the origin of al Andalus

For me there is a lot that can be said about you and the education you've been given in the fact that it is clear from your writing that you think the "Europeanness" and the "national identity" of Spaniards and Andalusian Spaniards in particular are totally at stake and under risk of being erased if Al-Andalus is accepted as an integral part of their history and as a historic period in which a large part of their ancestors lived (therefore it is part of the nation's history). Is Limpieza de sangre still that popular? I wasn't aware of it, but it seems so when you consider that getting rid of those Muslims (in their majority Muslim Iberians, should I add), and not just of the Muslim-ruled states known as Al-Andalus, was "problem solved" when expulsions and repopulation were enacted. Really nice point of view, but it's particularly interesting coming from someone who the other day was willing to accept some absurd imaginary connection between the Iberian language and Altaic peoples, but is not willing to concede that people who lived in his own country less than 1000 years ago are in any way ancestral to the modern population living in it. Bizarre, but interesting.

No, man, you may rest assured: some drops of blood from people who were once Berbers and Arabs won't make you and your people any less European, and surprisingly people can change to some religion and then change again to some other religion, that won't completely change their genes nor even their culture, and believe it or not the large majority of those Muslims of Al-Andalus that you feel modern Andalusians have nothing to do with were in fact Iberians with a largely Iberian culture and genetic makeup, just like we know now that Levantines didn't suddenly become Arabian because they switched from Eastern Christianity to Islam (and, of course, we also know that in Iberia just like in the Levant a relevant part of the population remained Christian even after centuries of Muslim rule).

This has nothing to do with "identity" or your cherished "European access entry". You're the one mixing modern topics like national identity with long gone historic events. This is actually about history and genetics. Sorry, but one day or another you will simply have to come to grips with the overwhelming evidence that the expulsions and repopulation that you brag so proudly about it to "solve the problem" of Al-Andalus was actually a much more gradual, slow and nuanced affair and involved a lot less expulsion and depopulation than you would like to sever the ties with that dreaded Muslim past once and for good.

Right. The culture was still mostly the product of Europeans (albeit with Berber and Arab influences). Berber and Arab culture has European influence too. People usually influence their neighbors.
 
Writing to foreign affairs to see what is failing in relations with Brazil, this cannot be real.


I have been truly surprised that Brazilians know so little about us or draw so many prejudices and misinterpretations about us.


I do not boast of anything, it is the testimony of a native, was he ever that lucky?


The Iberian and Altai thing is not mine, I moved it here to see the opinions.


I did not think that in Brazil they knew us so little or that they saw us with such a biased and strange lens, I do not recognize myself in their words which indicates that they do not know me either.

Your English is very convoluted and sometimes hardly coherent to say the least, but if I get what you're saying correctly I really hope you only write ANY WORD in this forum if it is exclusively about Spain and more specifically even about Andalusia, otherwise you'll be viewed as nothing but a hypocrite.

As for how much Brazilians know or do not know about Spain and Spaniards, sorry, but unlike you I sustain no idea that I as an individual am totally representative of the entire people that live in my country, let alone do I pretend I am an authority in the history of my country just because I was born in it.

Besides, you may have some point indeed about Brazil and Brazilians.

Most people here aren't fond of 19th century pseudo-historic national myths created to derive some "pure origin" for their own nation and to differentiate themselves from other populations, thus strengthening the national sentiments promoted by states at that time. Most people here are long past those long debunken and almost always very simplistic legends, and most wouldn't identify as "prejudices" a link between present Iberians and once Muslim Iberians as well as descendants of Berber and Arabo-Berber immigrants dozens of generations ago. That's simply not seen as something to be avoided or hidden, so there cold be no discrimination in saying such a thing when there are evidences of that. At worst it would simply be an incorrect statement, but a prejudiced one? No, why should it be viewed as such? Perhaps in the minds of those who actually​ are prejudiced.

That's perhaps because the history of our formation as a distinct people is too recent, so we do know how peoples are usually formed: it's a messy, complicated process, and lots of mixing and reciprocal influences are involved in it. So, yes, you'll hardly find Brazilians who agrees with you that modern Andalusians and Spaniars at large and Al-Andalus are totally unrelated genetically, historically, linguistically and culturally, because, sorry, the evidences of partial continuity and ancestral relationship are just too obvious and too numerous for anyone who is not personally and emotionally invested in denying that for some bizarre reason that probably has to with those fragile nationalist feelings. It must feel really weird when you feel you have to pretend hundreds of years of your country and your ancestors did not exist (or even that they were not your and your people's ancestors at all) to keep your identity unscathed.

