The origins of the gypsy or romani people

[PikeStance]

Why don't you give me an answer?

I didn't realized it was a specific question. I thought you were being rhetorical. I thought the question posses an interesting question; one that would create a divergent discussion. It probably be best to create an entirely new thread on that topic alone. One of us should start it.

And in what way was I acting out of hate toward gypsies?

I have no idea; I was not there.

Of course certain people do certain things better but this isn't based on race, but culture, geography, resources and so on and so forth. You ever drive a Vietnamese car? You use any smart phones built in Nigeria? Each region has its distinct advantages and disadvantages and each region is home to one or several people who share in that situation. Again, please don't back yourself up into a corner as if you are holding off the hordes of racism in any sense of the word.

I have no idea what you are going on about here. It was in response to my understanding of Ethnocentrism.

It doesn't prove your point that I was supporting such notions. That is your point no? Or what is your point? That there are racist people out there? Well yeah I know.

You need to scroll up to understand the context in which the video was used. I will give you a hint, it has to do with stereotyping, not racism.

Who said it was genetic? Nobody here said that. And the reason they turn to that sort of life style is a combination of persecution, BUT ALSO their own doing in how they live their culture. You can not shift the blame on one side or the other. You have to understand that the whole issue is a combination of many things. And nobody (intelligent anyway) is saying "oh gypsies do X Y and Z because they are genetically made that way."

This could be an entirely new discussion; the chicken before the egg. Did they choose this lifestyle was the lifestyle the only "option" they were allowed to make. I tend to believe the latter, but I can how others would argue the former.

When you stereotype it are implying that peoples behavior is combination of cultural transference and genetic disposition. I have seen both argued. I simply address all argument for the sake of clarity.

A SMALL NOTE: When I quote someone I do so for two reasons; To elaborate on their point or to directly and indirectly address the point the poster made. This means I may go beyond what the person originally arguing to give a more full explanation of my point of view. I am not in effect having a debate, but rather a discussion.

The economic downturn began perhaps as early 2007 or so. Gypsies have been moving into western europe since the early and mid 90s.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-2...-europe/384024

You don't seem to understand my friend. Large portions of gypsy culture is centered around the idea of stealing as a means of survival. It's part of the culture. You have I don't know how many gypsy "kings" and each one has their own little crime group of thieves.

Here's what a Hungarian gypsy "Voivod" has to say about his own people and the condition they are in:



The kids aren't sent to school. The girls are married off at 10 and 12. The boys are sent off to steal. Okay let's say everyone in eastern europe is a complete racist toward gypsies. We're all backward cavemen and don't know any better.

More cherry picking? I am sure there are bad elements. I would never ague there isn't.

When I ask for statistics, I expected raw data, not a news report. Is that the entirety of your "evidence" as single news report?

But why have the Italians, the Spanish, the French, the Germans, the English, all come to the same conclusion? You tell me mr international teacher.

Oh, thank you so much for the double edge sword. At first I was a naive insulated American, now that I informed you I am not, you mock me for being an international teacher.

I haven't taken into account anyone's nationality when reading their opinions; that is I don't make false assumptions based on conventional stereotypes. Historiography will call into question your rather suspect appeal to the majority. Things that make you go hummm

---

[Condottiere 40K]

Gypsies, ironically like Arabs, enjoyed a rather romantic European viewpoint. Nomadic, sexy, etcetera.

There was the dark side as well, stealing anything that wasn't nailed down, clothes, horses, children, and nailing anything halfway attractive. Still, great for novelization.

People's attitudes tend to harden when they turn up in their backyard, and a lot of what was a sort of passive unconscious suspicion suddenly turned active when they become a nearby social problem.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Primarely The Byzantine Empire, or Basileia Rhōmaiōn.

False relationship.

I didn't realized it was a specific question. I thought you were being rhetorical. I thought the question posses an interesting question; one that would create a divergent discussion. It probably be best to create an entirely new thread on that topic alone. One of us should start it.

One more time, the question for you: "Each individual has a distinct character, which came from a family that has its own character, which came from a country that has its own character composed of the cultural aspects of those groups. Taking note of those characteristics is problematic why? As long as you don't insist upon it, or tie it to genetics, why is that a problem?"

I have no idea; I was not there.

You were not here in the thread?

I have no idea what you are going on about here. It was in response to my understanding of Ethnocentrism.

It's pretty simple. Reread it if you must.

You need to scroll up to understand the context in which the video was used. I will give you a hint, it has to do with stereotyping, not racism.

Stereotyping is just a simplified conceptualization of a group. Italians eat pasta, Germans like hamburgers, English like tea. These are all stereotypes. What is wrong with them so long as you understand they are generalities?

This could be an entirely new discussion; the chicken before the egg. Did they choose this lifestyle was the lifestyle the only "option" they were allowed to make. I tend to believe the latter, but I can how others would argue the former.

Or it was a process that happened at once together. Portraying yourself as the protectors of the oppressed is intellectually lazy in this case.

When you stereotype it are implying that peoples behavior is combination of cultural transference and genetic disposition. I have seen both argued. I simply address all argument for the sake of clarity.

