Talk:Andalusian people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spain  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies
WikiProject icon This article contains information from WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies, an attempt to incorporate useful information, text, and images from the Library of Congress Country Studies and the related Country Profiles. These are public domain documents with extensive information on many countries. You may see what other Spain-related contributions have been made by looking at the project's subpage for Spain, which tracks progress for articles on Spain, and look for what contributions you can make, including updates to this article.

Andalusians an Ethnic Group[edit]

An ethnic group is something quite difficult to determine, but it usually refers to a population whose genetical and cultural heritage has remained intact for a certain period of time. The problem arises when we assess the "period of time" required or what is "cultural" heritage. From the genetic perspective, a person from Andalucía is so identic to individuals elsewhere in Spain that the comparison is ridiculous. As to the "culture", it's clear that the Arab influence was much more felt in the south than in the north of Spain, other kind of influence in Andalucía that doesn't apply to the rest of Spain is unknown. An ethnic group would have been indeed the Morish population; but these were soon expelled after the Reconquista was completed. Let's remember that the Reconquista was accompanied by the "Repoblación", which means that the south was being constantly repopulated by peoples (and their traditions and religion) from the north whose offspring are, with probably a higher proportion of intermarriage with Arabs than in the rest of Spain, ultimately present "Andalusians". That leaves about 500 years of more or less homogenic cultural environment.

Let's not be confused by 19th century ideas of "people","nation","ethnic group", that so much pollute the political landscape in Spain.

It's also remarkable that in the section of Spanish ethnic groups there's no "Galician-Asturians", or "Aragonese" or "Castile-Leonese", or "Canarian". History shows us that they have no less reasons to qualify at the same level as the others. Especially the latter may have a greater claim, though ridiculously small anyway, than any other to be considered under the scope of ethnic groups. However, we only get the typical three: "Catalonia", "Basque" and "Andalusian". Just glance at the papers and you'll know why those three do seem us now worthy of such considerations whereas others equally (un)worthy don't. El que no llora no mama.

I don't agree with this last edit. In my opinion no nation-state is genetically homogenous, but in the case of Spain it has been clearly established that it is far from it and Andalusia, is (to a degree) genetically distinct. (See Spanish people) So are the canary islands, the basque country, catalonia etc... But Genetics do not make an ethnic group. What makes Andalusians a distinct ethnic group is their shared culture and identity which is strong and distinct enough to make them a nation in their own right. If nationalism isnt strong in Andalusia it is because of the historical importance this region has had for the Spanish state (in every sense) , and because Andalusian culture (or a version of it) has come to represent Spanish identity as a whole, especially during the Francoist period. This, despite a psichzofrenic disdain other Spaniards have held towards Andalusians. I would also like to point out that the idea of a repopulation of Andalusia and of the "Novísma Castilla" is a myth. Few Northerners established themselves in the South after the Reconquista and a majority of modern-day Andalusians are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the region.--Guzman ramirez 12:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting this article[edit]

I partially agree with the above edit. In any case this issue is 1)complex and 2)very politisced. This article could be greatly improved.--Ismael76 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Depopulation of the Region??? Since when is Andalusia "sparsely populated"? It is much more densely populated than Castilla la Mancha and Castilla y Leon. Birth rates are much higher than in the rest of Spain and now that emmigration to Madrid and to Barcelona (aswell as other countries) is grinding to a halt I imagine population is rising considerably...


In 2005 their total population stood at 7.849.799.

This is the population of the Andalusia region. Not all andalusians live there; in fact, millions of them have emigrated abroad.

Moroccans as related ethnic group?[edit]

User Veritas et Severitas, as a Spaniard, seems to be extremely offended by the inclusion of Morroccans as a related people to the Andalusians, and has erased the whole "related ethnic groups" section. Either we stick to that solution or we examine to what extent they are related...