I won't keep this discussion anymore. I think everyone who might form an opinions of his or her own about what's happened here already did so. Nothing more is needed. Enjoy your weekend!
 
No, entirely false.
Most of the translations into Arabic were made by Christians, usually Greek or Syriac Christians.
Besides, many texts were still existing in monasteries in France for example in Mont-St-Michel.
It's a proven fact that Medieval Western Catholicism never lost knowledge of all these texts and certainly does not "need" Arabic translations. That BS about Arabic transmission amounts to rewriting history.




yes, fully agreed !



No, that was the Greek and Syriac Christians who did most of the translations.
Muslim Arabs did not contribute anything in this process of translation.


Deird, those early translations from Greek into "Arab" you sure they were in Arab or other languages. The Levant and areas where Eastern Christendom was strong did not speak Arab, Arab itself developed in Arabia by 4th century and began to spread with the 7th century spread of Islam. I am pretty well versed in the Early Church Fathers and all the extant text are usually in Latin, Greek, Syriac, sometimes Armenian and any other writings from antiquity are in the those languages. However, by the 8th/9th centuries as former Christian Eastern Roman lands were conquered, there was an introduction of Arabic into the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches, so you might be on to something, those Eastern Theologies and Monastaries did start translating there theological, Liturgical and other texts into Arabic.

The Maronite Eastern Church, in Communion with Rome, uses Aramaic (Syriac language), the language Christ spoke, in its Liturgy, the original language spoken their but they later added Liturgical Arabic as well. Probably should have gone back and reviewed the Patristic period of the Early Church, it does seem the Greek and Syriacs in the East did do lots of the translations. After further review, it was the Abbasid's in Baghdad that set up the Al-ma mum school to translate all the ancient Texts of Byzantium and is this area there were 2 groups, the Nestorians (Nestorian doctrine rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) and Monophysites (Doctrine rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD) and both of these groups were once part of the fuller Church and thus both groups had scholars who had translated all the Greek text into Syriac and the Abbasids employed monks from these 2 groups to translate. There is some evidence that Muhammad himself was influenced by Nestorian Christianity.

But I think these works from the East by the medieval period would have been lost to Western Europe, by 1054 Rome and Constantinople were in schism and contact between the 2 would really become non-existant for the most part. As these translated works in Arabic made there way West with the Muslim expansion, say into Iberia, these texts were brought closer to Western Europe and when lands came back in control of Europeans, these Arabic translations were close by.

Still your central point is correct, it was Greek and Syriac speaking Monks who translated the works into Arabic for the Muslim rulers, etc. Not sure how good an article this is, but a quick read of it supports your basic point. It notes by 1,000 AD, the Muslim Caliphates for the most part were no longer interested in translations of any ancient Greek texts, etc. So there you go.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/scienc...ts-and-maps/greek-texts-are-translated-arabic
 
then, why did Muslims brag about having burned this library, which, according to them, contained nothing of any value, as everything is already in the Qur'an?
Your theory is that there was no library to burn and brag about !?

That's nothing but a long debunken and contradictory story based on hearsay written by Gregory bar Hebraeus. He got it so wrong that he mentioned people whose lifetime were decades apart from each other. There were certainly libraries in Alexandria when Muslims conquered it, but "the" Library of Alexandria was gone since centuries before, and that's particularly true if we consider as "the" famous library the huge collection that had once existed, not the spin-off of it that was nothing but an annex of the Serapeum. Go and read about the history of the library of Alexandria. You'll be surprised at how many myths and rumors have been created around it.

Btw It's not MY theory. It is what most modern historians consider is true. But you may cling to outdated and long debunken sources, because usually what they say sounds much more exciting - and, fittingly, they tend to confirm one's own biases.
 
[Ygorcs;607395]Your English is very convoluted and sometimes hardly coherent to say the least, but if I get what you're saying correctly I really hope you only write ANY WORD in this forum if it is exclusively about Spain and more specifically even about Andalusia, otherwise you'll be viewed as nothing but a hypocrite.

No comment

As for how much Brazilians know or do not know about Spain and Spaniards, sorry, but unlike you I sustain no idea that I as an individual am totally representative of the entire people that live in my country, let alone do I pretend I am an authority in the history of my country just because I was born in it.

I don't know what you're talking about

Besides, you may have some point indeed about Brazil and Brazilians.

