Dalibomba

Hey Romanian friends. Song "Dalibomba" of Sandu Ciorba became a big hit in Poland:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iUGfURqyhse

What do you think about it? Tell me something about Ciorba.And this girl in pink dress in video. Is there any chance to his concert in Poland?

God damn it!

He's not romanian! He's indian. That is not a Romanian song.

Gypsies are not romanians, they're some sort of bloody pakis. The girls and the muscle boys, if they're romanians just prostitute themselves

I know that Ciorba is gypsy,but the song is romanian and people in videoclip also(?). This video is very specific and became very popular because many people in polish villages looks very similar And we can't wait for his concert there. If you have contact with Ciorba please tell him or text him to come to Poland

Gippos, making it big in Poland. Jesus Christ, it's true.

even our National Anthem was composed by a Gypsy musician

Only the music, not the lyrics. Otherwise we would have sung something about our hearts crying tears of loneliness, shaka laka boom boom.

Only the music, not the lyrics. Otherwise we would have sung something about our hearts crying tears of loneliness, shaka laka boom boom.

Of course.

I don't listen to manele, lautareasca or other kinds of such music but it's a trend that is somehow related to the feelings of many of my compatriots, therefore it accomplishes a certain purpose in our society. Enforcing tastes should not be our task in life; ignoring something you don't like is much better than trying to change it, if that particular object poses no real danger to its listeners.

it's not patriotic enough to accept our ancestors as slave-owners

Speak for yourself my descended-from-foreigners friend. My ancestors never owned any slaves. If anything it might have even been the other way around. Remember the serfs?

Or maybe I'm wrong and my ancestors were all great lords. I can see myself descending from Targaryens... Where my dragons at?!

Or maybe I'm a Stark. I do live in the north, unlike all you southerners.

The king in the North! The king in the North!

My ancestors never owned Gypsies as slaves. They lived in free towns as free citizens: farmers, artizans, perhaps patricians or traders. When ignorance reigned high around them, they kept the light of civilization up high. When there was work to be done, they did it themselves, they had no use for slaves or serfs.

Of course, Ceausescu managed to ultimately sell them to the highest bidder, making them honorary slaves.

Or they were wood-dwellers. I could care less...

When ignorance reigned high around them, they kept the light of civilization up high. When there was work to be done, they did it themselves, they had no use for slaves or serfs.

One of my colleagues at work loves to be the center of attention. He loves it so much that he feels he MUST be a part of every conversation. And every time he does that, he has to be better than the guy who started the conversation.

If you say you watched an Alien movie the night before, he'll tell you he's seen the entire series.

If you say you went to Barcelona, he will tell you he has 3 or 4 homes in Spain.

And so on and so forth..

He is so annoying, I named him "me too guy".

What I'm trying to say, Alexandru, is that all this "I was in charge of a newspaper/I was a game tester for some big company/My ancestors were great defenders of knowledge" only makes you look like a douche. Because nobody cares what you do or who you are. We have the internet too, dude. We cam google things for ourselves, we don't need you to tell us what to google or what's true and what's not.

I don't care the gypsies were slaves. And I don't care what they did to help us better understand the complex science that is music.

I do, however, care what they do today. And what they do today is chaos!

I don't want people to think gypsies are Romanian. It's how I feel, I don't care if it's racist, I don't care what you preach.

You need to back off and let other people have their own opinions. You don't need to be part of every conversation. That's if you don't want to be a "me too guy".

Oh... I almost forgot the moral of the "me too guy" story.

One day, two or my female colleagues were talking. One was telling the other that her stomach ached because she was on her period. "Me too guy" was about a meter or so from them. Once the girl finished her sentence, the stupid asshole jumps up(I fucking shit you not) and yells out loud enough for everyone in the office to hear him: "Me too"!

Auziti ba!

Gata, am dat-o dracu, Ben Gurion ne pune sa platim inca un holocaust, de data asta tziganesc. Cica am fi fost proprietari de sclavi! I-am adus cu forta pe tzigani din India? Cu vaporul, pe Gange si Brahmaputra, apoi pe Oceanul Indian, pe la Capul Bunei Sperante, Gibraltar si Marea Mediterana, apoi prin Dardanele si Bosfor in Marea Neagra?

Ba, voi il auziti pe asta ce debiteaza?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN PERMANENTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

axl, tata, tu de la asta vrei sa inveti istorie?

