:01 am GMT
@OriginalGuest
You raise indeed interesting points. If only for Neagu Djuvara and his latest writings then the rationale for a national identity originating from Southern Europe / Eastern shore gains a lot of traction.
I wonder if this quest for a Romanian national identity sometihong new that appeared 20 years after the fall of communist regime or it is innate to the Romanian people.
For sure the national pshyche bears deep scars due to the infortunate history: waves of warrior tribes, foreign rulers, big empires flexing muscles in that geographical area (Romania: the end of Occident or begining of Orient?). How we could not have issues, as people? For God sake, we have chosen a German to rule a country in 19th century and the guy had gone native and it became more Romanian than the indigenous people. Had the foreign rule been more harsh, then we would became more like Aromanians, so opressed by Greek and Bulgars so that when they got their chance to enroll in Iron Guard they became opressors at their turn. BTW, @garda_de_fier, you are one of the examples for which the Iron Guard needed to be eliminated: you are an idiot, not because your intellect is damaged by lack of exercise, but because you understand nothing of real world.
I think that @ravinescu is a symptom of a Romanian national psyche so bruised that it seeks a purity that never existed to rebuild confidence and strength to move forward.
I can accept that Romanian language soundes slavic and maybe we are the descendants of slavs or latins or cumans or bulgars or whoever left some genetic materail to teh gene pool. The question is what is happening next?
Dan   Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:44 am GMT
Q.E.D. wrote

"I can accept that Romanian language soundes slavic and maybe we are the descendants of slavs or latins or cumans or bulgars or whoever left some genetic materail to teh gene pool. The question is what is happening next?"


Actually almost all non-Romanian speakers on this forum that listened to Romanian on YouTube say that Romanian has a clear Romance-like sound and that only Moldovan accent sounds Slavic (which is natural considering that almost half of the Moldovans have as their first language a Slavic language).

Anyway, ravinescu is an idiot. His sources regarding the Slavic influence in Romania are C.C. Giurescu, a communist propagandist that wanted N. Iorga's chair at Bucharest University and could not stop arse licking the Soviets in the 50s, and Lucian Boia, the inspiration of all Romanian, history preocupied, conspiracy theorists, that is saying only one thing: "all Romanian oficial history is false because in theory it could have been different".

This theory that half of the Romanian lexic was sometime in history made of Slavic words is ludicrous. It is stupid from a linguistic stand-point (there is no language in this world that has a lexic split in half between two languages, each coming from a different family of languages), it is a nonsense historically as well.

75% of the Romanian words of Slavic origin are from Old Bulgarian or Medieval Bulgarian, then how come that Southern Romanian, the only one that came in direct contact with Bulgarian has no trace of Slavic accent (in contrast with the rest of the Romanian accents that do have to some degree a Slavic accent)?

This proves very nicely that these Slavic words entered the Romanian lexic mostly through cultural exchange rather than through mixing populations (Romanians used in church and administration Old Bulgarian for almost 800 years!, this was bound to leave traces on the Romanian language).

The same is true for Romanian genealogy. Yes, Slavic genes are a contributor to the Romanian gene pool, but it is not that important (genetic studies put it at around 15%). There are 4 major populations that added the most to the Romanian gene mix: the Getodacians, the Romans, the Grecized Thracians and finally some Slavic populations. Heck, even Goths left their trace in Romania, there are plenty of Romanians with a Germanic look - Goths occupied for centuries the same space with Getae, and were even confused by many historians in the antiquity to Middle Ages. In other words the Daco-Roman theory is not false, just incomplete - if we add the Grecized Thracians to Getodacians (because they were related populations) this theory accounts for approximately 70% of the Romanian gene pool.
Helmut Dracgypoberger   Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:40 pm GMT
I am a Romanian Goth and I look like a Rutger Hauer - Ronald Koeman - Colin Hendry - Dolph Lundgren blond-combi.

Or to put more simply, I get mistaken for your average Catalan a lot.