Most people here aren't fond of 19th century pseudo-historic national myths created to derive some "pure origin" for their own nation and to differentiate themselves from other populations, thus strengthening the national sentiments promoted by states at that time. Most people here are long past those long debunken and almost always very simplistic legends, and most wouldn't identify as "prejudices" a link between present Iberians and once Muslim Iberians as well as descendants of Berber and Arabo-Berber immigrants dozens of generations ago. That's simply not seen as something to be avoided or hidden, so there cold be no discrimination in saying such a thing when there are evidences of that. At worst it would simply be an incorrect statement, but a prejudiced one? No, why should it be viewed as such? Perhaps in the minds of those who actually​ are prejudiced.


No one hides the story. You can learn wikipedia by heart and then recite it to the last comma. We do have links with the Middle Ages: The Reconquest.

I have already commented on it in another thread: It would be the first time in the history of humanity that it is intended to give the victors the identity of the defeated and expelled.

That's perhaps because the history of our formation as a distinct people is too recent, so we do know how peoples are usually formed: it's a messy, complicated process, and lots of mixing and reciprocal influences are involved in it. So, yes, you'll hardly find Brazilians who agrees with you that modern Andalusians and Spaniars at large and Al-Andalus are totally unrelated genetically, historically, linguistically and culturally, because, sorry, the evidences of partial continuity and ancestral relationship are just too obvious and too numerous for anyone who is not personally and emotionally invested in denying that for some bizarre reason that probably has to with those fragile nationalist feelings. It must feel really weird when you feel you have to pretend hundreds of years of your country and your ancestors did not exist (or even that they were not your and your people's ancestors at all) to keep your identity unscathed.

It seems that he does not want to understand that Al Andalus and Andalusia are different things.

I won't keep this discussion anymore. I think everyone who might form an opinions of his or her own about what's happened here already did so. Nothing more is needed. Enjoy your weekend!

He wants to force a situation for a modern people, which is not his sentiment, but a period that happened on his soil and which came with foreigners and left with them. Any influence is adapted and made ours to the character ours of people of the Middle Ages with a system and culture with which there is no continuity. To pretend otherwise is to lie.
 
Last edited:
Yes, with this we have already finished our little discussion.


I do not understand too well their mentality regarding what I would or would not look like here or there. In this respect, he does seem to speak for many.


I feel that all his theory, data, speculations lose all meaning simply with the testimony of a native, reality always surpasses fantasy.


Think about it when you speak to a native about a subject where you had thrown your expectations based on the theoretical, data, history e.t.c. there is something that will escape you but that I have written in the genes, for that reason my advice is to listen to the opinion of the actor, not the interpreter, which would be his role in this case.

I think I have been very restrained and educated since in this matter it is very easy for a Spaniard to lose his nerve completely.

Regards

My regards to you, native (Of modern Andalusia). :grin:
Have a nice night also.
See you later
Cheers ;)
 
Yes, it is difficult to understand, because the very term ANCESTRY and HERITAGE (whether genetic, cultural, or both) necessarily implies people that only exist now in history books, they're long dead, but they influence later generations on a more obvious or deeper level. By your token, since Germanic tribes and the medieval Germanic kingdoms only exist in history books, then modern Germans and Scandinavians have absolutely no link at all with those ancient populations. And of course they have no continuity at all with the Germanic peoples before their shift to Christianity, right?


If, according to you Al-Andalus was completely different because it belonged to the "Islamic culture", as if Iberians and their culture had simply disappeared because of the PARTIAL (not even total, have you ever heard about Mozarabs?) Islamicization of the region, then I presume that Scandinavia has no links at all to the Viking Era, and Italians are fundamentally different from those pagan Italians with their strange religion and morals, right? Oh, my, how much people can strive to not accept their roots just because of biases that they probably aren't even able to recognize in themselves now!





Oh, of course, you modern Andalusians have nothing to do with those ancient people and culture of Al-Andalus... except, of course, the very name of the region, the very name of a large (perhaps even the majority) of toponyms in the region, the very ancient architecture that drives millions of tourists to visit Andalusia every year, a large part of the PEOPLE's ancestors themselves, who simply switched from Christianity to Islam and again to Christianity between the 8th and the 16th centuries, and so on. Oh, yes, almost nothing in common, modern Andalusia is nothing but a bunch of Asturians, Basques and Castillians living over the totally depopulated and forgotten ruins of Al-Andalus, building a society that had absolutely no link with the previous inhabitants of the land. And, of course, millions of people were expelled from Al-Andalus even if the truth is that that expulsion only happened when when all that remained of Al-Andalus was the tiny emirate of Granada, and most Andalusi people had long been under Christian rule and once again Christianized. Yeah, right. lol

(FWIW, you should by know now that many then novel agricultural techniques that allowed Iberia to flourish in the medieval era were brought by those Arabs and Berbers that you want nothing to do with.)