Nobody implied genetics.

More cherry picking? I am sure there are bad elements. I would never ague there isn't.

The gypsy himself is pretty much crying out to his people, that they have social issues to solve. Do you want more examples of testimonies like this?

When I ask for statistics, I expected raw data, not a news report. Is that the entirety of your "evidence" as single news report?

http://www.france24.com/en/20100830-...rtation-racism

Who knows, maybe all of Europe is racist except the gypsies.

Oh, thank you so much for the double edge sword. At first I was a naive insulated American, now that I informed you I am not, you mock me for being an international teacher.

They're not mutually exclusive. I still think you are using your knee jerk "racism against blacks" that you are used to in America and applying it to every other situation as well. Nobody said you were American, but the argument you used is made to appeal to that issue.

But again the issue isn't race, it's social.

I haven't taken into account anyone's nationality when reading their opinions; that is I don't make false assumptions based on conventional stereotypes. Historiography will call into question your rather suspect appeal to the majority. Things that make you go hummm

There's nothing like that going on. Nice try.

[PikeStance]

One more time, the question for you: "Each individual has a distinct character, which came from a family that has its own character, which came from a country that has its own character composed of the cultural aspects of those groups. Taking note of those characteristics is problematic why? As long as you don't insist upon it, or tie it to genetics, why is that a problem?"

I already said this should be a separate discussion.

It's pretty simple. Reread it if you must.

It is either off- topic or not relevant

Stereotyping is just a simplified conceptualization of a group. Italians eat pasta, Germans like hamburgers, English like tea. These are all stereotypes. What is wrong with them so long as you understand they are generalities?

These are examples of generalization. It would not be stereotyping unless you act on it. However, stereotyping is often not as harmless as making pasta for Italians. It often would translate to treating a Jewish business differently because of the reputation to be cheap and greedy.

Or it was a process that happened at once together. Portraying yourself as the protectors of the oppressed is intellectually lazy in this case. ....Nobody implied genetics.

Cue the Superman Movie soundtrack. Seriously, If that is what you think then you take a step away from the discussion. This accusation alone is intellectually lazy.

The gypsy himself is pretty much crying out to his people, that they have social issues to solve. Do you want more examples of testimonies like this? ... http://www.france24.com/en/20100830-...rtation-racism

No, I think we all had our fill of "cherry picking."

Who knows, maybe all of Europe is racist except the gypsies.

I highly doubt that. I haven't meant in anyone in a culture that has such high moral fiber. I am sure some isolated hunting gathering group may have however.

They're not mutually exclusive. I still think you are using your knee jerk "racism against blacks" that you are used to in America and applying it to every other situation as well. Nobody said you were American, but the argument you used is made to appeal to that issue. ... But again the issue isn't race, it's social.

Racism is a social issue. ????????
Do you honestly think "blacks" are the only group in the US that experiences racism? I will assume you know better and leave at that. I drew on the "black" experience because it is the most well- known and therefor easier to for people to draw a point of reference.

Racism is a social ill that is behaviorally universal.

----

[ivan_the_terrible]

Primarely The Byzantine Empire, or Basileia Rhōmaiōn.

That's a false cognate. The gypsy root 'rom' translates to 'man' or 'husband', while 'Basileia Rhomaion' is simply Greek for 'Roman Empire' (itself obviously from the word 'Roma' - the name of the city). No relation whatsoever.

[Condottiere 40K]

TBF it seems an attempt to integrate closer to the European norm, or at least elicit sympathy/empathy.

IIRC there's this story about gypsies stealing one of the nails that was about to be used in the Crucifixion of Christ.

[NikeBG]

Sorry for the late answer - I'm online only every third day or so.

Now,... do you understand why it is irrelevant if I know a gypsy or not?

----

Aha, so you're basically not taking any stance on the validity (or lack thereof) of the stereotypes you're "discrediting", but you merely make the students to see and realize those stereotypes?

Of course, you also said "many of them never even seen a Roma, so how could they believe any of the stereotypes???". Now, apart from the obvious answer, due to the nature of the stereotypes themselves, one could also turn the question to the other side - if you've never even seen a Roma, can you actually believe anything about them? And, IMO, the answer is - yes, of course. I've never seen a black hole either, but that doesn't mean I have no idea about what they are. I've watched documentaries and read books about them and thus I've received information from other people (who also haven't exactly seen a black hole either) about them. And the only difference between this and the hearsay, which forms the basis of the stereotypes ("Oh, X group is A, B, C. Stay away from them/They're cool!") is the credibility of the sources. Thus, the principle is more or less the same and the difference varies, based upon the critical analysis ability of each of your students. I.e. "many of them never even seen a Roma, so how could they believe any of the stereotypes???" is irrelevant - they could've gotten information from a credible source. Of course, in most cases they wouldn't have, but then the problem is not that they've never met a Roma.

Btw, funny - just recently I translated a medieval excerpt that is somewhat similar to yours.

