I don't understand.
Roman empire is the foundation of our actual societies, not the barbaric and germanic tribes.
Roman empire is the foundation of our actual societies, not the barbaric and germanic tribes.
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
Julien Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:37 am GMT
""""I don't understand.
Roman empire is the foundation of our actual societies, not the barbaric and germanic tribes. """""
______________________________________
Germanic peoples have conquered Rome and reorganized Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. They and rulers like Karl the great have been at least as important for the culture, history and languages of modern Europe as Caesar.
""""I don't understand.
Roman empire is the foundation of our actual societies, not the barbaric and germanic tribes. """""
______________________________________
Germanic peoples have conquered Rome and reorganized Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. They and rulers like Karl the great have been at least as important for the culture, history and languages of modern Europe as Caesar.
"Germanic peoples have conquered Rome and reorganized Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. They and rulers like Karl the great have been at least as important for the culture, history and languages of modern Europe as Caesar. "
Charlemagne and his successor had an impact on European politics, but almost non eon the actual culture of the lands they ruled. If he they had mesurable cultural on the population the countries that are now Italy (north of Rome), France, Catalonia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands would not present the huge cultural gasps they do.
Actually the political entities that the german tribes created on the former Roman empire were almost only that: political entities.
They ruled and possessed land and dominated the lower-class romance-speaking peoples* but did not interfered and influenced they culture that much.
*(contrary on what it was in England were everuthing "latin/romance" is seen as superior and aristocratic; in the latin nations (or "romance" if you prefer), aristocracy used to have germanic roots, (frank in France, visigotic in Spain, etc.)
So the romance speaking peoples have been living and get used to see germanic peoples as their dominants and rulers and so developed quite inconciously a wish of "revenge" against the northern European germanic nations (England or germany mainly), and/or against the aristocratic class that exploted them (And that was the political heir of feudal system founded by the germanic tribes).
This "revenge" against the germanic ruling system lasted long time and finally led to the french revolution which was in a sense the radical and violent anihilation, after 1200 years of domination, of the political sytem led and founded by the descendents of frankish tribes (the noblesse 2% of the population), by the decendants of the Gallo-roman population (tiers-Etat: all the others).
Just after the french revolution everything in the former feudal political system of germanic origin was almost completly erased and replaced by the new one. It was violent, a lot of heads falled. That said France after this even was politically not the same country anymore and could be able to officially recover the roman and mediterranean political foundations that it lost with the arrival of the franks.
Some revolutionaries even thought the name of the country should be changed, because the country was not anymore ruled by the franks, it could be not anymore "the land of the Franks/Franckreich" - But this did not happened because of the long-lasting naming "France" wich was accepted by the population as their name since a long time.
It is not a surprise if the first french leader of this "post-frankish rule France" (Napoleon Bonaparte) was a mediterranean man that did a lot for the re-romanisation of the political system of France (that why he also used a lot roman political symbols such as "arcs de triomphe" - to unofficially symbolize the triomphe of Roman rule over its former germanic rulers).
This could not have being possible under the old regime where the original population of Roman, mediterranean and celtic origins has been confined in the dominated low-class for 1200 years.
I think a lot of people are not conscious of this symbolic aspect of the French revolution, and see it just a a transition between two different political systems, and so they continue to think modern France as a continuation of the political entity created by the Franks, while in realy its meaning is much deeper and symbolize the definite end of the Frankish political herency.
Charlemagne and his successor had an impact on European politics, but almost non eon the actual culture of the lands they ruled. If he they had mesurable cultural on the population the countries that are now Italy (north of Rome), France, Catalonia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands would not present the huge cultural gasps they do.
Actually the political entities that the german tribes created on the former Roman empire were almost only that: political entities.
They ruled and possessed land and dominated the lower-class romance-speaking peoples* but did not interfered and influenced they culture that much.
*(contrary on what it was in England were everuthing "latin/romance" is seen as superior and aristocratic; in the latin nations (or "romance" if you prefer), aristocracy used to have germanic roots, (frank in France, visigotic in Spain, etc.)
So the romance speaking peoples have been living and get used to see germanic peoples as their dominants and rulers and so developed quite inconciously a wish of "revenge" against the northern European germanic nations (England or germany mainly), and/or against the aristocratic class that exploted them (And that was the political heir of feudal system founded by the germanic tribes).
This "revenge" against the germanic ruling system lasted long time and finally led to the french revolution which was in a sense the radical and violent anihilation, after 1200 years of domination, of the political sytem led and founded by the descendents of frankish tribes (the noblesse 2% of the population), by the decendants of the Gallo-roman population (tiers-Etat: all the others).
Just after the french revolution everything in the former feudal political system of germanic origin was almost completly erased and replaced by the new one. It was violent, a lot of heads falled. That said France after this even was politically not the same country anymore and could be able to officially recover the roman and mediterranean political foundations that it lost with the arrival of the franks.
Some revolutionaries even thought the name of the country should be changed, because the country was not anymore ruled by the franks, it could be not anymore "the land of the Franks/Franckreich" - But this did not happened because of the long-lasting naming "France" wich was accepted by the population as their name since a long time.
It is not a surprise if the first french leader of this "post-frankish rule France" (Napoleon Bonaparte) was a mediterranean man that did a lot for the re-romanisation of the political system of France (that why he also used a lot roman political symbols such as "arcs de triomphe" - to unofficially symbolize the triomphe of Roman rule over its former germanic rulers).
This could not have being possible under the old regime where the original population of Roman, mediterranean and celtic origins has been confined in the dominated low-class for 1200 years.
I think a lot of people are not conscious of this symbolic aspect of the French revolution, and see it just a a transition between two different political systems, and so they continue to think modern France as a continuation of the political entity created by the Franks, while in realy its meaning is much deeper and symbolize the definite end of the Frankish political herency.
Sorry, my previous post was full of orthography mistakes, I tries to correct most of them. Sorry for my poor english.
"Germanic peoples have conquered Rome and reorganized Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. They and rulers like Karl the great have been at least as important for the culture, history and languages of modern Europe as Caesar. "
Charlemagne and his successors had an impact on European politics, but almost none on the actual culture of the lands they ruled. If they have had a mesurable cultural influence on the population; The countries that are now Italy (north of Rome), France, Catalonia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands would not present the huge cultural gasps they do, and would look like very culturally similar.
Actually the political entities that the german tribes created on the former Roman empire were almost only that: political entities made of tiny germanic high classes ruling low-class roman populations.
They ruled and possessed land and dominated the lower-class romance-speaking peoples* but did not really interfered and influenced their culture that much.
*(contrary of what it was in England were everything "latin/romance" is seen as superior and aristocratic; in the latin nations (or "romance" if you prefer), aristocracy used to have germanic roots, (frank in France, visigotic in Spain, etc.)
So the romance speaking peoples have been living and get used to see germanic peoples as their dominants and rulers and so developed quite inconciously a wish of "revenge" against the northern European germanic nations (England or germany mainly), and/or against the aristocratic class that exploted them for centuries (And that was the political heir of feudal system founded by the germanic tribes).
This "revenge" against the germanic ruling system lasted long time and finally led to the french revolution which was in a sense the radical and violent anihilation, after 1200 years of domination, of the political sytem led and founded by the descendents of frankish tribes (the noblesse 2% of the population), by the decendants of the Gallo-roman population (tiers-Etat: all the others).
Just after the french revolution everything of the former feudal political system of germanic origin was almost completly erased and replaced by the new one. It was violent, a lot of heads falled. France after this event was politically not the same country anymore and could be able to officially recover the roman and mediterranean political foundations that it lost with the arrival of the franks.
Some revolutionaries even thought the name of the country should be changed, because the country was not anymore ruled by the franks, it could be not anymore "the land of the Franks/Franckreich" - But this did not happened because of the long-lasting naming "France" wich was accepted by the population as their name since a long time.
It is not a surprise if the first french leader of this "post-frankish rule France" (Napoleon Bonaparte) was a mediterranean man that did a lot for the re-romanisation of the political system of France (that why he also used a lot roman political symbols such as "arcs de triomphe" - to unofficially symbolize the triomphe of Roman rule over its former germanic rulers).
This could not have being possible under the old regime where the original population of Roman, mediterranean and celtic origins has been confined in the dominated low-class for 1200 years.
I think a lot of people are not conscious of this symbolic aspect of the French revolution, and see it just a a transition between two different political systems, and so they continue to think modern France as a continuation of the political entity created by the Franks, while in realy its meaning is much deeper and symbolize the definite end of the Frankish political herency
"Germanic peoples have conquered Rome and reorganized Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. They and rulers like Karl the great have been at least as important for the culture, history and languages of modern Europe as Caesar. "
Charlemagne and his successors had an impact on European politics, but almost none on the actual culture of the lands they ruled. If they have had a mesurable cultural influence on the population; The countries that are now Italy (north of Rome), France, Catalonia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands would not present the huge cultural gasps they do, and would look like very culturally similar.
Actually the political entities that the german tribes created on the former Roman empire were almost only that: political entities made of tiny germanic high classes ruling low-class roman populations.
They ruled and possessed land and dominated the lower-class romance-speaking peoples* but did not really interfered and influenced their culture that much.
*(contrary of what it was in England were everything "latin/romance" is seen as superior and aristocratic; in the latin nations (or "romance" if you prefer), aristocracy used to have germanic roots, (frank in France, visigotic in Spain, etc.)
So the romance speaking peoples have been living and get used to see germanic peoples as their dominants and rulers and so developed quite inconciously a wish of "revenge" against the northern European germanic nations (England or germany mainly), and/or against the aristocratic class that exploted them for centuries (And that was the political heir of feudal system founded by the germanic tribes).
This "revenge" against the germanic ruling system lasted long time and finally led to the french revolution which was in a sense the radical and violent anihilation, after 1200 years of domination, of the political sytem led and founded by the descendents of frankish tribes (the noblesse 2% of the population), by the decendants of the Gallo-roman population (tiers-Etat: all the others).
Just after the french revolution everything of the former feudal political system of germanic origin was almost completly erased and replaced by the new one. It was violent, a lot of heads falled. France after this event was politically not the same country anymore and could be able to officially recover the roman and mediterranean political foundations that it lost with the arrival of the franks.
Some revolutionaries even thought the name of the country should be changed, because the country was not anymore ruled by the franks, it could be not anymore "the land of the Franks/Franckreich" - But this did not happened because of the long-lasting naming "France" wich was accepted by the population as their name since a long time.
It is not a surprise if the first french leader of this "post-frankish rule France" (Napoleon Bonaparte) was a mediterranean man that did a lot for the re-romanisation of the political system of France (that why he also used a lot roman political symbols such as "arcs de triomphe" - to unofficially symbolize the triomphe of Roman rule over its former germanic rulers).
This could not have being possible under the old regime where the original population of Roman, mediterranean and celtic origins has been confined in the dominated low-class for 1200 years.
I think a lot of people are not conscious of this symbolic aspect of the French revolution, and see it just a a transition between two different political systems, and so they continue to think modern France as a continuation of the political entity created by the Franks, while in realy its meaning is much deeper and symbolize the definite end of the Frankish political herency
To "just a comment "
You describe perfectly the 19th century national myth of France that led to the great wars of the 20th century. In the mean time science (linguistics, archeology, history) has found out that this myth does not describe what really happened. Asterix, "nos ancetres les Gaulois" and "Gauloises" cigarettes are just sympatic stories and brands, all not based on facts. The French nation of today was founded by the Germanic Franks, Burgundians and Goths who settled in great number and chose to speak elegant pseudo-Latin instead of plump old Germanic. Celtic/Gaulish was completely (100%!) wiped out by the Romans. The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne.
You describe perfectly the 19th century national myth of France that led to the great wars of the 20th century. In the mean time science (linguistics, archeology, history) has found out that this myth does not describe what really happened. Asterix, "nos ancetres les Gaulois" and "Gauloises" cigarettes are just sympatic stories and brands, all not based on facts. The French nation of today was founded by the Germanic Franks, Burgundians and Goths who settled in great number and chose to speak elegant pseudo-Latin instead of plump old Germanic. Celtic/Gaulish was completely (100%!) wiped out by the Romans. The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne.
Louis
des preuves ?
any proof ?
Toi et just a comment, ça se voit que vous êtes français, vous lancez "vos vérités" générales comme ça, sans rien prouver.
Je pense moi que les choses sont plus complexes, et je n'ai pas le souvenir que l'on ait fait des recherches d'adn ou de truc dans ce genre en France.
Je ne vous crois ni l'un ni l'autre!
des preuves ?
any proof ?
Toi et just a comment, ça se voit que vous êtes français, vous lancez "vos vérités" générales comme ça, sans rien prouver.
Je pense moi que les choses sont plus complexes, et je n'ai pas le souvenir que l'on ait fait des recherches d'adn ou de truc dans ce genre en France.
Je ne vous crois ni l'un ni l'autre!
<<Celtic/Gaulish was completely (100%!) wiped out by the Romans>>
<<The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne>>
No, the Celts in Bretagne survived to the Roman conquest, they are not an implantation from Britany. On the contrary many Celts from Great Britain migrated to Bretagne. French has a few words of Celtic origin and probably much of the French phonology is due to the Celts since this language is an evolution of the Latin spoken by Romanized Celts and not Germanic speakers.
<<The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne>>
No, the Celts in Bretagne survived to the Roman conquest, they are not an implantation from Britany. On the contrary many Celts from Great Britain migrated to Bretagne. French has a few words of Celtic origin and probably much of the French phonology is due to the Celts since this language is an evolution of the Latin spoken by Romanized Celts and not Germanic speakers.
<<Germanic peoples have conquered Rome and reorganized Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. They and rulers like Karl the great have been at least as important for the culture, history and languages of modern Europe as Caesar.>>
The Germanic peoples didn't conquer Rome. Rome fell due to its own faults and when the Empire could no longer be substained the Germanic tribes (their military leaders) took control of the Roman provinces as Rome's foederati . Remember that the Franks and Goths were Rome's allies. Only in Britannia, that was never fully Romanized , the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes took the effective control of the zone by defeating the Roman authority but in the rest of cases it was only a question of delegation of power ( from the Roman Emperor to the Germanic leaders). In fact every Germanic king aside from the case of England considered himself to be the sucessor of the Roman Emperors. So basically we have that the Germanic peoples didn't destroy the Roman Empire but kept a grotesque and degenerate version of it for around 1000 years .As for Charles the Great he was not really that great. He couldn't even read and write. He was illiterate like the Germanic noblemen of his court. Only the Clergy had certain culture because they preserved the Roman heritage .
The Germanic peoples didn't conquer Rome. Rome fell due to its own faults and when the Empire could no longer be substained the Germanic tribes (their military leaders) took control of the Roman provinces as Rome's foederati . Remember that the Franks and Goths were Rome's allies. Only in Britannia, that was never fully Romanized , the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes took the effective control of the zone by defeating the Roman authority but in the rest of cases it was only a question of delegation of power ( from the Roman Emperor to the Germanic leaders). In fact every Germanic king aside from the case of England considered himself to be the sucessor of the Roman Emperors. So basically we have that the Germanic peoples didn't destroy the Roman Empire but kept a grotesque and degenerate version of it for around 1000 years .As for Charles the Great he was not really that great. He couldn't even read and write. He was illiterate like the Germanic noblemen of his court. Only the Clergy had certain culture because they preserved the Roman heritage .
""As for Charles the Great he was not really that great. He couldn't even read and write. He was illiterate like the Germanic noblemen of his court. Only the Clergy had certain culture because they preserved the Roman heritage . ""
This is not correct - most of the European Clergy couldn´t read and write when Karl became king. Karl gave the order that the Clergy had to go to school, he thus was the founder of the European school system. Every French knows that....
This is not correct - most of the European Clergy couldn´t read and write when Karl became king. Karl gave the order that the Clergy had to go to school, he thus was the founder of the European school system. Every French knows that....
Oh no, no sir! I don't go that way! Let go of my leg! Please! And you call yourself French with a Latin-Germanic mix! No means no!
Julien Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:56 am GMT
...n'ai pas le souvenir que l'on ait fait des recherches d'adn ou de truc dans ce genre en France....
Since France definitively consists of a conglomerate of different peoples (ethnic groups) which have partly mixed, this would make no sense to make genetic studies.
...n'ai pas le souvenir que l'on ait fait des recherches d'adn ou de truc dans ce genre en France....
Since France definitively consists of a conglomerate of different peoples (ethnic groups) which have partly mixed, this would make no sense to make genetic studies.
Ouest Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:34 pm GMT
<<Since France definitively consists of a conglomerate of different peoples (ethnic groups) which have partly mixed, this would make no sense to make genetic studies.>>
exactly! that's why to say French are celt, latin or german is ridiculous!
<<Since France definitively consists of a conglomerate of different peoples (ethnic groups) which have partly mixed, this would make no sense to make genetic studies.>>
exactly! that's why to say French are celt, latin or german is ridiculous!
To "just a comment "
You describe perfectly the 19th century national myth of France that led to the great wars of the 20th century. In the mean time science (linguistics, archeology, history) has found out that this myth does not describe what really happened. Asterix, "nos ancetres les Gaulois" and "Gauloises" cigarettes are just sympatic stories and brands, all not based on facts. The French nation of today was founded by the Germanic Franks, Burgundians and Goths who settled in great number and chose to speak elegant pseudo-Latin instead of plump old Germanic. Celtic/Gaulish was completely (100%!) wiped out by the Romans. The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne.
Julien Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:56 am GMT
Louis
des preuves ?
any proof ?
______________________________________
There are many proofs that Celtic was 100% wiped out by the Romans: after a few centuries of occupation there were no traces left of Gaulish, everything had switched to Roman-Latin , the names of the persons, the language, the social system, organization, way of living etc. In Gauls everything was exactly the same as in Spain or Italy until the Germanic peoples conquered and succeed the Romans. There are hundredth of villae rustici, inscriptions, writings and so on to testify....
You describe perfectly the 19th century national myth of France that led to the great wars of the 20th century. In the mean time science (linguistics, archeology, history) has found out that this myth does not describe what really happened. Asterix, "nos ancetres les Gaulois" and "Gauloises" cigarettes are just sympatic stories and brands, all not based on facts. The French nation of today was founded by the Germanic Franks, Burgundians and Goths who settled in great number and chose to speak elegant pseudo-Latin instead of plump old Germanic. Celtic/Gaulish was completely (100%!) wiped out by the Romans. The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne.
Julien Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:56 am GMT
Louis
des preuves ?
any proof ?
______________________________________
There are many proofs that Celtic was 100% wiped out by the Romans: after a few centuries of occupation there were no traces left of Gaulish, everything had switched to Roman-Latin , the names of the persons, the language, the social system, organization, way of living etc. In Gauls everything was exactly the same as in Spain or Italy until the Germanic peoples conquered and succeed the Romans. There are hundredth of villae rustici, inscriptions, writings and so on to testify....
" You describe perfectly the 19th century national myth of France that led to the great wars of the 20th century. In the mean time science (linguistics, archeology, history) has found out that this myth does not describe what really happened. Asterix, "nos ancetres les Gaulois" and "Gauloises" cigarettes are just sympatic stories and brands, all not based on facts. The French nation of today was founded by the Germanic Franks, Burgundians and Goths who settled in great number and chose to speak elegant pseudo-Latin instead of plump old Germanic. Celtic/Gaulish was completely (100%!) wiped out by the Romans. The only Celtic element in France is a reimport from Brittany in Bretagne. "
Have you read my text? I think you didn't. I never spoke about "our ancestors the Gauls" ?? I Spoke about "Gallo-romans".
What does mean "Gallo-Roman"; it is NOT a question of "ethnics" or "dna"
but it relates to the ROMAN culture of that particular place named "Gaul" before the arrival of the franks who renamed it later to "France".
Gallo-Romans, like any other people were made from a mix of various previous peoples, including Celts, Ligurians, romans, phoenicians, etc. : they were united by ROMAN culture (as you said it the romans already wiped out the celts, but this is true only on a cultural point of view; the Gaulish population didn't disappeared but became culturally roman, and so, they stopped being celtic (being celtic, like being latin, slavic, germanic or arabis is just a CULTURAL definition - and NEVER has been a "racial/ethnic" definition. racially speaking all humans are Homo Sapien.