Why do you think you should deny historic and ancestral ties that are just unquestionably obvious if not due to ethnic and religious prejudice? Please let us understand what drives your aim here.





Yeah, just like there are millions of Britons "of parentsm grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and trastaruabuelos". That still won't erase the fact that their ethnicity and their national culture was deeply influenced by Celts that already lived in Britain since Antiquity, Germanic migrants that came from what is now Netherlands, Northern Germany and Denmark, and Norman and French people throughout the Middle Ages (especially on a cultural level).


I find it so funny that you guys really think we can't notice the fact that European influences are easily accepted when discussing cultural and genetic changes, but the very moment a North African or Levantine influence is even suggested there comes the splitting of hairs and the nitpicking to deny or diminish it as much as one can possibly get. But of course that has nothing to do with some xenophobia or racism, oh, no, not at all, it's just a "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation". Perhaps those who also identify with that kind of attitude can pretend they find that explanation convincing.

Very well argued. It won't do any good, though.
 
Here's some info on translations of ancient Greek works (from the original Greek to Latin) made during the Middle Ages, before Byzantine scholars started migrating to the west:


"Henry Aristippus (1105-1162), a prominent Latin cleric and court figure in the kingdom of Sicily during the reign of William I, brought important Greek philosophical and scientific writings into the intellectual orbit of the medieval Latin west. How he acquired his knowledge of Greek is unknown. His translation of Plato’s Meno was finished sometime between early 1154 and 1160. His translation of Plato’s Phaedo was begun in the spring of 1156 while Aristippus, now archdeacon of Catania, was in camp during William’s siege of Benevento. It was completed in Palermo shortly thereafter and later revised. In 1158 Aristippus returned from a diplomatic mission to Constantinople with gifts to the kingdom from the emperor Manuel I Comnenus that included a copy of the Greek text of Ptolemy’s Almagest (which was then translated by an annonymous translator)… Aristippus translated, from the original Greek, Book 4 of Aristotle’s Meteorology… this remained the standard Latin version until it was superseded in the thirteenth century by William of Moerbeke’s new translation of the entire work.”

link


"Aristippus gives us evidence of the presence in Norman Sicily of important scientific and philosophical texts such as the Mechanics of Hero, the Optics of Euclid, the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle: "In Siciliy you have the library of Syracuse [...] you have access to the Mechanics of Hero, the Optics of Euclid, the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle and other philosophical works”.

link


James of Venice (12th century) was a significant translator of Aristotle of the twelfth century. He has been called the first systematic translator of Aristotle since Boethius. Not much is otherwise known about him. He was active in particular in Constantinople; he translated the Posterior Analytics from Greek to Latin in the period 1125–1150.”

link


"By 1278 practically the whole of the Aristotelian corpus existed in translations from the Greek, and much of it had a wide circulation. Apart from three other works of logic in translations done by Boethius, which reappeared about 1115, this wholesale discovery was the result of cultural contacts with Constantinople and a few other Greek centres and the personal initiative of a few scholars. Most notable and first of these was James of Venice, who was in Constantinople and translated the Posterior Analytics, Physics, De Anima (On the Soul), Metaphysics, and several minor texts before or about 1150; other scholars translated anew or for the first time works on ethics, natural philosophy, and logic before 1200. With higher standards of linguistic scholarship, Robert Grosseteste, about 1240, revised and completed the translation of the Nicomachean Ethics and translated On the Heavens for the first time from the Greek.

The Flemish translator William of Moerbeke, active between about 1255 and 1278, completed the Latin Aristotelian corpus; he was the first to translate the Politics and Poetics and to give a full and reliable translation of the books on animals; he also translated anew some books of natural philosophy, and he revised several of the older translations.”

link


“William of Moerbeke (1215–1286), was a prolific medieval translator of philosophical, medical, and scientific texts from Greek language into Latin, enabled by the period of Latin rule of the Byzantine Empire. … he undertook a complete translation of the works of Aristotle directly from the Greek or, for some portions, a revision of existing translations. William of Moerbeke was the first translator of the Politics (c. 1260) into Latin … William also translated mathematical treatises by Hero of Alexandria and Archimedes. Especially important was his translation of the Elements of Theology of Proclus (made in 1268), because the Elements of Theology is one of the fundamental sources of the revived Neo-Platonic philosophical currents of the 13th century. His translation of Proclus' commentary on Plato's Parmenides which included Plato's dialogue up to 142b in Stephanus pagination made this text available in Latin for the first time. Some important shorter texts of Proclus, such as "On Providence," "On providence and Fate," and "On the Existence of Evil," are preserved only in William of Moerbeke's translation.”