Vedeti cine este Ben Gurion? Cand v-am zis eu ca n-are ce cauta pe acest site odinioara Romanesc?

Mihail Kogalniceanu, 1891

Contemporanii mei iși aduc aminte, și aci am ca martor pe mai junele meu contemporan, pe colegul meu Alexandru PapadopolCalimach, iși aduc aminte ce erau țiganii, sunt acum 50 de ani, chiar atunci cand razele civilizațiunii moderne imblanzise moravurile in toate societățile Europei și cand sclavia nu mai avea domiciliu decat in Rusia și din nenorocire și in Romania.

Legea țării trata pe țigani de lucru, vandut și cumparat ca lucru, deși prin deriziune numarul sau individul se califica de suflet: am atatea suflete de țigani; in realitate, și mai ales stapanii care aveau puțini țigani, ii tratau mai rau chiar decat prescripțiunile legii.

 

Chiar pe ulițele orașului Iași, in tinerețele mele am vazut ființe omenești purtand lanțuri in maini sau la picioare, ba unii chiar coarne de fier aninate de frunte și legate prin coloane imprejurul gatului. Batai crude, osandiri la foame și la fum, inchidere in inchisori particulare, aruncați goi in zapadă sau in rauri inghețate, iată soarta nenorociților țigani! Apoi disprețul pentru sfințenia și legaturile de familie. Femeia luată de la barbat, fata rapită de la parinți, copiii rupți de la sanul nascatorilor lor și razlețiți și desparțiți unii de alții, și vanduți ca vitele la deosebiți cumparatori, in cele patru colțuri ale Romaniei. Nici umanitatea, nici religiunea, nici legea civilă nu aveau ocrotire pentru aceste nenorocite ființe; era un spectacol grozav, strigator la cer. De aceea, povățuiți de spiritul secolului, de legile omenirii, un numar de boieri batrani și tineri au intreprins de a spala patria lor de rușinea sclaviei.

 

Înainte ca chestiunea dezrobirii țiganilor să fi intrat in consiliile, in planurile de reformă ale ocarmuitorilor, ea a inceput a se agita prin insăși inițiativa parțială a stapanilor de țigani. Mulți din aceștia, și numarul lor din zi in zi sporea, ori in viață, ori mai ales la moarte, iși dezrobeau, iși iertau țiganii. Întrebuințez cuvantul de iertare, pe care il gasim in toate actele de dezrobire; dar reforma era prea grea, ea jignea prea multe interese ca să se poată opera cu inlesnire. Erau țiganii domnești și foarte mulți; aceștia constituiau un venit mare in bugetul statului; erau țiganii manastirești și ai așezamintelor publice, ale carora servicii intrau in trebuințele zilnice ale acestor comunități; erau, in fine, țiganii particulari, țiganii boierești, care constituiau personalul de servitori in curțile boierești, bucatari, vizitii, randași, feciori in casa slujnice, bucatarese, cusatorițe. Boierii cei bogați aveau chiar capele de muzici sau tarafe de lautari. Toate aceste funcțiuni se exercitau de țigani; dezrobirea lor era dar combatută de trebuințele zilnice și casnice ale vieții familiilor, de aceea emanciparea nu s-a putut face decat treptat și sub două domnii, atat in Moldova, cat și in Muntenia. Întaia lovire care s-a dat sclaviei a fost legea emanciparii țiganilor statului și a manastirilor. Dezrobirea s-a facut mai intai in Moldova de catre domnul Mihail Sturdza, prin două legi din 31 ianuarie 1844, iar in Țara Romanească de catre domnul Alexandru Ghica, prin o lege din 1845. Această emancipare, deși parțiala era hotaratoare și pentru emanciparea țiganilor particulari, ramași incă in sclavie. Toate mințile prevazatoare au ințeles că ora ștergerii sclaviei de pe pamantul romanesc sosise și că dezrobirea țiganilor particulari nu mai era decat o chestiune de timp. Entuziasmul Divanului ad-hoc era numai inaintemergatorul entuziasmului general ce pe atunci insufla toată Romania pentru viitoarea sa renaștere. Dovada sutele de proprietari care au respins orice despagubire acordată lor de legiuirea emancipatoare. Numele acestora au fost publicate și aparține iubitului nostru coleg, zelosul nostru cercetator și colecționar, d-nul Dimitrie Sturdza, să ne improspateze memoriei și istoriei contemporane numele acelora care, prin o generoasă renunțare, au expiat pacatele lor și ale parinților lor de a fi fost ani lungi stapani pe suflete de țigani. Cu o mica mandrie de moldovean, să-mi fie permis de a spune ianuarie 1844, iar in București in 1847; cea de a doua, in Iași, la 10 decembrie 1855, și in București la 8 februarie 1856.

