|
Post by galvez on Mar 8, 2004 18:46:00 GMT -5
The tendency toward separatism, which can only be controlled by the strongest repressive government, has frequently appeared at the very moment of apparent victory for a sensible union, and arbitrary autocracy then again becomes the only means of a stable political order. The kindest name for this tendency toward separatism is Spanish individualism; but perhaps a more accurate term would be cantonalism or kabylism, the tendency to disruption, to separate into tribes. Martin Hume, supported by the Spanish writer Unamuno, traces it back to the original Iberian inhabitants of the peninsula. In his history of Spain Hume alludes to it in these notable lines:
In any case, what is known of their (Iberian) physique seems to negate the supposition that they were of Indo-European or Aryan origin; and to find their counterpart at the present time, it is only necessary to seek the Kabyl tribes of the Atlas, the original inhabitants of the African coast opposite Spain, who were driven back into the mountains by successive waves of invasion. Not only in physique do these tribes resemble what the early Iberian must have been, but in the more unchanging peculiarities of character and institutions the likeness is easily traceable to the Spaniard of today. The organization of the Iberians, like that of the Atlas peoples, was clannish and tribal, and their chief characteristic was their indomitable local independence. Warlike and brave, sober and light-hearted, the Kabyl tribesman has for thousands of years stubbornly refused all attempts to weld him to a uniform dominion, while the Iberian, starting probably from the same stock, was blended with Aryan races possessing other qualities, and was submitted for six centuries to the unifying organization of the greatest governing race the world ever saw -- the Romans; yet, withal, even at the present day, the main characteristic of the Spanish nation, like that of the Kabyl tribes, is lack of solidarity (35-36).
John A. Crow. Spain: The Root and the Flower. Berkeley: University of California. 1985.
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 8, 2004 19:04:40 GMT -5
Here’s the account of a very famous incident between Unamuno and General Millán Astray, commander of the Spanish Foreign Legion. During a celebration in the University of Salamanca (National Zone), world famous philosopher and chairman of the university, Miguel de Unamuno, opposed General Millan Astray, first commander of the Foreign Legion. While being till now a supporter of the Fascist Rebellion, which he misinterpreted as a national one, he realize listening to the official speech of General Millan Astray before the guests (between them the wife of Franco) the inhuman and unnoble nature of the uprising. Meanwhile supporters of the General are shouting "Long Live Death", Unamuno says in a loud voice to the General that they have not only to win (vencer), but to convince (convencer), and that he don't think they were fitted for the latter task, and that the general himself, a cripple who lost an eye and an arm in an former war, is also an cripple in his mind, and therefore he wants to cripple in his hate all the others. The choleric General become so furious, that he wants to strike Unamuno, shouting " Death to Intelligence". Only the intervention of Franco's wife prevents this. Unamuno is removed as rector of the university. Millán Astray. This general actually lost one eye, the teeth and a hand in battle. The Spanish legionary cry of battle is as the article mentions “Long Live Death”.
