National vs territorial identity in Spain

[Berrocscir]

Thanks for the explanations. I have assumed ethnicity to be synomomous with nationality. Is it true that the the Basque language is very old and not related to other european languages? In thhis sense are they not a separate ethnic group from the rest of the Spanish people.

The way I've been thinking is that there must not really be any spanish nation - due to aragonese, castillians, catalonians etc - I apologise if this is technically wrong. What are the differences between ethnicity and nationality?

Also, are mynydd & Lagun against a Portugese state?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Berrocscir

Thanks for the explanations. I have assumed ethnicity to be synomomous with nationality. Is it true that the the Basque language is very old and not related to other european languages? In thhis sense are they not a separate ethnic group from the rest of the Spanish people.

It is true. Probably related to the ancient languages of the Iberians and of the Aquitanians.

What you call "Spanish" language, which is in actual fact modern Castilian language, is impregnated of Basque influence inspite of it being a Romance language. The only other language that shares this influence to a similar level is Gascon, an Occitanian language, from the ancient Aquitanian.

The Castilian (Spanish) language is not that foreign to the Basques as you might believe. In fact it has its origins in the rude Romance spoken by peoples of Basque/Iberic and Celtic adscription, little romanicized. This is something already noticed by the linguist and historian D. Ramón Menéndez Pidal. Also, the Basque philosopher D. Miguel de Unamuno makes it clear that Castilian is a language of the Basques.

The way I've been thinking is that there must not really be any spanish nation - due to aragonese, castillians, catalonians etc - I apologise if this is technically wrong. What are the differences between ethnicity and nationality?

Fine. Let me answer to this below.

Also, are mynydd & Lagun against a Portugese state?

Again, you should not confuse state with nation. At the time when Spain was at the peak of her power, the structure of government that you call state was much different. The king had to abide by the Old Laws and rules of the kingdoms, which he could not break. The same Phillip II had a rebelion in Saragossa when he ordered the imperial army to aprehend his [treacherous] secretary, because although the secretary was not Aragonese, he was in Aragonese territory and only the Justicia Mayor could decide over his fate while he was there. And certainly the king's soldiers could not enter the city without permision. His father, the Holy Roman Emperor Carlos, had much more trouble with Castilians.

A king of Spain had to read the oath of loyalty to the Fueros of each territory (kingdom, county, lordship), before being crowned as the king of that territory.

As for the territories that you mention (Aragon, Castile, Catalonia, others), Spain existed before these in most cases. They are in fact a product of an historical abnormality, which was the Islamic invasion.

Even if throughout the long centuries of the Reconquista no such thing as Spain existed as a state, it did exist as a nation and this was a fact recognized by the kings of the different territories, who battled for the hegemony of being Primus Hispaniae (the First of The Spains). Even the Reconquista starts as an ideology, which in the early chronicles of the Reconquista appears as Recuperatio Hispania (the Recuperation of Spain).

Why The Spains, and not Spain? Both denominations are equally valid, however the plural Spains is charged with the essence of Spain and her peoples.

Spain goes through a unique process of ethnogenesis in the VIth century, first with the Visigothic King Leovigildo's derogation of the Roman laws which prevented the Roman citizens (Hispano-Romans) from mixing with the Barbarians (Goths) and who achieved the territorial union (expells the Byzantines, defeats the Suevi, and suffocates the rebelions in the Salto Vasconum.. which is not clear that it referred only to Basque people). Then the religious union after his son Recaredo, together with a number of Arian bishops, abhorred of the Arian heressy --which the Goths and most other Eastern Germanics subscribed-- and embraced the Catholic Church. His father, Leovigildo, had failed to do the contrary (to convert the Hispano-Romans to Arianism), and he even ordered his son [Saint] Hermenegildo to be executed, after he converted to Catholicism and rose in arms against his father, and later refused to take the comunion from the hands of an Arian bishop while imprisoned.

The events of 711 AD break this nation. And from that moment on, the Reconquista starts at different points as an idea to recuperate Spain. However, much of what Spain is was forged during those hundred of years, included but not limited to the formation of those states.. or kingdoms. Each one of them being a "Spain" in its own right. Therefore "The Spains".

Such is our national and ethnic identity.

Put some Bizkaitarras and Giputxis together (both Basques), and you may have a fight. Put Basques, Castilians, Galicians and Catalans together, you may have a fight. Put an English or a French in front of them, and you will have a war.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Put an English or a French in front of them, and you will have a war.

Sure, that's why we have created the Channel between us.

[Menydh]

Sure, that too. But it is not quite what the sentence is supposed to mean.

[Carnyx]

They may very well fight together but are not ennemies, whereas all the others beyond their common bondaries are.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

They may very well fight together but are not ennemies, whereas all the others beyond their common bondaries are.

That's well-known :

[Menydh]

Well, considering that we have had in the modern times some 5 major civil wars.. that's the War of Succesion, 3 Carlist Wars, the Civil War. You can get an idea..

Incidentally it was the Basque Carlist General Zumalacárregui, who regretted that a war was being fought where Spanish people would have to kill other Spanish people..

[Dux]

Greetings!

More than two months since the last time I visited Stirpes.
I hope everything's well here around.

Couldn't resist to "stick the spoon" (portuguese expression) hereby!

First things first...

I doubt we'll see any new state here in the west during our lifespan. Things are getting too stiff and rigid. Get used to Belgium, they'll not split. A lose federation, maybe.
Flanders has three options: 1. Joining the Netherlands (doubt it; unfortunately there is much prejudice in the Netherlands regarding Flemish. Flemish are seen by the other dutch regions as the yokel hillbillies). 2. Full independence (doubt it). 3. Status Quo (most likely)
Regarding Wallonie: 1. Joining France (doubt it; it would only increase France unstability). 2. Full independence (not what I think being the rightest thing, but still their best option). 3. Status Quo (they'll remain prisioners of their past role in Belgium).

Regarding This corner of Europe ...

I've debated this with Mynydd not long ago. His vision is romantic and has its potential, undeniably.
Iberia or Hispania, whatever you prefer, is a very complex region. Yet is a region of Europe, and shares many similarities with cousin regions all hewn of the same Europe. Explaining the view of Portuguese independence its easy for an Irish or a Norwegian or a Slovenian to understand. A bit more difficult for a French or a Spanish or a German. Spain is a multi-nation state. Portugal is by far homogeneous. Yes, it may fit in a Great Iberia, in the Spanish view. It doesn't fit so well in the Portuguese concept of State.

If one is looking for similarities, one will certainly find them and disregard differences. If one is looking for differences, it will be easy to see them everywhere. Personally, I find both. Still enough differences to strongly believe in independence, and I believe I'm not biased by any kind of prejudice like independent Moldovans have regarding Romania, for an instance. That's my opinion and that's the overwhelming sentiment in the collective psyche of Portuguese.

And language. Language is a bigger obstacle than you may think.
(Christ, now this reminds me about the Orthographic Agreement that our government is ready to approve, and that will doom Portuguese language to kneel before Brazil. Believe me, with all my heart, I'd rather learn to speak and write Spanish than the damn Brazillian Portuguese!)

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Dux

I've debated this with Mynydd not long ago. His vision is romantic and has its potential, undeniably.

Much on the contrary, it is a vision that rejects the myths and errors of romanticism and that sticks to a realism that's been hindered for too long.

Iberia or Hispania, whatever you prefer, is a very complex region. Yet is a region of Europe, and shares many similarities with cousin regions all hewn of the same Europe.

Take no offense, but on this part of the Peninsula we stress more the differences with other parts of Europe, than we stress any similarities. This is, again, due to a vision of realism since we are Peninsular, not Continental Europe. There is, in my opinion, a clear hint of jacobinism in this excess stressing of similarities, which sets itself apart from a clear idea of nationalism.

Explaining the view of Portuguese independence its easy for an Irish or a Norwegian or a Slovenian to understand.

Of course. The less they know, the easier that it can be presented as natural to them.

Spain is a multi-nation state. Portugal is by far homogeneous.

The differences between the Braccarensis Galicians (N. Portugal) with Algarve or Alentejo (S. Portugal) is one of the more extreme in Iberia. If not the most the most extreme of all, since the Reconquista in all the other kingdoms (read states) of Spain (read nation) was realized over longer time because of the needed demographic growth in the northern kingdoms that provided the input for repopulation in the re-conquered territories. Resulting in a north-south homogeneity that is actually unparalleled.

A nation (Spain) was fragmented by cause of an invasion, and in the attempt to reconquer this nation new states (kingdoms) were created. It is dishonest to call a multi-nation state what is actually a multi-state nation.

Yes, it may fit in a Great Iberia, in the Spanish view. It doesn't fit so well in the Portuguese concept of State.

Now we are talking. The idea of "nation" that you portray is based on a state. We've known that all along, haven't we?

That's my opinion and that's the overwhelming sentiment in the collective psyche of Portuguese.

I don't consider the collective psyche of the masses as authoritative. It is highly influenciable. Especially not in these modern times. And you shouldn't either. Thinking must be qualitative, not quantitative.

[Cirrus]

How would be the differences between the notion of Spain or Iberia and, for exemple, the notion of Britain ?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

How would be the differences between the notion of Spain or Iberia and, for exemple, the notion of Britain ?

Where Spain is one nation historically divided into state territories following an invasion, Britain is the result of the unification of different nations, by the descendents of an invading nation.

There exists a [well documented] process of ethnogenesis in Spain, that predates the existance of the modern territorial states.

The only such ethnogenesis in Britain would be an ancient between Picts and Gaels (The Dalriada), which gives identity to a nation that we know as Scotland.
Another ethnogenesis in Britain would be that of Anglos, Saxons and Jutes... and to an arguable extent some native Britons (depending on the area), and which gave identity to a nation that we know as England.