link


“William of Moerbeke in 1260 made a literal Latin translation of Aristotle’s On the Heavens and Meteorology. During the next two decades he translated parts of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Politics, Rhetoric, and History of Animals, together with cognate treatises on animal psychology and physiology, concluding in 1278 with Poetics. He revised existing Latin versions of other Aristotelian writings, including On Memory and Recall, Physics, Posterior Analytics, and possibly the Nichomachean Ethics.”

link


“William of Moerbeke's translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics, for example, while it may have been the first complete version, was apparently the third Latin translation to be made from the original text. A translation from Greek into Latin (the so-called Metaphysica Vetus) was in use at Paris as early as 1210 … and a second translation from the Greek (the Translatio Media) seems to have been used by Albert the Great as the basis of his commentary. Many other works of Aristotle were similarly available by the middle of the thirteenth century in translations from the Greek as well as from the Arabic. While the extent of his indebtedness to earlier translators has not yet been precisely determined, William is known to have used some of the existing translations from the Greek in his own work.”

link
 
Let me make one thing clear the Arabs or North African Moors , etc. had their own achievements in culture, architecture, science and cuisine. Furthermore, Muslim Moors had a great impact on Southern Europe but in the rest of Europe not so much. However, the contribution of the Muslim scholars concerning the classical work of Aristotle was their excellent commentaries on the difficult work of Aristotle. They made his philosophy and ideas more understandable. Therefore they helped scholars in exploiting them. Having said that Christian Byzantine refugees and scholars who fled to Venice and Florence after the Turks sacked Constantinople, brought the so-called lost work oft he ancient Greeks to the West, to Venice and Florence. The played a bigger role than the Muslim in introducing this forgotten or missing knowledge to Western scholars.


We should be grateful to the Church and their monks who worked their asses and backs off to copy all these classic literatures and libraries. I have seen documentaries about the Golden Age of Islam where Christian Europe was portrayed as dark, dirty, backwards and inferior. In these documentaries they showed two contrasts on one side there were monks living in somber monasteries in Europe that lacked the shining light of the enlightenment of the wonderful Islamic world. Till today is fashionable to teach the myth about the Church being anti-science and to refer to the Medieval times as the Dark Ages. The contributions of the Catholic Church, the Byzantine people and Protestants in art and science like any Christian contributions that made Europe great are being written off from history. Just saying.

No one could admire the work of Christian monks and scholars of the Middle Ages more than I do, or be more upset about the constant assault on Eastern Christianity in the Middle East. It's a disgrace that no western country seems to give a damn.

That doesn't mean the Muslim scholars, and Jewish ones as well didn't play their part.

Facts are facts. Some of the people posting here have clearly never read scholarly works on the topic in their lives. They're just spouting the racist, bigoted bilge they were taught at school or have read on racist "anthro" sites.

Get out the books of actual scholarship, people.
 
No one could admire the work of Christian monks and scholars of the Middle Ages more than I do, or be more upset about the constant assault on Eastern Christianity in the Middle East. It's a disgrace that no western country seems to give a damn.

That doesn't mean the Muslim scholars, and Jewish ones as well didn't play their part.

Facts are facts. Some of the people posting here have clearly never read scholarly works on the topic in their lives. They're just spouting the racist, bigoted bilge they were taught at school or have read on racist "anthro" sites.

Get out the books of actual scholarship, people.

https://www.google.com/books/editio...t+Greek+writings&pg=PT236&printsec=frontcover

https://www.mei.edu/publications/islamic-civilization

The kind of stupidity that has been written in this thread is to be expected, I suppose, from people who don't even know who Avicenna and Averroes were, much less Maimonides, or that some Greek texts have survived ONLY in Arabic translation, or that our whole lyric tradition of love poetry comes from the Arab world.

I learned all of that, by the way, from Catholic nuns who, unlike the idiots filling the internet with rubbish, had masters and doctorates in not only theology, but ancient history and Greek and Latin.

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....amId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
 
Mozarabs


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozarabs

O3IrWyz.jpg



AjOMva3.jpg


“Neither good Christians nor loyal subjects.”