What I said, is, after the fall of the roman empire, the roman population of Gaul province has been colonized by some germanic people (mainly the Franks). Those franks founded a feudal political construction that dominated areas populated by peoples of various culture and language.
This political construction gave birth to the kingdom of France after the division of Charlemagne's empire in the regions that covered more or less the romance speaking areas of this various empire, the regions. Even if this kingdom was largely of a roman-derived culture its rules continued to be largerly of Frankish root, and/or at least the political itself was rooted in the frankish realm. With the french revolution this long-lasting political system was completly destroyed, this is not a myth, and the state was completly re-founded on a new basis, recovering its Romance roots.
"
Have you read my text? I think you didn't. I never spoke about "our ancestors the Gauls" ?? I Spoke about "Gallo-romans".
What does mean "Gallo-Roman"; it is NOT a question of "ethnics" or "dna"
but it relates to the ROMAN culture of that particular place named "Gaul" before the arrival of the franks who renamed it later to "France".
Gallo-Romans, like any other people were made from a mix of various previous peoples, including Celts, Ligurians, romans, phoenicians, etc. : they were united by ROMAN culture (as you said it the romans already wiped out the celts, but this is true only on a cultural point of view; the Gaulish population didn't disappeared but became culturally roman, and so, they stopped being celtic (being celtic, like being latin, slavic, germanic or arabis is just a CULTURAL definition - and NEVER has been a "racial/ethnic" definition. racially speaking all humans are Homo Sapien.
What I said, is, after the fall of the roman empire, the roman population of Gaul province has been colonized by some germanic people (mainly the Franks). Those franks founded a feudal political construction that dominated areas populated by peoples of various culture and language.
This political construction gave birth to the kingdom of France after the division of Charlemagne's empire in the regions that covered more or less the romance speaking areas of this various empire, the regions. Even if this kingdom was largely of a roman-derived culture its rules continued to be largerly of Frankish root, and/or at least the political itself was rooted in the frankish realm. With the french revolution this long-lasting political system was completly destroyed, this is not a myth, and the state was completly re-founded on a new basis, recovering its Romance roots.
"
" exactly! that's why to say French are celt, latin or german is ridiculous! "
Absolutly not. Celtic, Germanic or Celtic refers and have always referred to culture and especially LANGUAGES.
A celtic people is a people that was of celtic language. When we say that Gauls were celts this is what it means. It does'nt say that those people wer supposed to look a specific way of to have a specific "celtic" dna. Speaking of a celtic dna is absurd. The same way it would be absurd to speak of "arabic", "semitic", "hispanic", "italic", "slavic", dna...
The french are latin because they speak a romance language. The same way Tunisians are arabic because they speak arab (but not necesseraly descend from Arabia), the same way Mexicans are Hispanic because they speak Spanish (but do not necesseraly descend from Spain), the same way English or Germans are Germanic because they speak germanic languages (and not because they descent necesseraly from old germanic tribes from nordic countries), etc.
What make an identity is the CULTURE, not the look/appearance/so-called Dna "ethnicity"... "ethnicity" understood as a racial classification is a myth/
Absolutly not. Celtic, Germanic or Celtic refers and have always referred to culture and especially LANGUAGES.
A celtic people is a people that was of celtic language. When we say that Gauls were celts this is what it means. It does'nt say that those people wer supposed to look a specific way of to have a specific "celtic" dna. Speaking of a celtic dna is absurd. The same way it would be absurd to speak of "arabic", "semitic", "hispanic", "italic", "slavic", dna...
The french are latin because they speak a romance language. The same way Tunisians are arabic because they speak arab (but not necesseraly descend from Arabia), the same way Mexicans are Hispanic because they speak Spanish (but do not necesseraly descend from Spain), the same way English or Germans are Germanic because they speak germanic languages (and not because they descent necesseraly from old germanic tribes from nordic countries), etc.
What make an identity is the CULTURE, not the look/appearance/so-called Dna "ethnicity"... "ethnicity" understood as a racial classification is a myth/