Should Italians and Romanians be considered as Latinos?

deaf tuner · Mar 21, 2016

Joke aside :

martin76 said:
... I think Hungarians-Romanians-Bulgarians are the same people or the same group of peoples ...

Those guys in the East are magnificent warm people. But they have their limits, so, please, if You're there, keep that for Yourself so You don't get hurt. And I'm very serious.

Btw, I was ironic on that ...

martin76 said:
...
I don´t believe in "people" and words as "Nation", "Country" or "People" are unclear and not scientific concepts.

.. In fact, that the reason because I think DNA Mythochondrial is a scientific concept can explain the origin of the groups... Language? it is only an accident....

You're wrong. You might not believe in those concepts, they might be not very "scientific", they are more than real.

And as scientific is the DNA, it doesn't explain nothing on who we are. If You are Spanish, it's not because of the scientific DNA but because of the unscientific language, culture, people.

Think at this : a man is different biologically from a woman. That doesn't mean they're not both Spanish ...

Or think at this: History Craft is adopting You at 4 months and Your twin brother is adopted by Naomasa in the same time. After 20 years, a Romanian and a British, two total strangers will face each other. Tho genetically, they're as identical as genetically possible ...

Azarius Balios · Mar 21, 2016

Naomasa298 said:
Now, I know that everyone in this thread is aware of the rule about the discussion of genetics being banned on Historum.

Let's keep it out of this thread, then no one gets hurt.

Thats why me and a few others try to avoid. But people hear but don't listen.

Copperknickers · Mar 21, 2016

Azarius Balios said:
This is a thought i came across on the internet and even asked my fellow Hispanics. Can Italians, Romanians, and even French (including french creole, Cajun, and Canadian french) especially be regarded as Latinos?

I mean Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dalmatian, and Romanian are romance languages and are Latin. Since Latin is spoken by the Romans and well...Latins, in antiquity. Of course i don't want to bring controversy.

Well what do you think?

Also no politics. This is sharply an honest conversation.

In the UK, 'Latino' refers to Latin Americans. We don't really have a concept of Spanish and Italians being the same 'race' as Latin Americans. I don't really know where that concept came from in the US to be honest, seeing as the average Latino is at least partially Mestizo (or African, in places like Brazil and Cuba).

oszkar777 · Mar 21, 2016

martin76 said:
yes, you are right. Hungarian is a finno-ugric languages but it is funny.. Hungarian can speak in hungarian with turks.. and Turk understand them and hungarian understand Turks!!! If you speak Turkish..hungarian understand to you better than if you speak English...

Martin I must correct you.

I am half Hungarian, from my fathers side.
I am not as fluent in the language as the other Hungarian guys here, but I know enough Hungarian that I can assure you what you said about Hungarian and Turkish being mutually understandable is 99.9 % of the time not correct.

What I mean by this is that only a few odd words here and there can be slightly mutually similiar sounding and that is because there are some words which are borrowings from Turkic languages that came into Hungarian at different times.
I think there is maybe up to 9% of Turkic borrowed words into Hungarian. So the two langauges are otherwise completly different and can not be understood by each other, not even one full sentence can be understood properly unless each speaker has some knowledge of each other languagae.

God Emperor · Mar 22, 2016

History Craft said:
I'm not saying Spaniards or Romanians or Bulgarians or the French come from Lazio, however, I am saying that they are all descendants of the original latins, despite the fact the latin part (give me extra points for scientifically formulated conclusion) isn't predominant. Hell, a lot (most actually) of people living in today's Lazio are closer the the tens of millions of slaves brought there over the centuries (or the millions of pesants who relocated from S-N Italy to leech off Rome, or the tens of millions of people who migrated there for the economy, etc) rather than the original people of Lazio, does that make them non-latins?

I'm trying to show how flawed the ''direct descendnt'' point of view is, in case you're still wondering.

Tens of millions of slaves? xD. Biochemists have recently analyzed 166 skeletons from ancient Rome and only 3 had a extra european origins. Anyone else was either a native or came from a colder place in the North.

Italianthro: Biochemistry of Skeletons from Ancient Rome

But you are right that Rome and Lazio were partly resettled by barbarians from Central Europe and Italians from other regions.

fyrentennymar · Mar 22, 2016

deaf tuner said:
Joke aside :

Those guys in the East are magnificent warm people. But they have their limits, so, please, if You're there, keep that for Yourself so You don't get hurt. And I'm very serious.

Nah...let him do it!

Btw here in Greece when we hear latin, Italy,Portugal and Spain come to our mind.Not that it matters but just saying...

History Craft · Mar 22, 2016

God Emperor said:
Tens of millions of slaves? xD. Biochemists have recently analyzed 166 skeletons from ancient Rome and only 3 had a extra european origins. Anyone else was either a native or came from a colder place in the North.

Italianthro: Biochemistry of Skeletons from Ancient Rome

From what I've read... the test showed which people lived near Rome, not who were genetically roman (etruscan, latin, sabine, etc) based on mineral level in the bodies.