|
|
|
Post by Sugaar on Jul 15, 2004 5:26:41 GMT -5
The tendency toward separatism, which can only be controlled by the strongest repressive government, has frequently appeared at the very moment of apparent victory for a sensible union, and arbitrary autocracy then again becomes the only means of a stable political order. The kindest name for this tendency toward separatism is Spanish individualism; but perhaps a more accurate term would be cantonalism or kabylism, the tendency to disruption, to separate into tribes. Martin Hume, supported by the Spanish writer Unamuno, traces it back to the original Iberian inhabitants of the peninsula. In his history of Spain Hume alludes to it in these notable lines: In any case, what is known of their (Iberian) physique seems to negate the supposition that they were of Indo-European or Aryan origin; and to find their counterpart at the present time, it is only necessary to seek the Kabyl tribes of the Atlas, the original inhabitants of the African coast opposite Spain, who were driven back into the mountains by successive waves of invasion. Not only in physique do these tribes resemble what the early Iberian must have been, but in the more unchanging peculiarities of character and institutions the likeness is easily traceable to the Spaniard of today. The organization of the Iberians, like that of the Atlas peoples, was clannish and tribal, and their chief characteristic was their indomitable local independence. Warlike and brave, sober and light-hearted, the Kabyl tribesman has for thousands of years stubbornly refused all attempts to weld him to a uniform dominion, while the Iberian, starting probably from the same stock, was blended with Aryan races possessing other qualities, and was submitted for six centuries to the unifying organization of the greatest governing race the world ever saw -- the Romans; yet, withal, even at the present day, the main characteristic of the Spanish nation, like that of the Kabyl tribes, is lack of solidarity (35-36).John A. Crow. Spain: The Root and the Flower. Berkeley: University of California. 1985. Hello, just passed by and I think this forum is quite interesting, so I will probably be back. I find anyhow supicious to try to associate sociological ("psychological") and genetical characters. On the question of separatism, which is not just a "Spanish" problem in any way (don't many Scots want to break with Britain or Quebecois with Canada?). I find that separatism can be seen from two angles: a) the "traditional" national(ist) approach, by which different ethnic groups (with different language and history) want to separate from an state dominated by a different group. b) the Machiavellic maxim for which any republic that keeps the memory of its freedom will raise once and again. That's the case in the Basque Country (the homeland of both myself and Unamuno - I live only a few blocks from his natal homestead) and in Catalonia: the two "Spanish" (and "French") nationalities that strongly want to break away from Spain and France. There's only another clearly defined natonality in the Kingdom of Spain: the Galicians, who speak a language so close to Portugese that most consider it to be the same. Galicians keep their language more than the other two differentiated ethnic groups but instead their nationalism is very low. The more probable reason for this is that they have had no self-government ever remembered until the recent constitutional phase, being always under direct rule from the successive Goth, Leonese, Castilian and Spanish kings. Also I honestly doubt that anyone can genetically link Kabilians and Basques or other Iberians. All the info I have is that North Africans share very few markers with any European population, including Iberians (of course inside the Caucasic human branch).
|
|
izabet
Full Member
Canada isn't that friendly...
Posts: 128
|
Post by izabet on Jul 31, 2004 21:01:04 GMT -5
Fascinating topic! I wish I knew more about the history of Spain, since my son inherited many traits from his father's side and looks quite Spanish IMO (head shape, skin colour, physique). When it comes to Quebec, the idea of blood and nationhood is a rather fantastic one. (I lived there for 4 years.) It seems to be more about language than blood lines, though some turn it into a "racial" question. From what I can see, regardless of your lineage (and that means your last name in many cases) if you sound French-Canadian, then you are and you belong there. For instance, many FC people have Irish last names or look Mohawk/Montagnais Indian, but are all out Quebecois. It is only the hardcore separatists in the Lac St-Jean region and other rural areas that think that only "pure laine" Quebeckers deserve to live in Quebec. (FYI, QC handles its own immigration and tends to select people from French-speaking countries like Haiti and Algeria.) They did have a "country" and lost it to the British, and ended up living under a (first) Church and (second) Duplessis dictatorships (both were working hand-in-hand by the end) and had such an eruption of freedom in the 60s, that all helll broke loose, including separatism. While I lived there, there were three rather small, but still frightening, separatist acts of violence. Two were close to where I used to live (bombs thrown into cafe windows); the other was the vandalizing of a city hall in the west end of Montreal (English area). The leader of the current incarnation of the FLQ went on air saying he was stockpiling weapons. (There was also a pepper-spray bomb campaign against McDonald's restaurants that spanned much of the city, as well as a number of anti-Jewish bombings...these are small bombs...no one was killed.) Quebec is still quite a scary place to live compared to the rest of Canada (riots, strong anti-globalization movement). Riot gear on police is a common sight downtown in Montreal
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 22, 2004 1:21:01 GMT -5
Those northern africans natives are first cousins to the spanish! (I am not talking about arabs) I believe there is less indo-european blood in the west (of course), but there is more northern african blood! see this genetic map: Of course this is only a group of genes...but still interesting finding!
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 22, 2004 1:27:04 GMT -5
Of course we must not forget that even the british are cousins of those kabyles... Spain is not homogeneous, galiza is more related to portugal than to spain, (they spoke the same language of the portuguese). Nacionalism is natural when culture and ethnicities are not the same of the main culture proposed by the center power! Hey! John A. Crow, you are a pure kabyle!