Yours
Helmut Dracgypoberger Gatalona.
dude   Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:20 pm GMT
I can at least sort of understand some of ravinescu's viewpoints. But original guest seems to just have some other agenda in mind against Romanians other than exposing the "truth". Basically you're saying they have no identity and aren't entitled to be proud of anything and come from a ragtag group of steppe barbarians. Come on, everyone knows it's the Hungarians that were Turanic or whatever in origin. That part is just bull.
And I agree that Romanians shouldn't look so much to ancient history or overemphasize an Italian connections for their achievements, but there are some modern Romanians that have done important things, like Coanda, Brancusi, Eminescu, and others. Every country should have a right to some kind of national identity, even if it is rather poor and not as developed by today's standards.
Galego   Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:29 pm GMT
Portuguese.
andrei   Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:31 pm GMT
why do you hate us ?

history
uncivilised behaviour ?
resilient to modernity?
religion?
ravinescu   Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:27 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Q.E.D.
I wonder if this quest for a Romanian national identity sometihong new that appeared 20 years after the fall of communist regime or it is innate to the Romanian people.
===================================


This is not something new, but today, thanks to the internet, there are many more writings freely available, including ones that were authored by non-romanian historians. It's strange that after the fall of communism there was not a single public debate in Romania about the identity of romanians. No debate in the press, no debate on TV, nothing like this. There are a lot of journals and TV/radio stations, there is complete freedom of expression, however in all this time there was no debate about the origin of romanians. It's ironic that such a debate actually took place in the 1950's (when the censoring by the communists was very strict) between specialists in history and linguistics, but its results were never published in a book, being kept in a special archive with restricted access. After 1990, when the results of a new debate could have been made public, there was no debate anymore, at least until now. The historians are to blame, of course, because they are not brave enough to clearly launch the debate, probably for fear to be accused of shattering the dreams of a population that has been thoroughly brainwashed for the last 200 years. It's like some historians in Romania should not serve the science of history that seeks the truth, but the "science" of propaganda, that seeks the deception for the support of some transient political reasons. The population is to be blamed also, because there is no interest in the romanian history at all, not the least because many want to emigrate, so the current theory of "descendants from italian romans" suits them very well.


===================================
Quote from: Q.E.D.
For sure the national pshyche bears deep scars due to the infortunate history: waves of warrior tribes, foreign rulers, big empires flexing muscles in that geographical area (Romania: the end of Occident or begining of Orient?).
===================================


There are nations with biggest scars than the romanians, actually every nation has some scars. Is there everywhere a covering of the historical truth like in Romania? Maybe in some cases, surely not in many others. Which direction should the romanian historians take? That of the propaganda, like in the 19th century, or that of the truth like in the 21th century?


===================================
Quote from: Q.E.D.
For God sake, we have chosen a German to rule a country in 19th century and the guy had gone native and it became more Romanian than the indigenous people.
===================================


It must be said that Carol I was not chosen by the people, there was no democracy then. He was chosen by the politicians from that time, who were not democratically elected, because the vote was not universal (only rich people could vote, and of course not the women). That said, King Carol I remained german to the end of his days and wanted Romania to side with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the first world war, which did not happen. Carol I has put some order in the political mess that was Romania at that time, but he did not succeed in making Romania a democracy. However, his nephew, King Carol II was a "true" bad romanian (immoral and corrupt), although been born from a german (King Ferdinand II) and a englishwoman (Queen Maria).


===================================
Quote from: Q.E.D.
I think that @ravinescu is a symptom of a Romanian national psyche so bruised that it seeks a purity that never existed to rebuild confidence and strength to move forward.
===================================


Romanians must know their true history, so they will not be fooled anymore by politicians and propagandists. This fabricated history taught in the last 200 years has broken the link between romanians and their true past, transforming them in zombies that have no idea who they really are from an historical point of view. The romanian identity has been weakened, not strenghtened, by propaganda that no one believes, and this also contributed to the tendency to emigrate, a phenomenon that can be easily observed in romanians after 1990.


===================================
Quote from: Q.E.D.
I can accept that Romanian language soundes slavic and maybe we are the descendants of slavs or latins or cumans or bulgars or whoever left some genetic materail to teh gene pool. The question is what is happening next?
===================================


Origin has nothing to do with a person's success or with a nation's success in accomplishing its established goals. But by recognizing its true origins, a person or a country gains credibility and acceptance as a mature and truthful person or country. Lack of credibility is a longstanding problem with regard to romanians, because of a history of abruptly switching sides in international matters and alliances.
ravinescu   Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:28 pm GMT
===================================
Quote from: Dan
Anyway, ravinescu is an idiot. His sources regarding the Slavic influence in Romania are C.C. Giurescu, a communist propagandist that wanted N. Iorga's chair at Bucharest University and could not stop arse licking the Soviets in the 50s, and Lucian Boia, the inspiration of all Romanian, history preocupied, conspiracy theorists, that is saying only one thing: "all Romanian oficial history is false because in theory it could have been different".
===================================


Your ignorance expressed in a language full of profanities is the true sign of a propagandist who has no idea about the subject that is discussed, but that does not stop him from intervening aggressively in order to disturb the debate and to transform it from a debate of ideas into an endless succession of curses. It's a trollish behavior, but so old and tired, that it does not work anymore. The unfortunate part is that this behavior reinforces the image of romanians as a violent and backward people, incapable to participate in a civilized discussion.

Somehow it's very good that persons like Dan post on this thread, because the non-romanians can see a romanian propagandist in full swing, using all the propagandistic "artillery" that he has accumulated over years of repeated brainwashing. One very important artillery piece is the distortion of time, randomly combining persons and historical dates and of course throwing accusations left and right. A propagandist will always use personal attacks directed toward everybody that does not support his point of view. He creates a foul smelling atmosphere that disturbs the participants to the discussion and is intended to sabotage the debate. He does that because he thinks that no one will contradict his allegations. In doing that he scorns the audience, thinking that the audience is composed of gullible persons, that believe all that he says. This is a general problem with romanian propagandists and it was caused by the accepting behavior of the romanian people itself. When the romanian propaganda was created in the 19th century and then launched upon the people, it worked, because the population at that time was mostly undeducated, illiterate. Almost all the romanian cultural and political elites from that time supported the latinist propaganda in some way or another, so there was practically no important opposition to it from the people or the elites. The propagandists then thought that if this worked on romanians, it will work also on non-romanians. And it had some success, not because the non-romanians believed the propaganda, but because they needed Romania as a political/military ally or a buyer for their goods, so they pretended to be convinced by the romanian propaganda in order to pursue their own geostrategic or economic goals. Unfortunately, some persons like Dan here, believe that non-romanians are stupid and can be fooled easily with pathetic emotional tricks like the one from the fragment quoted above. As a rule, I recommend to all non-romanians that are being subjected to romanian propaganda to ask for reputable modern sources and quotes from books that support what is said by the propagandist. There are no such sources other than those from the 19th century, so the propagandist will leave quickly.

Now back to Dan, the truly ignorant propagandist. He says that I have based my arguments about the slavic influence only on the work of C.C. Giurescu and Lucian Boia. He must be blinded by rage, otherwise he would also have seen a quote from another well-known historian, Florin Constantiniu, mentioned by me in a message from 29 january 2010, less than 2 weeks ago. Maybe he will see now the fragment quoted from the book "O istorie sinceră a poporului romān" (Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 2008). But that's not a problem, there are other romanian history books and I can provide other quotes. For example the one below:


########################################
Toate popoarele romanice din Europa īşi datorează existenţa unei duble asimilări. Mai īntīi se petrece asimilarea elementului autohton de către elementul roman. Acest fenoment presupune prezenţa unui element care deţine acelaşi rol: primitor activ al civilizaţiei romane. Daco-geţilor, ca element etnic de bază īn etnogeneza romānilor, le corespund galii īn etnogeneza francezilor, respectiv celtiberii īn etnogeneza spaniolilor şi portughezilor, ori etruscii şi alte populaţii italice īn etnogeneza italienilor. Asimilarea elementului autohton este rezultatul, pretutindeni, al colonizării şi romanizării, apărīnd astfel sinteze etnice romanice: daco-romanii, ibero-romanii, galo-romanii. [...] A doua asimilare īnseamnă "topirea" unor elemente migratoare īn masa populaţiilor romanice: francii, vizigoţii şi burgunzii īn Gallia, vizigoţii şi suebii īn Peninsula Iberică, ostrogoţii şi longobarzii īn Italia, unele neamuri germanice, iar mai tīrziu slavii īn Dacia. [...] Amestecul daco-romanilor cu alte populaţii, pīnă la slavi, se va fi făcut īn mică măsură sau deloc. El este, īn orice caz greu de surprins arhologic şi istoric. De aceea, un rol similar celui deţinut de germanici īn etnogeneza romanicilor din vestul Europei poate fi atribuit īn regiunile carpato-danubiene, doar slavilor.

Mihai Bărbulescu: De la īnceputurile civilizaţiei la sinteza romānească
Capitolul 1 din cartea "Istoria Romāniei" (editura Corint, 2007) - pag. 94, 95, 99, 100

English translation:
All romance peoples from Europe owe their existence to a double assimilation. At first occurs the assimilation of the autochtonous (native) element by the roman element. This phenomenon requires the existence of an element which has [everywhere] the same role: that of an active receiver of the roman civilization. To the daco-getians, as the basic (fundamental) element in the romanian ethnogenesis (formation of the people), corresponds the gauls in the french ethnogenesis, the celtiberians in the spanish and portuguese ethnogenesis, and the etruscans or other italic populations in the italian ethnogenesis. The assimilation of the native (autochtonous) element is the result, everywhere, of the colonization and romanization, which gives birth to romance ethnic syntheses: daco-romans, ibero-romans, galo-romans. [...] The second assimilation means the "melting" of some migratory elements in the mass of romance populations: franks, visigothes and burgunds in Gallia, visigothes and suebes in the Iberian Peninsula, ostrogoths and longobards in Italy, some germanic peoples, and later the slavs in Dacia. [...] The mixing (blending) of the daco-romans with other populations, until the slavs, was minimal or even did not happen. This mixing [with migratory populations arrived before the slavs] is anyway hard to spotlight from an archeological or historical point of view. This is why, a similar role with that played by the germans in the ethnogenesis of romance peoples from Western Europe, can be attributed in the carpatho-danubian regions only to the slavs.

Mihai Bărbulescu: From the beginning of civilization to the romanian synthesis
Chapter 1 from the book "History of Romania" (Corint Publishing House, 2007) - pages 94, 95, 99, 100
###########################################


Who are these authors quoted by me until now?

Lucian Boia: History Professor at the University of Bucharest, Romania
Florin Constantiniu: Former Researcher at the History Institute from Bucharest; Corresponding Member of the Romanian Academy
Mihai Bărbulescu: History Professor (specialized in archaeology) at the "Babeş-Bolyai" University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania

But these authors are just nobody, compared to the biggest specialist in romanian history, the anonymous poster known as Dan, right? Wrong, they are well-known and respected romanian specialists, authors of books. Dan the poster is surely the biggest ignorant with regard to the romanian history that I have encountered until now. His specialty is lying and deception, of course associated with disparaging the true specialists. The quote attribute by him to Lucian Boia is false, being a fabrication made by Dan. All the propagandists specialize in fabricating their own version of reality, that they subsequently try to impose unto others who are so gullible as to believe them.

Hey, but what about Constantin C. Giurescu, the "communist propagandist", in Dan's vision? Of course, it was not at all a communist propagandist, but a victim of the communists. He was born in 1901 and published his treatise named "History of Romanians" between the years 1935-1946. The first volume, published in 1935 was the one where he presented the slavic contribution to the formation of the romanian people and language. It must be said that he was not under any political pressure to do so, he just presented his point of view as an historian, just like many others did it in the previous years on the same subject. The Romanian Communist Party had in 1935 maybe only several hundred members, and C.C. Giurescu was not one of them, otherwise he had been arrested by the authorities of that time, the communist party being banned from participating in the political life of those years (communists operated in clandestinity then). After the occupation of Romania by the Red Army (USSR's army) in World War II, the communist party gained full power in 1948, by ousting the King Michael I and transforming Romania from a monarchy into a republic. C.C. Giurescu lost in 1948 his tenure as a history professor at the University of Bucharest, being deposed by the communists. And in 1950 C.C. Giurescu was arrested, you guessed it, by the communists. So "a communist propagandist" deposed and arrested by the communists for whom he allegedly worked? Only in Dan's distorted view of reality. And not only was C.C. Giurescu arrested, but until he died in 1977 he could not finish his life's work, the treatise of romanian history. He had published only 3 volumes that presented the romanian history until 1821. The manuscript of the 4th volume (1821-1918) was lost/destroyed in 1950 when he was evacuated from his house by the communists.