Oh, and I'd also like to point out that just because stereotypes exist, it doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong - just as there's at least a seed of truth in every myth, there's also usually a basis of truth in every stereotype (which is then exaggerated and enlarged to cover the whole targeted group). F.e., as I said, I know a number of good and honest Gypsies. Like the family that lived on the second storey in our block - the husband was a taxi driver and the wife - a janitor, IIRC. The Gypsy family above them, on the other hand, was stereotypical - well-known pickpocketers (fortunately, due to being neighbours, they protected my father against another bunch of pickpocketers downtown) and quite richer than the ones below them. Respectively, if I compare all the Gypsies I've met with all the Bulgarians (not to mention the Bulgarian Turks, which IMO seem like the most honest and hard-working people here), I would objectively have to agree that Gypsies are generally (severely) more ill-mannered, anti-social (or, more precisely, anti-order), lazy and prone to a criminal lifestyle. That doesn't mean there aren't "good Gypsies" or "bad Bulgarians" - there's a good number of both (unfortunately, the latter are more than the former), but the average ratio of one group is, in my relatively objective opinion, worse than the average ratio of the other group. Just as the average ratio of the Bulgarians is worse than the average ratio of the Germans, for example. There are exceptions, but they're just that - deviations from the average ratio.

NikeBG is a well thought out guy and nobody here is espousing any racism or issues of race here.

Just to note that I can't be racist on this issue, even if I wanted to. As far as I know, the Gypsies, due to being Indian in origin, are part of the same general race (Europeid/Caucasian) as me (though I admit I'm not 100% sure - they're certainly not Mongoloid, Negroid, Polynesian, Aborigines etc). Furthermore, if I were to be a racist on this matter, I'd have to claim that:
A. The Gypsies are inferior to [insert supreme group here]
B. They're inferior to the said group due to their race/sub-race
While I:
B: Don't see anything racial/genetical that would make them inferior or superior.
A: If one is to say that their lifestyle is inferior to ours (a subjective point of view), then that would be due to their culture, not their race. As I mentioned a couple of times now - I have several Gypsy friends, whose culture is of the same type as that of the Bulgarians and is at least as equal or even surpasses the average Bulgarian - i.e. their "race" doesn't stop them from integrating into another type of society (in this case - settled, European, industrial) and the only "hindrance" for this is their own culture. Which is why those "converted" Gypsies I'm talking about live in a mixed area among other Bulgarians, while the Gypsies who live in their own "pure" neighbourhoods keep their own lifestyle (which I indeed find rather primitive, due to it being non-compatible with my own culture (the Gypsies have the so-called "self-indulgence culture" (as well as many of the Africans etc), while we and the rest of Europe and other developed nations have a "self-restraint culture")).


Anyway, sorry if I've interrupted the flow of the discussion - I don't have much time online, so I admit I haven't been able to read through all of the new replies yet.


Edit: Finally managed to finish reading...

In each case, we are different only by the fact we are born in different parts around the world.
Sp what does this mean? As globalization increases these differences will bur and become more artificial. It seems silly for us to divide ourselves on a concept that is solely based on geography.

Oh my...

You don't seem to understand my friend. Large portions of gypsy culture is centered around the idea of stealing as a means of survival. It's part of the culture. You have I don't know how many gypsy "kings" and each one has their own little crime group of thieves.

Indeed, stealing is an age-old part of their culture, or specifically - of some of their clans. Until just a few decades ago, the Gypsies in Bulgaria were still divided (and they still are, though not as much as before) to various clans, based on their profession - there were kalaydzhii (copper-smiths), mechkari and maimunari (bear- and monkey-tamers), musicians and, of course, the karderashi, whose main profession, as a part of their culture at least in the last several centuries, is pickpocketing. Those are basically the three main areas the Gypsies were well-known for, at least a century ago - copper-smiths, entertainers and conmen (and servants, especially during Ottoman times). Of course, due to the modern technologies, the smiths and even the musicians have lost/are losing their old professions and are turning to new opportunities - some (the more integrated ones) start getting normal jobs, while others turn to crime.

When I ask for statistics, I expected raw data, not a news report. Is that the entirety of your "evidence" as single news report?

So, if your students actually had personal observations on the Gypsies, then they'd still be a victim of stereotypes nonetheless, as they haven't gone around searching for statistical data? I see...

Italians eat pasta, Germans like hamburgers, English like tea. These are all stereotypes.

I think the Americans are more famous with the hamburgers. The Germans are more well-known for their love of beer and sausages (and sauerkraut).

These are examples of generalization. It would not be stereotyping unless you act on it. However, stereotyping is often not as harmless as making pasta for Italians. It often would translate to treating a Jewish business differently because of the reputation to be cheap and greedy.

And what's wrong with that, as long as the stereotype is actually based on something real and not completely made up or absolutely exaggerated? I mean, seriously, if you see someone who fits the profile of A (be that a group of Gypsy women in an overly-crowded bus, fitting the profile of a pickpocketer's group, or something else), the *logical* response is to consider A as a possibility, and maybe even as a probability (depending on how high the ratio of truth inside the stereotype is). If you're out in the savannah and you see a pack of lions coming at you, you'd be a fool to say "Nah, let's not judge those lions by their stereotype as a fierce predator. They're surely coming to greet me and rub themselves into me, like my cat does, maybe even purr a little too!"
Of course, that doesn't mean I should take a good grip of my wallet every time I see a Gypsy, but when I do eventually see a suspicious one, then yes, the logical thing to do would be to take precaution until proven wrong.

[PikeStance]

You've given a good answer... I'm more or less generally aware of the issues raised by the books that you've provided but truthfully I've never had a chance to read any of them. I'm going to take issue with this part of your argument... Generally people miss the fact that racism comes from the fact that the other race is competition to your own race. The other person is viewed as foreign and not a part of your social group as it is defined at the time. Now you might say... "But that's nonsense... No reason to fear them because they're different!"... Except there's a very good reason to fear them. That reason is scarcity. Simply put... two dogs fighting over a bone... Now Dog 1 might say that they should share the bone but Dog 2 knows that sharing the bone will only leave both dogs hungry.

Competition for resources does lead to conflict. I would actually all conflicts is essentially over competition over resources. While these conflicts are destructive, it doesn't necessarily have to lead to hated of another race or ethnic group. You actually do not even have to choose a geopolitical reason for factors. You could pick something closer to home, like a job. There is a great scene in the first story in the move Twilight Zone where man claims he should had gotten the promotion because he was better than a Jew. The problem here is he is really competing with every qualified person. The fact that one is not of the same group as he is is not an excuse.

It's natural to want your own pack to have more... it's also natural to fear a member of the other pack... Due to the fact that they'll get at your resources. Now people have figured out ways to get around this problem in times of plenty but when times are tough social competition emerges in a big racist way. There's a good reason why the South in the USA is more "racist" than the North... and that reason is the big difference in wealth between the two. When you're poor and thrown face to face with a group of people who's skin is different than yours and are competing with you... You might become a racist. Now the South also has the privilege of knowing that all those dark people were once their slaves and subservient to them.

It isn't natural. I could care less. Well, that is not true. I want the person who best for the job to "have more." If I am a business man, I would rather someone who can help make me more money, not dolt who happens to be in the same ethnic group as me.

BTW, the South is NOT more racist than the North. The fact that the South HAD segregation (by law) doesn't mean there wasn't segregation (by practice). After all, Sundaown towns existed in the North, not the South. [Sundown towns were towns int he mid- west that required all persons of color to be out of the town by sun down]. Furthermore, "blacks" were marginalized and discriminated equally in the North and the South. The only difference is that the South had laws mandating the separation.

Btw, funny - just recently I translated a medieval excerpt that is somewhat similar to yours.

Oh, and I'd also like to point out that just because stereotypes exist, it doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong - just as there's at least a seed of truth in every myth, there's also usually a basis of truth in every stereotype (which is then exaggerated and enlarged to cover the whole targeted group).

A stereotype is not presented as a myth, but an absolute fact. Jews are greedy for example. Sure, some very well be, but they are not by their nature, greedy. They are individuals that are greedy and not greedy. The problem is people act on stereotype with no assumption it may not be true. It isn;t you should exposed your wallet in front of a Gypsie. I wouldn't recommend that either way. It becomes a problem, when a Gypsie is arrested for being a pickpocketer not because there is evidence, but because who s/he is,... a gypsie. It isn't just the police. "Witnesses" will make these same assumptions.

Just to note that I can't be racist on this issue, even if I wanted to. As far as I know, the Gypsies, due to being Indian in origin, are part of the same general race (Europeid/Caucasian) as me (though I admit I'm not 100% sure - they're certainly not Mongoloid, Negroid, Polynesian, Aborigines etc). Furthermore, if I were to be a racist on this matter, I'd have to claim that:
A. The Gypsies are inferior to [insert supreme group here]
B. They're inferior to the said group due to their race/sub-race
While I:
B: Don't see anything racial/genetical that would make them inferior or superior.
A: If one is to say that their lifestyle is inferior to ours (a subjective point of view), then that would be due to their culture, not their race. As I mentioned a couple of times now - I have several Gypsy friends, whose culture is of the same type as that of the Bulgarians and is at least as equal or even surpasses the average Bulgarian - i.e. their "race" doesn't stop them from integrating into another type of society (in this case - settled, European, industrial) and the only "hindrance" for this is their own culture. Which is why those "converted" Gypsies I'm talking about live in a mixed area among other Bulgarians, while the Gypsies who live in their own "pure" neighbourhoods keep their own lifestyle (which I indeed find rather primitive, due to it being non-compatible with my own culture (the Gypsies have the so-called "self-indulgence culture" (as well as many of the Africans etc), while we and the rest of Europe and other developed nations have a "self-restraint culture")).

The term racism refers to the hatred of a person based on their race or ethnic group. A semantic debate would be a waste of time, unless you want to invent a relative term, but that would serve little purpose.

It is not at all uncommon for people of the same origin to live close together. This phenomenon is true with rural and urban migration where the migrant will choose to live by those from the same village of region.

It is common for persecuted and marginalized groups to developed anti- social behavior. When opportunity is denied, they often resort to other means of survival. This tends to convince people the behavior is inherent within the culture.

So, if your students actually had personal observations on the Gypsies, then they'd still be a victim of stereotypes nonetheless, as they haven't gone around searching for statistical data? I see...

The lesson was not focus on investigating the validity of stereotypes, only recognizing within the context on how it contributes to ethnic/ racial conflicts. My students were grade 7 students.


---

[Carpathian Wolf]

I already said this should be a separate discussion.

So when you have no reply you simply shut out the discussion. Make another thread or whatever makes you happy. I think we can discuss it here just fine.

It is either off- topic or not relevant

Of course, when you are wrong...it isn't relevant.

These are examples of generalization. It would not be stereotyping unless you act on it. However, stereotyping is often not as harmless as making pasta for Italians. It often would translate to treating a Jewish business differently because of the reputation to be cheap and greedy.

Ok. Well I engage in serving tea to English people. Now i'm stereo typing. So what is the issue here? There is no issue with taking note of national characteristics so long as you don't do things like "those dirty Jews and their business." Nobody is espousing that here so I don't know why you keep bringing strawmen up like that.

Cue the Superman Movie soundtrack. Seriously, If that is what you think then you take a step away from the discussion. This accusation alone is intellectually lazy.

If what is what I think? That you are portraying yourself as some defender against hordes of racists, or that the situation that the gypsies are in isn't simply a "oppressor/victim" relationship?

No, I think we all had our fill of "cherry picking."

Why do you think he is saying those things? Why do you think there are so many examples of this? And when does it stop being cherry picking and it starts become an actual issue common to a distinct people?

Racism is a social issue. ????????
Do you honestly think "blacks" are the only group in the US that experiences racism? I will assume you know better and leave at that. I drew on the "black" experience because it is the most well- known and therefor easier to for people to draw a point of reference.

Racism is a social ill that is behaviorally universal.

No, I said the issue with gypsies isn't their race, it's a social problem. They could be Tibetan, Japanese or Nigerian. Race is not the problem here.

[PikeStance]

So when you have no reply you simply shut out the discussion. Make another thread or whatever makes you happy. I think we can discuss it here just fine.

There are two points here: One the initial portion of the questions poses an interesting question about the concept of determinism. How does one's background (especially genetic background) influence us. This could be more broad to encompass all of mankind or more specific to individuals. I felt like this would take us on an divergent track- plus it is deserving of its own discussion. Second the question posed was already being discussed. So, I would simply be redundant answering it. So, in effect the question only opens up a divergent discussion without adding anything new to the discussion.

Of course, when you are wrong...it isn't relevant.

Perhaps you can explain to me why it is relevant. I do not see how it is. After all that is the point of a discussion.

Ok. Well I engage in serving tea to English people. Now i'm stereo typing. So what is the issue here?

If this is what you thinbk stereotyping is, then you do not know what it means. If you want to discuss this, then do so, but don;t do it by making light, terse responses. This is not conducive to a discussion at all.

There is no issue with taking note of national characteristics so long as you don't do things like "those dirty Jews and their business." Nobody is espousing that here so I don't know why you keep bringing strawmen up like that.

Using an alternate scenario of stereotyping is not even close to a strawman argument. A strawman is when you exaggerate an argument then argue the exaggeration. I corrected your understanding of what stereotyping is and then gave you another example outside of the case we are looking at to give you a better understanding of the term. I didn't strawman your point, I flat out said it was wrong.

If what is what I think? That you are portraying yourself as some defender against hordes of racists, or that the situation that the gypsies are in isn't simply a "oppressor/victim" relationship?

This is yet another logical fallacy,.. I think I let you look it up. I had no idea TWC was a haven for racists to espoused their poisonous views. I would think it isn;t. You are being a little melodramatic. I am simply expressing my views. The fact that I am communicating with more than one person who do not share my views in no way makes me the valiant defender.

Why do you think he is saying those things? Why do you think there are so many examples of this? And when does it stop being cherry picking and it starts become an actual issue common to a distinct people?

Gypsies live all over the place and no one is denying that they have been the cause of social ills. It is simply ridiculous to assume that they would not be many cases. The issue isn't that do these things, it is the prejudging an individual and acting on those prejudgements. BTW this is another logical fallacy. Should I provide a link?

No, I said the issue with gypsies isn't their race, it's a social problem. They could be Tibetan, Japanese or Nigerian. Race is not the problem here.

No the issue is whether or not it is fair to stereotype. Both the OP and subsequent post do not deal with the issue with social problems except as an excuse to stereotype.

---

[Thorn777]

That's a false cognate. The gypsy root 'rom' translates to 'man' or 'husband', while 'Basileia Rhomaion' is simply Greek for 'Roman Empire' (itself obviously from the word 'Roma' - the name of the city). No relation whatsoever.

Srry its the fact and I dont see whats debatable. In the tongue of the day in that area a Roman just meant men, or people, or citizen, same as Rhoma still means that today in Rhoma language.

But go ahead, believe that it stems from Dohm, a low caste in India, who only have something called "gypsies" because colonial English reffered to some peoples that way. Thats the kind of illogical drivel many of you support.

Late evidence support(like the Jat genetic relations who where a big supplier of warriors around the area or Sind language relation among all the big city's way down south of Pakistan) the version of Roma stories themselves: the high castes of warriors, priests and saints around the Indus Delta and their many more servants being expelled by the Muslim invaders for being an obstacle for spreading Islam while the killing of them would cause unrests.

But I know youll just love to see them as filth, same way as you start jumping on "Rhoma" as if they stole the name of the oh so glorious Romans like they steal anything. Again, it simply means men in that area, in that era.

[Vizvii]

Srry its the fact and I dont see whats debatable. In the tongue of the day in that area a Roman just meant men, or people, or citizen, same as Rhoma still means that today in Rhoma language.

But go ahead, believe that it stems from Dohm, a low caste in India, who only have something called "gypsies" because colonial English reffered to some peoples that way. Thats the kind of illogical drivel many of you support.

Late evidence support(like the Jat genetic relations who where a big supplier of warriors around the area or Sind language relation among all the big city's way down south of Pakistan) the version of Roma stories themselves: the high castes of warriors, priests and saints around the Indus Delta and their many more servants being expelled by the Muslim invaders for being an obstacle for spreading Islam while the killing of them would cause unrests.

But I know youll just love to see them as filth, same way as you start jumping on "Rhoma" as if they stole the name of the oh so glorious Romans like they steal anything. Again, it simply means men in that area, in that era.

Wow, that's a pretty spectacular strawman. If someone believes that your etymology is incorrect, that doesn't mean that they're genocidal.

[Thorn777]

I think you make a fine strawman yourself there. Where did I talk genocide?

Im convinced though we are dealing with many pre-conceived bigots from eastern europe though where their racism is socially acceptable, who say stuff like "they where already kicked out of india, where they where the lowest people, and anecdote this and anecdote that as to why we are dealing with a special brand here who have all our biggotry coming". I debated them all earlier many times on this issue..

And the same folks autmotically jump the fence when the word Roma is related to Romans, who then do as if its something outlandish and as if the Roma claim Caesars herritage, while that just displays how they flaunt with their own ignorance, not realizing it was a common term in the region back then reffering to men, or people, or indeed husband, as husband where back then usualy the only commonly mentionworthy people in the patriarchical socities.

[PikeStance]

This is a great video about the hypocrisy of racism.



This may sting,...sorry

[NikeBG]

A stereotype is not presented as a myth, but an absolute fact.

A semantic debate would be a waste of time, unless you want to invent a relative term, but that would serve little purpose.

If this is what you thinbk stereotyping is, then you do not know what it means.

Please, enlighten us then, because it seems you have a quite different idea on the meaning of the word "stereotype"!

Just for the record, here's a few links and definitions from some online sources after a few seconds of Google search:
Oxford dictionary: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing or a person or thing that conforms to a widely held but oversimplified image of the class or type to which they belong

Merriam Webster: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

Wikipedia: A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality.

TheFreeDictionary: 1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. / 2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

[PikeStance]

Please, enlighten us then, because it seems you have a quite different idea on the meaning of the word "stereotype"!

Just for the record, here's a few links and definitions from some online sources after a few seconds of Google search:
Oxford dictionary: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing or a person or thing that conforms to a widely held but oversimplified image of the class or type to which they belong

Merriam Webster: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

Wikipedia: A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality.

TheFreeDictionary: 1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. / 2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

The definition comes from a sociology textbook I used as a source for my course. It appears the definition is an elaboration off of the Merriam- Webster definition.

.....

[NikeBG]

Which has nothing to do with how it's presented (i.e. it has no limitation whether it's presented as myth or "absolute fact") AND it includes things like "Germans like beer, English like tea, Americans like hamburger" etc. Heck, the Wiki definition even correctly points out that it "may or may not accurately reflect reality".

[PikeStance]

Which has nothing to do with how it's presented (i.e. it has no limitation whether it's presented as myth or "absolute fact") AND it includes things like "Germans like beer, English like tea, Americans like hamburger" etc. Heck, the Wiki definition even correctly points out that it "may or may not accurately reflect reality".

Nike,

Both stereotyping and generalization can be described as either accurately or not accurately describing a group as a whole. This has never been at issue in this thread. At least, I have never argued that such distinction was important.

In your definition from Merriam- Webster

...held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

Examining the definition, it illustrates my point. It is imply unfair" to make an assumption or to treat an individual because they happen to belong to a group that has developed a questionable reputation. When the stereotype is mostly not true, it is a greater tragedy. That person will be denied a right to choose a place to live, a job or a promotion they covet, or denied enumerable goods and services. When this happens it is a real tragedy- people deserve to be treated better. Unfortunately, history is filled when this attitude as led to extreme violence and the tragedy becomes even more profound. People are to willing to project the tragedy as a distant problem, but fail the introspection that reveal their own little prejudices.

My job as allowed me to travel the world. I have had many encounters when I can look into the eyes of children and see nothing but innocents. Hate is learned. It starts with stereotyping, which progresses to "harmless" jokes, add in competition and before you know, we have a recipe for tragedies.

[Note: this isn't specific directed at you- speaking generally]

---

[Getwulf]

This is a great video about the hypocrisy of racism.



This may sting,...sorry

This video failed when it started off the entire argument with a preacher shouting "God is love...!"... Thankfully the intellectuals have already proven that God is a figment of your imagination. Most of the arguments presented can be deconstructed in the same manner. The video is crappy propaganda.

The term racism refers to the hatred of a person based on their race or ethnic group. A semantic debate would be a waste of time, unless you want to invent a relative term, but that would serve little purpose.

It is not at all uncommon for people of the same origin to live close together. This phenomenon is true with rural and urban migration where the migrant will choose to live by those from the same village of region.

It is common for persecuted and marginalized groups to developed anti- social behavior. When opportunity is denied, they often resort to other means of survival. This tends to convince people the behavior is inherent within the culture.

The gypsies have always been a clannish culture full of anti-social behaviour... They're invaders to Europe and especially to Romania. We wouldn't want them there even if they were peacefull.

Im convinced though we are dealing with many pre-conceived bigots from eastern europe though where their racism is socially acceptable, who say stuff like "they where already kicked out of india, where they where the lowest people, and anecdote this and anecdote that as to why we are dealing with a special brand here who have all our biggotry coming". I debated them all earlier many times on this issue..

And the same folks autmotically jump the fence when the word Roma is related to Romans, who then do as if its something outlandish and as if the Roma claim Caesars herritage, while that just displays how they flaunt with their own ignorance, not realizing it was a common term in the region back then reffering to men, or people, or indeed husband, as husband where back then usualy the only commonly mentionworthy people in the patriarchical socities.

Pre-conceived bigots you say...? No... I'm a post-conceived bigot who's had first hand experience with the gypsies. AND YES racism is socially acceptable and should be socially acceptable everywhere.

I don't claim any Roman heritage... get that right. But I'll give you one thing... It is very likely that a lot of the Phanariots were in fact wealthy criminal gypsies from Istanbul and the Ottoman empire... Check out Mavrokordatos... One of the most disgusting human beings to have ever walked the face of the earth. AND yes these Rhomaions did have a lot to do with the current form of what should be rightly called "Gothia".

Now as for gypsies being closer to "Romanians" on account that they're also from Byzantium you can forget it. We're not Byzantines, or Huns, or Cumans, or Romans or whatever... The period of cultural ignorance about our heritage is coming to an end. In reality, Huns, Cumans, Byzantines, Armenians, Slavs and Palestinians are in fact what the "Romanians" are. However, you'd be surprised to find out that they're not the majority of the population. They are however, the majority of the blowhards and criminals who make that country a mockery.

People like Carpathian Wolf, Romano-Dacis and these other guys are Romanian minorities... They don't represent us but they cling to a false idea of multicultural Roman brotherhood so that they may also fit in amongst us. My kind wasn't conquered by the Romans and we don't submit to these other people who are at best pretend Romans with hideous family names like "Ciociungescu"...

Should be noted that Romania's PM for a short while was M. R. Ungureanu... In other words, the "Hungarian"...

I resent their position of authority over us and in fact I do openly rebel against it.

As far as I'm concerned both the Huns and the gypsies are disgusting beings and should be excluded from living within the boundaries of my country... If not that then straight up death to them.

[Carpathian Wolf]

There are two points here: One the initial portion of the questions poses an interesting question about the concept of determinism. How does one's background (especially genetic background) influence us. This could be more broad to encompass all of mankind or more specific to individuals. I felt like this would take us on an divergent track- plus it is deserving of its own discussion. Second the question posed was already being discussed. So, I would simply be redundant answering it. So, in effect the question only opens up a divergent discussion without adding anything new to the discussion.

Do they have one take English comprehension courses in order to teach around the world? What part of "This has nothing to do with genetics" am I not presenting clearly enough for everyone to understand? Please, enlighten me.

Perhaps you can explain to me why it is relevant. I do not see how it is. After all that is the point of a discussion.

Of course after dancing around the point rather than answering it, you lose track of what was initially said. The question was, IN WHAT WAY WAS I ACTING HATEFUL TOWARD GYPSIES.

If this is what you thinbk stereotyping is, then you do not know what it means. If you want to discuss this, then do so, but don;t do it by making light, terse responses. This is not conducive to a discussion at all.

I'm guessing dancing around the point is part of the curriculum? The point was very simple, I am sure you can understand it. Do different nationalities have their specific and unique aspects about them in a general way? Can I assume Japanese eat sushi and drink sake and that French like cheese and wine while understanding that these are GENERALITIES that do not always apply?

Using an alternate scenario of stereotyping is not even close to a strawman argument. A strawman is when you exaggerate an argument then argue the exaggeration. I corrected your understanding of what stereotyping is and then gave you another example outside of the case we are looking at to give you a better understanding of the term. I didn't strawman your point, I flat out said it was wrong.

The word of the day is...HYPERBOLE. That is what you were engaging in. I mention tea and Englishmen and you start talking about the holocaust.