All of those 166 skeletons might have been migrants (first generation, second generation, third, etc) who just lived next to Rome for a good chunk of their life, but not natives by blood.

Also, those from the north (despite being genetically similar to the latins) would be celts, not latins (natives) anyway.

dagul · Mar 22, 2016

johnincornwall said:
Sometimes we get far too deep my friend. I am not Germanic neither would I like to be regarded as so in any way, shape or form.

As for what we say in Britain, I think we might say an Italian has a 'latin temperament', but I think I'm right in saying we would only use 'latino' about someone in or from Latin America

I agree with you regarding the usage of the word as it is done today. Latino as popularly known refers exclusively to the people of Latin America like the word American is only for the citizens of the U.S. despite the rest of them are from the American continent.

But in reference to their ethnicity, the word Latin likewise refer to the words spoken by the people who resided in the former dominion of the Roman Empire and so Romanians being among them should have that ethnic make up and so with the French. Correct me if I am wrong folks, but, perhaps the reason of the English being able to delineate themselves from such phenomenon despite them being under the Roman Empire is because of the English channel that created difficulty of massive migration of Latin speaking people to pour in the Latin ethnic heritage within the territory.

dagul · Mar 22, 2016

martin76 said:
In any case. Spanish and Romanian speak a latin language but they aren´t latins as Jamaican speak a Germanic Language but they aren´t Germans...

Before the Romans invaded the territory which is what is Spain now, there were Iberian people there already. I think you are correct.

God Emperor · Mar 22, 2016

History Craft said:
From what I've read... the test showed which people lived near Rome, not who were genetically roman (etruscan, latin, sabine, etc) based on mineral level in the bodies.

All of those 166 skeletons might have been migrants (first generation, second generation, third, etc) who just lived next to Rome for a good chunk of their life, but not natives by blood.

Also, those from the north (despite being genetically similar to the latins) would be celts, not latins (natives) anyway.

Ok but that just confirms that non European first generation immigrants made up 1-2% of lower caste population in the center of Rome. In the rest of Italy their number was surely much lower.

How does it agree with your vision of tens of millions of slaves?

oszkar777 · Mar 22, 2016

I think Hungarians-Romanians-Bulgarians are the same people or the same group of peoples

Culturally and linguistically not so.
Bulgarians and Romanians both Orthodox nations, whilst Hungary predominantly Catholic and within much more central European sphere of historical influences.

But if you mean genetically probably to certain degree they can be similiar but probably not so much and depending on the region. So based on that cant say they are same peoples.

In certain regions Romanians and Bulgarians will be genetically closer. In some other regions Hungarians and Romanians genetically be closer.

All 3 have in common a Slav element in their genetics.
Hungarians probably have more Germanic elements , neo danubian/Slav and Romanians and Bulgarians have their own particuliar admixtures.

Ficino · Mar 22, 2016

dagul said:
Correct me if I am wrong folks, but, perhaps the reason of the English being able to delineate themselves from such phenomenon despite them being under the Roman Empire is because of the English channel that created difficulty of massive migration of Latin speaking people to pour in the Latin ethnic heritage within the territory.

English is a Germanic language, and Britain was not inhabited by Germanics during the times of the Roman rule. Latin was probably spoken in Roman Britain too (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Latin), but was later replaced by the newcomers' language.

History Craft · Mar 22, 2016

oszkar777 said:
All 3 have in common a Slav element in their genetics.
Hungarians probably have more Germanic elements , neo danubian/Slav and Romanians and Bulgarians have their own particuliar admixtures.

All 3 have the same pre-roman mixture (mainly thracian + celtic + iranian).

martin76 · Mar 22, 2016

Well, We have very different points of views. For me, Spain is not latin...because Mythochondrial (a Tabbo word in Anglosaxon societies) DNA evidences beyond reasonable doubt, we are not from Italy and we are not from Lazio. For you it is "latin" because belonged to Roma (as England, Wales and Netherland).. about Romanians, I don´t know if they are from Rome or not...or if they want to be from Lazio or no... Personally I think they aren´t latins... but it is their decision.. they speak a Latin language as Djibouti or as Jamaica speak a Germanic language..

In fact, who invented this manipiulative concept of "latinitiy" were the Frenchmen...in XIX Century (Second half).. they are the only "latins"... I havent´why to accept what a French said...Never, the Kings of Spain, never the Spanish People.. almogavares, conquistadores, sailors, adventurers etc etc name to themselves as "latin"...Never Hernán Cortes said. I am a Latin and never Almogávares when they arrived to Byzantium named to themselves as "latins"...
The Napoleon III invented the name.. Ok.. for him.. not for me.

So, the positions are clear and if you like the argument is over. Thanks. Always it is nice to read your post.
I don´t believe in the "languages" as reason. In that case: Djibout is Latin, Nigeria is Germanic, Jamaica is Latin or Germanic depends if it was under Spanish or British Control...Togo was Germanic (till 1918) and Latin (from 1918).. etc etc etc

Ficino · Mar 22, 2016

martin76 said:
Well, We have very different points of views. For me, Spain is not latin...because Mythochondrial (a Tabbo word in Anglosaxon societies) DNA evidences beyond reasonable doubt, we are not from Italy and we are not from Lazio.