 

Reforma emancipatrice a avut in curand efectele sale salutare: afară de țiganii laieși, care incă traiesc in parte sub șatra și afară de ursari, care fac incă meseria de a domestici fiarele salbatice, dar totuși se dau lucrului pamantului, mai toți astazi din celelalte clase de țigani s-au contopit in masa națiunii, și ei nu se mai cunosc decat prin fața lor smolită și asiatică și prin vivacitatea imaginațiunii lor; altmintrelea noi ii gasim in toate clasele societății noastre.

Deși de la proclamarea emancipațiunii nu sunt incă indepliniți 50 de ani, țiganii ne-au dat industriași, artiști, ofițeri distinși, buni administratori, medici și chiar oratori parlamentari.

Mă opresc aici. Sunt sigur că parinții noștri, dacă s-ar scula din mormant, vazand progresele ce au facut sufletele țiganești emancipate de danșii, nu s-ar cai de reforma umanitară proclamată de ei.

I thought you might need a history lesson, my antisemite colleague. And try to relax and live your golden years in peace.

Gypsies are not romanian and they probably never will be.

We didn't bring them here as slaves. Anyway, my jewish colleague has omitted to tell you that in the middle ages, romanian peasants were practically slaves themselves to a few large landowners, so it was pretty impossible for them to own slaves of their own. And the large landowners dind't treat the gypsies much worse that the romaninas they "owned".

Anyway, they had been "free" for more than 150 years. In this time they did almost nothing to integrate themselves in our society. They still marry their children at 12 years, they still refuse to work. The gipsy neighbourhoods (excluding the places where wealthy gypsies and gipsy criminal families live) look like they had just been hit by a nuclear weapon, not even grass grows in these places.

I urge him to go live next to these savages for a couple of months and then we will see how he thinks about them.

Gypsies are not romanian and they probably never will be.

 

We didn't bring them here as slaves. Anyway, my jewish colleague has omitted to tell you that in the middle ages, romanian peasants were practically slaves themselves to a few large landowners, so it was pretty impossible for them to own slaves of their own. And the large landowners dind't treat the gypsies much worse that the romaninas they "owned".

 

Anyway, they had been "free" for more than 150 years. In this time they did almost nothing to integrate themselves in our society. They still marry their children at 12 years, they still refuse to work. The gipsy neighbourhoods (excluding the places where wealthy gypsies and gipsy criminal families live) look like they had just been hit by a nuclear weapon, not even grass grows in these places.

 

I urge him to go live next to these savages for a couple of months and then we will see how he thinks about them.

Well, apart from the fact that I'm not Jewish or Hungarian or some other ethnicity you hate, you should try to read Kogalniceanu's speech (and since he had some antisemite ideas, he should belong in the "good guy camp" as a trusted source).

Also because I'm a Romanian (as a Nationality and Ethnicity, even though I have some diverse roots, as many people have) and live in Romania, I'm well aware of their lifestyles. I don't like them, I don't enjoy seeing violence or uncouth behaviour and I'm not advocating some kind of master plan of befriending them. But what we see now on the streets and the feelings we entertain because of it have no place in the debate concerning the true nature of "robia tiganilor". It was slavery pure and simple.

Now, the antisemite moron that keeps harrassing me, has the wrong idea that I might excuse or even defend gypsies because of the past. Far from it; I believe in personal responsability and no man should have it easy just because my ancestors enslaved his ancestors. A criminal gypsy is a criminal. Pure and simple. He's not a victim of historical circumstances, that kind of victims died 100 years ago. If his life choice is illegal, he belongs in jail. In fact, the fact that our police forces don't enforce law more harshly in the problem of gypsies is a big fail of our entire judicial system.

In conclusion, the gypsies were slaves. After their emancipation, they became free men. As free men, their behavior is judged by the same standards as we use. If it's not "kosher" ( ), they should face the punishment that fits the crown.