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Aug 22, 2004 19:05:43 GMT -5
Of course we must not forget that even the british are cousins of those kabyles... Spain is not homogeneous, galiza is more related to portugal than to spain, (they spoke the same language of the portuguese). Nacionalism is natural when culture and ethnicities are not the same of the main culture proposed by the center power! Hey! John A. Crow, you are a pure kabyle! I beg to differ. North African blood is minoritary even in southern Iberia (let alone in Britain). While Spain is a country built upon several nations, ethnically speaking it is almost completely homogene (the exception being the Basques). Of course, when it comes to culture the issue is completely different, but Spain has been extremely successful in the Hispanization of Castille (a better term would be the Castillization of Hispania). Galicians used to speak Galaico (an archaic form of Portuguese). Now they speak a hybrid language which is neither Portuguese nor Castillian, and in the future they will speak solely Castillian, unfortunate as it may be. Nation building can be supressed not only by a strong repression (sometimes repression is actually counter-productive - see what happened in Portugal and in Catalunya in 1640), but especially by cultural and ethnic assimilation. Another important aspect is to unite different peoples using a common national goal (example: after the 911, the crime rates throughout America dropped significantly). Another important aspect is the economical one (especially with the EU). Scotland and Wales have their own cultures, their own peoples, their own regional languages, and their own parliaments and yet they will never be independant. Why? Because of these: $$$$$$$ London pays their bills. The same happens in Portugal regarding Madeira and the Azores.
|
|
|
Post by IranianLion on Aug 22, 2004 19:18:39 GMT -5
If North Africans (I suspect you are referring to Berbers) are so close to Western Europeans then how come the genetic map of classical markers by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) suggests that this is far from the case?
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 22, 2004 21:38:40 GMT -5
Yes true, but look at the map from the same author that I posted... ok, true, that map doesn't present the fine detail than that your map presented... Alex I agree with you, Iberians do not have much of that north afrian blood, but, there is something related... don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Aug 22, 2004 21:54:49 GMT -5
Alex I agree with you, Iberians do not have much of that north afrian blood, but, there is something related... don't you think? Oh no, we do have some North African blood, but it is of minor relevance at best. Some southern Iberians could pass for light north Africans, but most of the studies I have read showed that the Gibraltar straight was indeed an effective genetic barrier.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 23, 2004 1:09:56 GMT -5
I am not saying that only the southerns have some affinities with north africans, but all western europeans... must be something far away in time maybe 30 000 years, the first ones to go out of africa? the second ones? something like that! And yes the strait of gibraltar was not a bridge!
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Aug 23, 2004 8:13:55 GMT -5
I am not saying that only the southerns have some affinities with north africans, but all western europeans... must be something far away in time maybe 30 000 years, the first ones to go out of africa? the second ones? something like that! And yes the strait of gibraltar was not a bridge! From what I have read, most of our North African blood is Neolithic (~8000 or 9000 years old). The Moors also had some impact, even though it was much lower than what is commonly believed. The countries with the strongest % of NA blood are those closer to NA. I don't know the actual figures, but I suspect that Britain has a much lower % of North African blood than the Iberian Peninsula. The original Britons probably had a much larger %, but the subsequent migratory waves (Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans) probably diluted that NA blood.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 23, 2004 13:07:34 GMT -5
what are celts after all? Of those you mention maybe only the anglo-saxon didn't have some of that northern african blood, every one else should possess something from north africa. we do not have moorish blood in substancial quantities, but, the same might be applied for those in the north... Tt was more of a cultural thing than massive genocide and substitution, all that sucessive migration of europeans replacing previous people is nonsense! It did hapenned, but only over long periods of time and without the massive impact some may say... Most western europeans are old europeans, that is the first who get here, eveything else is lies... Indo-europeans replacing previous population, romans blood influx, visigoth blood in iberia... This are important cultural historic changes, but the people whas not replaced!
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Aug 23, 2004 13:08:42 GMT -5
celts is theory, what are celts after all? Apropos - that Galician guy 'Hilde' from Dienekes' blog wants to be 'Celto-Germanic'. ( 'we play bagpipes! we don't have bullfights!' )
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Aug 23, 2004 13:22:31 GMT -5
|
|