C.C: Giurescu was one of the young (in 1935) romanian historians that wanted the history to be a science, not a propaganda tool in the hands of the political authorities. Now in 2010 this approach seems normal, but in 1935 it was something revolutionary for Romania, where the majority of historians never crossed the line of the official state propaganda, especially with respect to the formation of the romanian people. The contribution of the slavs was always a point of contention, especially after the latinist movement from the 19th century wanted to wipe out this part of romanian history. But C.C. Giurescu wanted to present the historical facts, because a real historian is a scientist that seeks the historical truth, not a propagandist that trumpets the version of history endorsed by the political or cultural elites. That's why at the end of the chapter dedicated to the contribution of slavs in the romanian ethnogenesis, he inserted an little explanatory paragraph where he condemned the involvement of politics/propaganda in the writing of history and asserted that the whole truth about the genesis of the romanian people must be said. I will quote that paragraph below:


#########################################
Dacă amestecul intim cu slavii n-a fost recunoscut pīnă acum, dacă nu i s-a acordat atīta vreme atenţia pe care o merita, dar mai ales nu s-au tras consecinţele īn ce priveşte explicarea evului mediu romānesc şi formarea poporului nostru, aceasta se datorează īn prmul rīnd unor preocupări de ordin străin istoriei. Vrīnd să facă din această disciplină un mijloc de luptă politică şi de propagandă, primii noştri istorici şi filologi -- şi trebuie să le fim recunoscători pentru sentimentele patriotice care īi īnsufleţeau -- au susţinut că sīntem urmaşi de-ai romanilor şi numai ai romanilor. Dacii fuseseră stīrpiţi īn cursul războaielor, iar după părăsirea Daciei de către legiuni, strămoşii noştri şi-au păstrat neatinsă fiinţa etnică la adăpostul munţilor şi pădurilor. Treptat-treptat -- după ce ni se recunoscuse caracterul romanic -- s-au făcut apoi concesii īn ce-i priveşte pe daci. Şi aceştia au luat parte la formarea poporului nostru. Mai ales īn ultimul timp, după războiul de īntregirea neamului, importanţa dacilor a fost pe deplin evidenţiată. Pentru stabilirea īntregului adevăr, trebuie să recunoaştem acum şi rolul pe care l-au avut slavii īn formarea poporului nostru. Nu e nici o scădere, după cum nu e nici o primejdie. Stabilirea unui fapt petrecut acum o mie de ani nu poate modifica īntru nimic situaţia prezentă, cu interesele şi simpatiile ei, tot aşa cum conştiinţa perfectă a originii germane a francilor nu poate schimba raporturile actuale dintre Germania şi Franţa. Adevărul trebuie īnsă spus, fiindcă īn concepţia noastră, istoria nu este nici instrument politic, nici mijloc de propagandă, ci disciplina care urmăreşte restabilirea exactă a celor trecute.

C.C. Giurescu : Istoria Romānilor (editura ALL, 2007) - paginile 219, 220

English translation:
If the intimate mixing (blending) with the slavs was not recognized until now, if for so much time it had not gotten the attention it deserved, but especially if no conclusions were drawn regarding the explanation of the romanian middle ages and the formation of our people, this is because of some preoccupations (concerns) that are foreign to the study of history. Wanting to make from the discipline of history a tool for political battle and propaganda, our first historians -- that are to be praised for the patriotic feelings that inspired them -- have maintained that we are descendants from the romans and only from the romans. The dacians were exterminated during the wars [with the romans], and after the [roman] legions left Dacia, our ancestors have kept their ethnic character untouched under the protection of mountains and forests. Little by little -- after our romance character was recognized -- there were concessions made regarding the dacians. They also participated in the formation of our people. Especially lately, after the war for the reunification of the romanian people [World War I - 1918], the importance of the dacians was fully highlighted. In order to establish the whole truth, we must also recognize now the role played by the slavs in the formation (genesis) of our people. There is no diminution (degradation), just like there is no danger. The establishing of a fact that occurred one thousand years ago cannot modify at all the present situation, with its interests and sympathies, just like the perfect awareness of the german origin of the franks cannot change the current [1935] relations between Germany and France. But the truth must be said, because in our conception (understanding), the history is not a political instrument, nor a propaganda tool, but the discipline that pursues the exact establishing of the things past.