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the one inherited from the mother, and as far as I saw you talked about Y-DNA haplogroups (which are transmitted from father to son): that makes me think that your knowledge on this subject is really poor. BTW, which is the DNA from Lazio, and which is the DNA from Spain?

martin76 · Mar 22, 2016

Ficino said:
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother, and as far as I saw you talked about Y-DNA haplogroups: that makes me think that your knowledge on this subject is really poor. BTW,which is the DNA from Lazio, and which is the DNA from Spain?

No, I speak about both. Are you romanian? Are you Latin? Ok, if for you it is a nice fashion to be Latin.. ok you are latin, maybe you came from Lazio... but not me.

Ficino · Mar 22, 2016

martin76 said:
No, I speak about both. Are you romanian? Are you Latin? Ok, if for you it is a nice fashion to be Latin.. ok you are latin, maybe you came from Lazio... but not me.

Where did you speak about both? The discussion doesn't concern what I am, so please answer my question re: the Y-DNA and mtDNA from Lazio vs. the Y-DNA and mtDNA from Spain.

oszkar777 · Mar 22, 2016

History Craft said:
All 3 have the same pre-roman mixture (mainly thracian + celtic + iranian).

You are probably right.

Im personally big fan of eastern Europe and Balkans region.

All peoples there are connected as much divided.

soundsgood · Mar 22, 2016

God Emperor said:
1) Romanian nationalists support the Roman origin theory to prove that they are native to Dacia and not some Turkic-Slavic-Vlachich confederation of illiterate sheperds.

Yes, and that, is basically, where the root and base of all this takes place, which is the reason why they push it and mention it, its a type of racial revisionism, that is created by, you guessed it, racial nationalists and other racists.

Its actually quite common among many eastern and south eastern European countries where nationalism and far right racist groups, are on the rise, it gives way to wacky people to spill mythical lies about the past, and denials about their own origins on the internet, I have seen it many many times before, and its all the same following a nearly identical template.

All of it, is just racial revisionism designed to mend broken egos, insecurities and self hate, and to create national pride and solidarity. Including most recently they do it to give legitimacy to being in the European Union, which happened just a few years ago, which is also when most of this hyperbole started.

It does seem to be the common thing among ex-soviet bloc countries and their racists, to claim blood relations with other established western nations, usually Spain and Italy.

And they do it, not only to distance themselves from their Slavic and Turkic ancestry, but also to try and legitimize there place in the EU as 'rightful citizens' on a sort of racial basis, which is a very lame and ridiculous attempt at best, which they do in a very folkloric, fairy-tale type of way.

I have heard it all before. Crank race revisionists and its propagandists are falsifiers of history, they have absolutely no hard evidence at all, except for some random cranky website that some wacky person wrote using broken English. Nothing more than that.

Perix · Mar 22, 2016

soundsgood said:
Yes, and that, is basically, where the root and base of all this takes place, which is the reason why they push it and mention it, its a type of racial revisionism, that is created by, you guessed it, racial nationalists and other racists.

Its actually quite common among many eastern and south eastern European countries where nationalism and far right racist groups, are on the rise, it gives way to wacky people to spill mythical lies about the past, and denials about their own origins on the internet, I have seen it many many times before, and its all the same following a nearly identical template.

All of it, is just racial revisionism designed to mend broken egos, insecurities and self hate, and to create national pride and solidarity. Including most recently they do it to give legitimacy to being in the European Union, which happened just a few years ago, which is also when most of this hyperbole started.

It does seem to be the common thing among ex-soviet bloc countries and their racists, to claim blood relations with other established western nations, usually Spain and Italy.

And they do it, not only to distance themselves from their Slavic and Turkic ancestry, but also to try and legitimize there place in the EU as 'rightful citizens' on a sort of racial basis, which is a very lame and ridiculous attempt at best, which they do in a very folkloric, fairy-tale type of way.

I have heard it all before. Crank race revisionists and its propagandists are falsifiers of history, they have absolutely no hard evidence at all, except for some random cranky website that some wacky person wrote using broken English. Nothing more than that.

you are writing about Romanians Slavic and turkik ancestry without having any prove(genetic ballast you posted is useless)! Please prove!
please prove how we are wrong in our theories!
Otherwise spare us about dictum "they are revisionists/they are racists/they falsify/they want to show...", and Vaya con Dios! mind your own kindergarden history for Trianon revisionists

Search

Search

Should Italians and Romanians be considered as Latinos?

deaf tuner

Azarius Balios

Copperknickers

oszkar777

God Emperor

fyrentennymar

History Craft

dagul

dagul

God Emperor

oszkar777

Ficino

History Craft

martin76

Ficino

martin76

Ficino

oszkar777

soundsgood

Perix

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions