Why does British media assign traveller crime to eastern Europeans?Watch
Hardly going to help Brits feel good about their European kin, is it, if the media pretends eastern Europeans are at fault, when its usually just gypsies, who don't really have a concept of national identity.
- Political Ambassador
They have been accused several times by Romania and not only of tarnishing the country's image abroad. The problem is particularly acute in Eastern Europe because the concentration of Gypsies is the greatest. Of course these countries where there is a significant population of Roma and so their nationality is written on their passport are forced to take the bullet for their thievery and crimes. Mass-media says "Romanians did this and that" instead of elaborating and educating people on the subject. That is why some people don't even distinguish Romani from Romanian, which is an unrelated ethnic group and nation that is also pronounced "români" in Romanian.
Last year the Minister of India stated that they are children of India and also the Indian government was advised to recognise the Roma community as part of the Indian diaspora.
Those who haven't been assimilated into the European society and still face exclusion mostly travel from place to place without any goals whatsoever, don't even want to work, don't send their children to school and don't respect the law. Those people are being associated with the country they are residents in even if they don't seem to integrate and respect certain values. There are also exceptions like established respectable communities, but unfortunately not as noticeable.
Perhaps because they absolutely shun European society? Turks are much more European than the gypsies who haven't assimilated after a whole millenium.
What exactly do you want them to do, by the way? Is it the nomadic lifestyle you see as un-European? By that logic, are the nomadic indigenous Sami in Northern Scandinavia also not European?
Okay, you raise a good point. I guess by European, I refer to the majority European culture, which is descended from Roman,Greek, and Germanic cultures. So no, that would not include the Sami.
- Celts (inc. Welsh, Scots, Irish, Cornish)
That's quite an extensive list....
Do you see the irony of using a strawman argument while linking to a website that seeks to raise awareness of logical fallacies? I did not claim Romania is the cradle of civilisation, although I understand that you'd find that an easier argument to tackle.
Apart from the fact that Dacia was only briefly part of the Roman Empire, there were countless mass population migrations, conversions, assimilations, etc between the fall of Rome and the emergence of a concept of a Romanian nation in the 19th Century.
Your confusion is understandable, and seems to stem from a misunderstanding of terminology. For example, the term indo-germanic does not mean exclusively Indian and Germanic peoples, but is used as a term to encompass all European cultures. It is this definition of Germanic, which includes the groups in your list, that I was using.
Coloured are the Indo-European peoples, 500 AD
Watch this, the evolution of languages in the European continent https://g.redditmedia.com/_6H7Nleqp6...gmented=false&
Romanian culture does have stronger links to Rome than its neighbours.
The problem is that you're assuming language = culture, when language is only one aspect of culture. For example, it would seem bizarre to argue that Anglophone Irishmen have more culturally in common with Anglophone Maoris than they do with Gaelophone Irishmen, right?
To support my claims.