B8FdReC.jpg
 
My regards to you, native (Of modern Andalusia). :grin:
Have a nice night also.
See you later
Cheers ;)

As we usually say: Andalusia there is only one


I think you would like what Andalusia does with any historical excuse to do it with the argument of Al Andalus, but I am sorry, it is not so, because whether or not you like that historical moment we do not feel it ours or with continuity.

I think that many of you would have liked or imagined that what other regions do with any historical excuse Andalusia did with the argument of Al Andalus, but I am sorry, it is not so, because whether or not you like that particular historical moment not we do not feel it is ours or with continuity, but rather something that begins and ends giving us something new and totally different.

They have to know the natives better, their concerns, wishes, desires, feelings, opinion.

Theoretical or learning a history book from memory and then replicating it to the last comma is one thing and the reality of peoples is another.

Andalusia loves you. You will find Al Andalus in history books.

I am sorry to have broken the expectations of so many in the disintegration of Spain, but we are not going to imitate other regions.

Because I see no other explanation in forcing something that does not exist on the part of foreigners to whom a native is saying that the thing is not so and they insist on a present-future link with a period that for us is a finalized parenthesis.

There are no problems with the images of monuments in Al Andalus, they do not produce hives, that is not the point either, the rejection of that historical period does not affect the monuments because they are now ours.

(The images by the way are horrible)

Duarte you do not know the Andalusians and Spaniards at all.

Let's imagine that the Franks or Carolingians have made 2 skirmishes in my territory, so I am going to claim to be an independent country? well no, sorry. If the expectations were those in relation to Andalusia with Al Andalus, I'm sorry but no.
 
As we usually say: Andalusia there is only one


I think you would like what Andalusia does with any historical excuse to do it with the argument of Al Andalus, but I am sorry, it is not so, because whether or not you like that historical moment we do not feel it ours or with continuity.

I think that many of you would have liked or imagined that what other regions do with any historical excuse Andalusia did with the argument of Al Andalus, but I am sorry, it is not so, because whether or not you like that particular historical moment not we do not feel it is ours or with continuity, but rather something that begins and ends giving us something new and totally different.

They have to know the natives better, their concerns, wishes, desires, feelings, opinion.

Theoretical or learning a history book from memory and then replicating it to the last comma is one thing and the reality of peoples is another.

Andalusia loves you. You will find Al Andalus in history books.

I am sorry to have broken the expectations of so many in the disintegration of Spain, but we are not going to imitate other regions.

Because I see no other explanation in forcing something that does not exist on the part of foreigners to whom a native is saying that the thing is not so and they insist on a present-future link with a period that for us is a finalized parenthesis.

There are no problems with the images of monuments in Al Andalus, they do not produce hives, that is not the point either, the rejection of that historical period does not affect the monuments because they are now ours.

(The images by the way are horrible)

Duarte you do not know the Andalusians and Spaniards at all.

Let's imagine that the Franks or Carolingians have made 2 skirmishes in my territory, so I am going to claim to be an independent country? well no, sorry. If the expectations were those in relation to Andalusia with Al Andalus, I'm sorry but no.

Dear Carlos. I am also a little Andalusian and, greeting you in this moment, I greet all Andalusians in the World. The Andalusian community in Brazil is large and, according to the source below, it appears to be the second largest in the world, being smaller only than that of Andaluzia. Saludos.

9ZFM1qH.jpg

P6reqU5.jpg

I never looked for my Spanish roots. I am already satisfied with knowing only my Portuguese roots. Joaquim Viegas was the son of Andalusians. He was not a very tall man, but he was a good man who had beautiful blue eyes that gave him the appearance of an angel. Son of impoverished Andalusian emigrants, he made a fortune in the State of Minas Gerais / Brazil and became the patriarch of the Viegas family by marrying Filomela Guerra, a descendant of Portuguese from Trás-os-Montes coming from the border with Galicia. This man and this woman are my maternal great-grandparents. I did not inherit the surnames Viegas and Guerra because in Brazil the children, until the 1960s, inherited only their father's names. Patriarchal tradition. My son was the first of his generation to receive a mother's surname. Following the guidance of the paternal matriarch, my paternal great aunt, he could receive one of his mother's surnames, as long as he kept his father's surname in full (my surname, in this case). My great-aunt was a very wealthy woman and took full command of “the orders of the family” after the death of my paternal grandparents. My father was a proud man, but he was totally submissive to she, a fact that greatly upset my mother, who ended up raising me to be an enemy of the queen. I played this role for a while until I got tired of it and accepted submission (I pretended to accept it. I just wanted the inheritance, lol).
 
@Duarte


Cabrón por qué no me habías dicho que eras medio andaluz.