BONUS QUESTION: How many posts in a thread, does it take to get to a Nazi reference?

This is yet another logical fallacy,.. I think I let you look it up. I had no idea TWC was a haven for racists to espoused their poisonous views. I would think it isn;t. You are being a little melodramatic. I am simply expressing my views. The fact that I am communicating with more than one person who do not share my views in no way makes me the valiant defender.

Correct, it doesn't. Just so long as we are both clear on that. But are you making the accusation that TWC is a haven for racists to espouse their poisonous views?

Gypsies live all over the place and no one is denying that they have been the cause of social ills. It is simply ridiculous to assume that they would not be many cases. The issue isn't that do these things, it is the prejudging an individual and acting on those prejudgements. BTW this is another logical fallacy. Should I provide a link?

Only if you require the link for yourself. If you are making a crusade against prejudgement, by all means we're all on the same side. But there is nothing wrong it admitting that there is a somewhat, unbalanced inclination in the gypsy community as opposed to others. Is it racist to state simple facts? Does it make me racist to say that statistically speaking, blacks in America sell and use crack more than other races? Or that suburban whites have a higher inclination toward meth than other races?

No the issue is whether or not it is fair to stereotype. Both the OP and subsequent post do not deal with the issue with social problems except as an excuse to stereotype.

Then you are not doing very well at grasping the full weight of the argument unfortunately. Remember, just because one is a teacher, does not give them an excuse not to remain a student in their heart.

Srry its the fact and I dont see whats debatable. In the tongue of the day in that area a Roman just meant men, or people, or citizen, same as Rhoma still means that today in Rhoma language.

But go ahead, believe that it stems from Dohm, a low caste in India, who only have something called "gypsies" because colonial English reffered to some peoples that way. Thats the kind of illogical drivel many of you support.

Late evidence support(like the Jat genetic relations who where a big supplier of warriors around the area or Sind language relation among all the big city's way down south of Pakistan) the version of Roma stories themselves: the high castes of warriors, priests and saints around the Indus Delta and their many more servants being expelled by the Muslim invaders for being an obstacle for spreading Islam while the killing of them would cause unrests.

But I know youll just love to see them as filth, same way as you start jumping on "Rhoma" as if they stole the name of the oh so glorious Romans like they steal anything. Again, it simply means men in that area, in that era.

Taking it a little far. Gypsies were distinct from Romans. It is a false etymology. Nobody is saying that gypsies were "from the lowest caste" or any specific caste. Personally I find the warrior caste theory more plausible as that allows geographic mobility. Or at the very least, they were prisoners taken by Muslims from all forms of castes. It is clear that you've run into some prejudice and issues, but you do the same thing in saying that it is socially acceptable to be racist in eastern european societies. It's hypocritical.

This video failed when it started off the entire argument with a preacher shouting "God is love...!"... Thankfully the intellectuals have already proven that God is a figment of your imagination. Most of the arguments presented can be deconstructed in the same manner. The video is crappy propaganda.




The gypsies have always been a clannish culture full of anti-social behaviour... They're invaders to Europe and especially to Romania. We wouldn't want them there even if they were peacefull.



Pre-conceived bigots you say...? No... I'm a post-conceived bigot who's had first hand experience with the gypsies. AND YES racism is socially acceptable and should be socially acceptable everywhere.

I don't claim any Roman heritage... get that right. But I'll give you one thing... It is very likely that a lot of the Phanariots were in fact wealthy criminal gypsies from Istanbul and the Ottoman empire... Check out Mavrokordatos... One of the most disgusting human beings to have ever walked the face of the earth. AND yes these Rhomaions did have a lot to do with the current form of what should be rightly called "Gothia".

Now as for gypsies being closer to "Romanians" on account that they're also from Byzantium you can forget it. We're not Byzantines, or Huns, or Cumans, or Romans or whatever... The period of cultural ignorance about our heritage is coming to an end. In reality, Huns, Cumans, Byzantines, Armenians, Slavs and Palestinians are in fact what the "Romanians" are. However, you'd be surprised to find out that they're not the majority of the population. They are however, the majority of the blowhards and criminals who make that country a mockery.

People like Carpathian Wolf, Romano-Dacis and these other guys are Romanian minorities... They don't represent us but they cling to a false idea of multicultural Roman brotherhood so that they may also fit in amongst us. My kind wasn't conquered by the Romans and we don't submit to these other people who are at best pretend Romans with hideous family names like "Ciociungescu"...

Should be noted that Romania's PM for a short while was M. R. Ungureanu... In other words, the "Hungarian"...

I resent their position of authority over us and in fact I do openly rebel against it.

As far as I'm concerned both the Huns and the gypsies are disgusting beings and should be excluded from living within the boundaries of my country... If not that then straight up death to them.

Please, future generations of humanity, aliens, dinosaur zombies, when our bones are dust and you find this post, ignore this mind numbing stupidity, for it does not represent the Romanian people, or any form of intellectually inclined being of our era. Judge us, not too harshly. We collectively hope that our tolerance for such mouth doodoo is proof enough of our civility.