I don't hate any ethnicity, you are barking up the wrong tree. I have hungarian friends and I couldn't care less about the jews (I don't like them, nor do I hate them).

I read Kogalniceanu's speech and please tell me how life was a lot easier for romanian serfs. They were also slaves.

We, of course, used the Gypsies as slaves for 600 years and scapegoats for 150 (but we usually forget the first part since it's not patriotic enough to accept our ancestors as slave-owners).

Yeah, right, you are not defending them. You are just pointing them out as scapegoats.

If it was slavery, why don't they just move back from where they came?

They should just pack their stuff and leave. They certainly have enough money to do that. I doubt people in India earn more than they do.

So why stay here?

Because the only thing they can steal in India is dead bodies.

I never understood why anyone would want such a stupid, lazy, dishonest people as slaves. But this is Romania... we can't even do slavery right.

Serfs were treated as people; gypsies were treated as things. In fact, your argument was pretty much used in the South before the Civil War: "our slaves are protected by the injustice of economic times; the workers in the North are slaves of capitalists and left to die when they become useless".

But yes, serfs had a slave-like situation, even though technically they weren't slaves. In fact, the government used the same gimmick in their situation as in the case of gypsies. Gypsies were emancipated without any real compensation and the agrarian reform of Cuza stated that the peasants shall receive the property of the lands they currently work after paying the full price to the current owner; if they are unable to do that after 30 years, they shall lose this privilege. It's no wonder that after 30 years, the peasants found themselves serfs once again (and this led to the 1907 movements).

Yeah, right, you are not defending them. You are just pointing them out as scapegoats.

I'm not defending them, I'm attacking the mentality of blaming it all on gypsies. I don't view gypsy nature as an all-encompasing structure: while our ancestors viewed them as work-mules, we view them as lowlifes. In both cases, we are wrongfully expanding our bad experiences into some sort of a reference meta-frame and ignoring the few cases of good behaviour. Look at Nicolita: in his own family we find cases of "bad" gypsies and cases of "good" gypsies. Are they scapegoats? For the rabid anti-gypsy, his father and his non-working family are examples that confirm his inner beliefs. For the liberal good-fellow, Nicolita is an example of potential, hard work and success that can be used to fuel initiative in the gypsy population. In a sense, both observers are scapegoating the Nicolita family into a perfect picture of their own subjectivity.

I, on the other hand, look at his father as a drunk idiot and at Nicolita as a hardworking guy that managed to defeat poverty through a much-valued trade. I scapegoat them into classic Balzac-type profiles, but that's a bit better than trying to exacerbate the ethnic factor.

If it was slavery, why don't they just move back from where they came?

They would have moved towards West in 1300s but some Romanians thought they could be more useful working for them. That was a bad judgement.

Serfs were treated as people

That's what your books say, right? Then it must be so.

Horea, Closca and Crisan must have been wrong.

Nicolita is an example of potential, hard work and success

Ahahahhahahhahahaha... A football player works really, really hard. Indeed!

Not anyone can run and hit a ball with his/her leg. Now that's hard work.

They would have moved towards West in 1300s but some Romanians thought they could be more useful working for them. That was a bad judgement.

I'm sure they would have.

L-ati pierdut pe om, el a intrat aici pentru megahitul ala si voi...

Banita, Ciorba is a huge star in Romania, all of his songs are megahits. They are just haters, that's why they say things like "he's a gipsy". Ciorba is the Romanian Justin Bieber, he has fans all around the world, he's curly hair is a real magnet for young and old girls.

But because he's such a worldwide star, it's difficult to contact him. And by the way, he only sings on stadiums with very least 40.000 fans in the stands.

So, from what you are saying, gypsies were not a lot worse than serfs. Both categories were slaves, even though only gypsies were named as such.

It is not a question of generalising. Of course there are cases like Nicolota, of gypsies that managed to pull themselves out of misery through work. But for every gypsy like Nicolita, there are 5 gypsies like his father. And the gypsies as a ethnic group, should be characterized by the behaviour of the majority.

They have the potential to lift themselves out of the misery they live in, but most of them are too lazy to do that.

L-ati pierdut pe om, el a intrat aici pentru megahitul ala si voi...

