However, I know I didn't mention this before, but my point was more subtle, even to me at the time as I was not totally aware on why I even bothered to point out the origin of the word.
Today, looking at your reply, I had it more clear. Here we have an article telling us about a terrible thing, that is, the destruction of an unrecoverable piece of history. And in that same article, the writer engages in a language that is just the result of a prejudice against an old group of people, namely the Vandals.
Why are the Vandals vandals? Because they destroyed parts of the Roman empire. So the Romans and their ways stand for what is considered correct, civilized, the apex of civilization, while all other peoples including the Vandals are not. The Vandals vandalize in the sense that they go against the established order.
But hidden in this assumption is the very idea that Romans acted differently from the Vandals. That they, when they imposed themselves on others, were somewhat more polished, more sophisticated. They were not. They vandalized, or should I say _romanized_, the Vandals and all other peoples around them.
So by using this language, even when we are not thinking about it, we end up perpetuating these hidden assumptions. The same could be said about using other words, but this word in particular made me feel this way when I read the article.
Anyway, thanks again for your comment. If I wasn't aware of the new meaning of the word, your comment would definitely improve my understanding. Unfortunately, I was just too obscure to really get my point across at the time.
. Growing up in Portugal, and learning about the Vandals in school, gave me a kind of feeling of relating more closely to that group. Partly because of this, they are not just historic trivia. I feel somewhat connected to them, though this may not be a real biological connection. I hope you get the gist of it.