Other and General Identity[edit]

--Burgas00 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that I am offended. That is absolutely a subjective opinion. Why should I be offended?. Morocco is a great country and Moroccans a great people, and the only thing that I hope for them is that they stay as they are, hopefully improving their economic situation, which I am sure they can do the same as Spain has done, just look how Spain was 40 years ago, but preserving the wonderful culture and ethnicity (culture, habits, language, traditions, religion) that is theirs. Do not play the racist card with me. I think that you are offending Moroccans with your comments. You tried the same in the Spanish people's page. There people can see the discussion, we do not have to repeat it.

In any case, if you want to use a very broad concept to define related ethnic groups, I do agree, but I think it is not reasonable and practical. In any case, let us do it and let us start with the Andalusians, who are in fact just a sub-group of Spaniards:

Related ethnic groups because of language, culture, historic links or genetic links:


Californians, New Mexicans, Texans, Floridians, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Cubans, Puertoricans, Dominicans, Peruvians, Bolivians, Argentinians, Paraguayans, Chileans and a long etc.


Portuguese, Italians, French, Romanians, Greeks, Britons, Dutch, Belgians, Scandinavians and a long etc.

Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Morocco, Western Sahara, Equatorial Guinea, Algerians, Arabs, Libanese, Filipinos, and a long ETC.


Sephardi Jews.

Of course this is just a starting list that we can perfect if you agree. We can even discuss each group separately. We can actually do this in all the peoples articles. May be a good idea. Veritas et Severitas 01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

But how can you compare Andalusians' relationship with Moroccans with Equatorial Guineans or Norweigians. Exchange across the straights of Gibraltar has been a constant feature of the region's history since the time of the Phoenicians to the 20th century. What relationship has there been with with the Philippines or with the Dutch which mirrors that contact? Phoenicians, Tartessians, Greeks, and Romans in ancient history, the Byzantines, later the Vandals from Andalusia invading North Africa which later became part of the Visigothic kingdom of Hispania. Then 8 centuries of Islamic civilisation in Andalusia much of which consisted of Kingdoms (Almohades and Almoravids) which encompassed both Morocco and the peninsula. Then the arrival of Spanish jews and Muslims to Morocco in the 17th century which led to the impregnation of Moroccan culture with Iberian civilisation. Then shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonisation of North Africa with large number of Andalusians moving across the straights and settling there in search for work. The North African influence on southern Spain need not even be explained but Spanish has been the vernacular language of all religious communities of Northern Morocco for long periods of its history even during times which predate the official "colonial period". Did you know that Bullfights were common in north Morocco untill very recently when they were banned as part of an attempt to eliminate Spanish culture in the country by the government.

How can you compare Andalusian's strong bonds to North Africa with supposedly equivalent relationships to Scandinavians or Californians(??).

I am sorry for playing the racist card but I did so after a quick look at your user contributions since you joined wikipedia. I can't help bu suspect that you have an emotional need to defend the unity and "Europeanness" of Spain which is the common thread of all your edits since you joined wikipedia. See your edits on "White people", "Hispanics", "Britons", "Spanish people", "Basque people" etc... Spain is a rich, western european country. This inferiority complex should have long dissapeared by now. --Burgas00 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And for some reason you have some kind of obsession with Morocco which is far from logical, while you ignore the basics of ethnicity. Morocco and Spain, including Andalusia, belong to two clearly different worlds (as different as people can be, I mean people are not that different after all). They belong to two different civilizations. The very fact that you deny basic things that define ethnicity is proof of either a profound ignorance of the concept itself or a stubborn attempt that I have already explained. This is not about historic relationships. People can have historic relationships and still be of very different ethnicities. I could give you a thousand examples. The very fact that you say that Californios do have less in common with Spaniards than Moroccans in that respect is just an example of either your ignorance of California or again your reiterated attempts in one direction. All Europeans have more in common among themselves than Arabs, or Maghrebis, in this case. That does not mean that they are better or worse. That does not mean that they are not also very different among themselves. You are the one who is always trying to make a racist issue of what is not a racist issue. You seem to ignore that Spain and Morocco belong to two different civilizations. Spaniards belong to the European civilization, Moroccans not. Spaniards are a Romance speaking people and derive their culture, language, religion etc primarily from Rome, Morocco not. Morocco was also part of the Roman empire. According to you Moroccans should also be considered a Roman or Latin people or related to them? Of course not, because their culture and ethnicity was shaped fundamentally by another great civilization: The Arab one. Greeks and Turks share a lot of historic links, but they are very different ethnic groups. Poles and Germans, and a long etc. I could give you thousands of examples, but I find this absolutely senseless having to discuss basic concepts. I am not the one that is trying to introduce all the peoples above, although according to your concept of ethnicity I could argue them one by one. And you continue to offend Moroccan people with your comments. Why should Morocco be involved in a inferiority complex?