My maternal great-grandmother married the richest man in town, now recently I have learned from family seekers that she met the Spanish nobleman Villalonga who was in the area gathering information with the excuse of writing a book and who finally made a movie based on the life of my great-grandparents, a film from many decades ago that I have not yet been able to locate.


In my maternal family, women are also dominant, but my paternal grandfather was dominant, he was very strict with his children, he had his own farmland, his wife, my paternal grandmother, separated from him in Francoism when it could not be done, perhaps for that reason. my father decided to educate us free like the wind and like the grass that grows only with the sun and rainwater. Once as a child I asked my father what was that tower that was at the top of the mountain and my father answered me: That was what the Moors did when they were here, I answered him and where they are now and he said: we threw them out , I think it was the only time that we could touch in some way and also indirectly the subject of Al Andalus.

--------------------

For everyone in general:

In another vein


Since I see that the testimony of a native is useless, I do not even want to think about the path that interpretations can take when debating other much older times, the Neolithic, the bronze, Yamamama e.t.c.


There is a trick that has just occurred to me in view of the eastern issue of Al Andalus:


All your interpretations of a principle turn completely the opposite and you may find the answers you are looking for.


Good trick, right!
 
Since I see that the testimony of a native is useless, I do not even want to think about the path that interpretations can take when debating other much older times, the Neolithic, the bronze, Yamamama e.t.c.

Yes, my dear, what else did you think? This is a forum that is supposed to gather people who are interested in science, not in the subjective "testimony" of natives who quite often have an emotional and deeply personal investment on this or that hypothesis about the origins of their people and culture due to interests and premises that are decidedly unscientific, usually learned from myths and interpretations promoted and passed on by earlier generations. Nobody who is born in some land automatically receives all the truth about the history of the place, historical research would be so much easier if that were so. Once again, I stress that what is being discussed here is the history and heritage of a place, not its people's present identity. The testimony of a native doesn't prevail over what historical, genetic and linguistic research show, particularly when it is clearly tainted by nationalist feelings and ethnic pride, which will never conform to truths "inconvenient" to their preferred narrative.
 
Ygorcs;607438]Since I see that the testimony of a native is useless, I do not even want to think about the path that interpretations can take when debating other much older times, the Neolithic, the bronze, Yamamama e.t.c.

Yes, my dear, what else did you think? This is a forum that is supposed to gather people who are interested in science, not in the subjective "testimony" of natives who quite often have an emotional and deeply personal investment on this or that hypothesis about the origins of their people and culture due to interests and premises that are decidedly unscientific, usually learned from myths and interpretations promoted and passed on by earlier generations. Nobody who is born in some land automatically receives all the truth about the history of the place, historical research would be so much easier if that were so. Once again, I stress that what is being discussed here is the history and heritage of a place, not its people's present identity. The testimony of a native doesn't prevail over what historical, genetic and linguistic research show, particularly when it is clearly tainted by nationalist feelings and ethnic pride, which will never conform to truths "inconvenient" to their preferred narrative.



images

QGEWnitB9ht_eTfjCWyFQaKz6eCGtCbyJI922vt9i_jYw8X-GPM9E4qhhpNHDKrWKaj4YoRfivGpN4nDR5hYgvek_rUJ6YNUfFR-3BTuUM7AzyEoV_TyDUjaWnM4V0CPrQ

 
Last edited:
[Ygorcs;607395]Your English is very convoluted and sometimes hardly coherent to say the least, but if I get what you're saying correctly I really hope you only write ANY WORD in this forum if it is exclusively about Spain and more specifically even about Andalusia, otherwise you'll be viewed as nothing but a hypocrite.

No comment

As for how much Brazilians know or do not know about Spain and Spaniards, sorry, but unlike you I sustain no idea that I as an individual am totally representative of the entire people that live in my country, let alone do I pretend I am an authority in the history of my country just because I was born in it.

I don't know what you're talking about

Besides, you may have some point indeed about Brazil and Brazilians.

Most people here aren't fond of 19th century pseudo-historic national myths created to derive some "pure origin" for their own nation and to differentiate themselves from other populations, thus strengthening the national sentiments promoted by states at that time. Most people here are long past those long debunken and almost always very simplistic legends, and most wouldn't identify as "prejudices" a link between present Iberians and once Muslim Iberians as well as descendants of Berber and Arabo-Berber immigrants dozens of generations ago. That's simply not seen as something to be avoided or hidden, so there cold be no discrimination in saying such a thing when there are evidences of that. At worst it would simply be an incorrect statement, but a prejudiced one? No, why should it be viewed as such? Perhaps in the minds of those who actually​ are prejudiced.