 

Banita, Ciorba is a huge star in Romania, all of his songs are megahits. They are just haters, that's why they say things like "he's a gipsy". Ciorba is the Romanian Justin Bieber, he has fans all around the world, he's curly hair is a real magnet for young and old girls.

 

But because he's such a worldwide star, it's difficult to contact him. And by the way, he only sings on stadiums with very least 40.000 fans in the stands.

Meanwhile, in justin bieber's ass

~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã

€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€

~¢ ã€

€ã€€ ~¢ ~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ ~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~â

€¢ ~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€

€~¢ ~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~â

€¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€~¢ ~¢

One might argue that economically speaking some gypsies were better off than serfs, since they had better protection from outside forces (the boyar fed them, clothed them etc.). I value freedom more than material comfort and I would say I wouldn't have wanted to be a gypsy slave.

That's what your books say, right? Then it must be so.

 

Horea, Closca and Crisan must have been wrong.

I'm not arguing with Horea, I'm arguing with you. A slave wouldn't have been able to appear in front of the Empress, arguing for the case of serfs because a slave wouldn't have been recognised as a human being.

Just for the sake of it, if gypsies would have risen in the 18th century against their masters, would you have praised them for that or denounce the fact that "dirty foreigners" are killing their "romanian masters"?

It is not a question of generalising. Of course there are cases like Nicolota, of gypsies that managed to pull themselves out of misery through work. But for every gypsy like Nicolita, there are 5 gypsies like his father. And the gypsies as a ethnic group, should be characterized by the behaviour of the majority.

This is exactly what the British are doing when faced with the fact that the vast majority of bank card fraud is commited by romanian citizens: asking for punishments that would have effect on all romanian citizens. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to be singled out just because I belong to a certain nationality, religion, ethnicity etc. My acts belong to me, I'm in no way responsible for the illegal actions of a guy that resembles me on a racial/ethnical level.

If illegal acts are commited by a greater percentage in a gypsy community, it means the police, judges, social workers and teachers are not doing the job they are required to do. I'm sorry but I'm not the one giving handouts to everyone, closing my eyes when romanian citizens lie about their disabilities, their income, accepting tower houses with no verifiable building permits, taking bribes just to look the other way. And this is in no way limited to Romania: France or Italy are crying their eyes out when speaking about illegal shanty houses on the outskirts of their cities but how many times do they act in a decisive manner, toppling them down and imprison the law-breakers? Ah, the solution is always to quietly deport them.

The problem with Romania is not the gypsy community but our lax attitude towards crime.

Just for the sake of it, if gypsies would have risen in the 18th century against their masters, would you have praised them for that or denounce the fact that "dirty foreigners" are killing their "romanian masters"?

That's rich. A gypsy fighting for himself would really be something to watch.

But that means they have to work, dude. It's not in their nature to work. It's not in their nature to fight. They only fight when they're sure they can win, when they have superior numbers.

So gypsies would have never risen. There's nothing here to talk about.

And just to answer your question, I'd be with my own people on this. Cause blood's thicker than water.

One might argue that economically speaking some gypsies were better off than serfs

One might not. One does argue that they were better off than serfs. Had they been worse off, they would have rebeled against their masters. They did not do this. Because it's not in their nature to work and because they didn't have it all that bad.

Ah... they lacked the freedom to go and speak to the emperor. You really think they were interested in anything more than a full belly and a warm place to sleep? C'mon!

I'm not arguing with Horea, I'm arguing with you. A slave wouldn't have been able to appear in front of the Empress, arguing for the case of serfs because a slave wouldn't have been recognised as a human being.

Yup. A lot of good that did them.

This is exactly what the British are doing when faced with the fact that the vast majority of bank card fraud is commited by romanian citizens: asking for punishments that would have effect on all romanian citizens. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to be singled out just because I belong to a certain nationality, religion, ethnicity etc. My acts belong to me, I'm in no way responsible for the illegal actions of a guy that resembles me on a racial/ethnical level.

I would do the same. It's not their job to educate our people. It's our job.

It's our fault the gypsies cause so much damage. We must "educate" them ourselves.

imprison the law-breakers?

Why spend their takpayers' money on our citizens?

axl, tata, tu de la asta vrei sa inveti istorie?

Hai Tupac, nu poti fi serios. Tiganii au fost robi, e fapt istoric. E foarte posibil ca stramosii mei din partea mamei sa fi avut robi tigani, nu ca mi-ar parea rau.