As to my position in other peoples articles, you should know better. One of the basic wars that I have been waging there since the beginning is precisely that both North Africans and Middle Easterners belong basically to the same race as Europeans, because both the anthropological evidence and the genetic evidence indicate so, not because I just say so, in spite of the reiterated attempts of radicals to say the opposite. Or that a person who looks black can be perfectly of European ancestry and those radicals keep deleting those obvious things. That is one page! I have been sarcastic with them more than once. I do interfere a lot with radical views. It seems that this is going to be one of my major roles in Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I accept your answer as a valid argument.

I have also just checked the Turkish people page in which the Greeks are not included as a related group. These two groups are as close as any two people can get, in my opinion, despite the language difference. Following that example, Moroccans must definitely not be included in the related people section of andalusians. I guess the best solution is just scrapping the section altogether as you did, since it is inherently subjective. --Burgas00 14:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Why? because it is always very controversial and often people do not seem to come to an agreement. Veritas et Severitas 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed all of this thread, as I was pretty much inactive at the time. As the person who originally added Moroccan people as related, I would like the chance to explain myself. At some point in the History of Morocco, up to one third of the population was made up of forced exiled from Andalusia after the Reconquista. Assuming that all of them were just descendant of the same few thousands who came over with Musa and Tarik is just naive and extremely POV. Most of them were born and bread Andalusian of Hispano-Roman stock (to choose a name) indeed. So, in that sense, if it is OK to have an English people page listing Frisians as related people, I sincerely cannot see the problem of doing likewise with the Andalusian people article. In any case, I perfectly happy with the gentlemen's agreement reached between both of you and will be respecting it accordingly. Regards, --Asteriontalk 22:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't confuse Al-Andalus with Andalusia. What we call Andalusia was only a part of Al-Andalus. Most muslims and moriscos who settled in northern Africa came from other spanish regions like Valencia and not mainly from Andalusia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Erase Trajan[edit]

To put Trajan as an andalusian makes nosense, its like saying that Charlemagne was french or Ataturk a greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

       I entirely agree with your comment. In general, the whole article doesn't make much sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 

Andalusia a nation?[edit]

I just wonder why is Andalusia considered in wikipedia as a nation, and not Murcia, Extremadura or Castille. Who has decided that they can be considered a nation, although andalusians do not consider them as one? Andalusia is a just the southern part of Spain, not a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Andalusians consider ourselves as a nation, you should know that!! It's written in the law!! -- (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't really believe what you wrote. Ask any andalusians if they consider Andalusia a nation and 95% of them will say clearly no. If you are really an andalusian you will know this perfectly. The law speaks about a "nacionalidad" (not about a nation) which is an ambiguous term brought by politicians who seek more political power and to do so they copied the definition thought for Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia.

Hi, I am Andalusian and I consider Andalusia as a nation, and please, don`t compare Andalusia with other parts of the Spanish state, Andalusians is the people that more has contributed to the "Spanish idiosyncrasy" throughout history. ¡Viva Andalucía libre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)