No one hides the story. You can learn wikipedia by heart and then recite it to the last comma. We do have links with the Middle Ages: The Reconquest.

I have already commented on it in another thread: It would be the first time in the history of humanity that it is intended to give the victors the identity of the defeated and expelled.

That's perhaps because the history of our formation as a distinct people is too recent, so we do know how peoples are usually formed: it's a messy, complicated process, and lots of mixing and reciprocal influences are involved in it. So, yes, you'll hardly find Brazilians who agrees with you that modern Andalusians and Spaniars at large and Al-Andalus are totally unrelated genetically, historically, linguistically and culturally, because, sorry, the evidences of partial continuity and ancestral relationship are just too obvious and too numerous for anyone who is not personally and emotionally invested in denying that for some bizarre reason that probably has to with those fragile nationalist feelings. It must feel really weird when you feel you have to pretend hundreds of years of your country and your ancestors did not exist (or even that they were not your and your people's ancestors at all) to keep your identity unscathed.

It seems that he does not want to understand that Al Andalus and Andalusia are different things.

I won't keep this discussion anymore. I think everyone who might form an opinions of his or her own about what's happened here already did so. Nothing more is needed. Enjoy your weekend!

He wants to force a situation for a modern people, which is not his sentiment, but a period that happened on his soil and which came with foreigners and left with them. Any influence is adapted and made ours to the character ours of people of the Middle Ages with a system and culture with which there is no continuity. To pretend otherwise is to lie.


Besides, you may have some point indeed about Brazil and Brazilians.

Here is my point

BrazilBot15.jpeg


BrazilBot17.jpeg


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4370112/
 
So your opinion is that European culture is completely indigenous?

The culture is made by the peoples and if something works from abroad they make it their own.

It is a very complicated question because if it is answered that it would seem that the contributions of the rest of the world are despised, however, the indigenous people are the ones who make the culture and can also make their own any outside influence, therefore it is always the indigenous people who create their own culture integrating or undoing foreign influences according to whether they are useful or not

The answer is no but yes
 
So your opinion is that European culture is completely indigenous?

Let it be, ratchet_fan. He will never concede that Al-Andalus was part of European an Iberian history and that the majority of the descendants of the people that lived in Al-Andalus are still there in Spain and Portugal. As he implies, he demands that the usual writing of the nation's History be written by the winners, not by the defeated, and it doesn't matter that the defeated are also many of our (everyone's) ancestors, and their history is also part of our (everyone's, including Spaniards', of course) history and identity whether we hear about it or not, whether we even want to embrace it or not. He wants the history of the winners, not the complete historical account.

The man seems to be still totally brainwashed by the 19th century "official state history" of Spain based on a complete denial of any cultural, social and political continuity whatsoever with the pre-Reconquista society. It's as if the pre-Reconquista population simply vanished in the thin air and was immediately replaced (both physically and socioculturally) by something entirely new and totally "northern", with no links at all to the previous times. The limpieza de sangre was still on people's minds, if not physically, certainly ideologically and culturally: "Muslim" heritage, even if in fact those Muslims were just Islamized Iberians or even simply partially Arabized Iberian Christians (Must'arib > Mozarab), was a spot that should be completely "cleaned" (that's what limpieza means after all). Never mind that if that were really so Spain wouldn't have the largest amount of Arabic loanwords in Europe, and Andalusia wouldn't have most of its main toponyms (river names, city names, geographical landscape names etc.) derived from Arabic or from Arabized forms of older toponyms, and, of course, there is no indication at all that there was a wholesale genocide of the entire population living all over the southern half of Iberia, nor a complete and immediate cultural eradication, instead of a gradual, centuries-long process of Christianization, cultural change and southward migration forming a new sociocultural blend and a new population that was not simply a transplant of the northern Christian kingdoms.

But I advise you all: let it be. It's really important for him to believe that, because Andalusia is not the same as Al-Andalus, then that means the people, society, history and culture of Al-Andalus were totally erased, buried and, as he said, "problem solved" once the Reconquista happened (of course it wasn't an event, but a 300-year-old process, but don't let those details bother you, right?). They got rid of everything that could potentially relate them to those damn Muslims who were, as he also seems to believe, a bunch of "foreigners" (hmm, not quite, but, again, don't let small things like truth get in the way). And now they're all "pure Spaniards", nothing else. It's important for him to be at peace with his own identity, so let's not annoy him much longer. ;)
 

This thread has been viewed 50844 times.

Back
Top