Is Spain Less European?

Question for spaniards or any one has a degree in spanish studies. I did a report on the non-intervention of countries during the spanish civil war. One of the books said that Spain and Portugal was less european than other countries in europe because of it's separation due to the pyranees and it's tendancy toward violence in the 15th and 16th centuries. I remember My professor in spain saying that the culture of spain is different due the separation of the pyranees which prevented the flow of culture from the rest of europe. I think I might be missing something there, because when my prof from spain here, in the U.S. saw that, she was furious. She started to say are you saying spain is not a part of europe. If you have any information on this please let me know.

Hi... I'm not posting to give an answer coz i have no idea at all! I dont even know what a pyranees is. But this is an interesting question and i'm gonna sit and wait with you on this one.

I'm pretty sure Ignacio( ) will post a long one......

No, I read it yesterday,and got rather furious, but I don't really think that nonsense needs a serious answer. It's like saying the same to UK or Ireland because of the sea, a much bigger obstacle for communication, or Italy with the alps, or Greece, which has a big mountain chain in its centre/north, and so on. It's plain nonsense.

Imagine somebody said the west coast of the USA was a different culture (meaning less cultured or developed) than the East coast because of the Appalaches. :o

Pirynnees is a mountain chain,that runs all along the northern obrder with France.

In fact, the fight with the moors brought thousands of people atracted by its sense of crusade, plus the free lands and tax exemption for life given to the settlers in the border villages. Also, the Road of Santiago brought enormous amounts of pilgrims ho spread their culture, and many times settled here (half of what today is Pamplona was the former "french village"). Plus, we have been invaded (and thus, mixed cultures with) by lots of other european peoples, phoenician and greek settlements, roman invaders, suevians, alans, vandals and goths (these four are germanic peoples), among others.

Catalonia was a French county with Charles the Great and afterwards for decades. The basque kingdom of Navarre spread both sides of the Piryeees, ...

Really, it makes no sense at all!

I found this topic very interesting and I don't get furious at all. But first we should know what is to be less european. Probably they say this for Spain and not for Italy and Greece because the greekroman culture are the roots of the European culture and they're not brave enough to tell it, but I think that when they say less European they're thinking in a centereuropean culture. I don't think that the Pyriness are a reason for it, maybe the fights in the XIVth & XVth centuries (all th fights Spain had in XVIth cent where European wars), but I'ld say that rather the whole history of Spain. As in the following centuries maybe it's also more focused in the relation with America. But there are also a lot of relations with Europe, it's said that Maquiavelo wrote his book thinking in King Fernando el Católico, he married his daughters with Europeans princes, and the first dinasty of the kingdom of Spain was the Austrias Dinasty and they came from Germany and the next one was the Borbon, and they came from France. There are a lot of things to talk about, there are many differences, but I think Spain HAS NOT been isolated from Europe.

If there is a country that is less European than the others, it has to be the United Kingdom...
We drive on the left, we pay in bars at the point of ordering and our electrical system is different to that of the continent.
An old advertsing campaign run by the Spanish tourist board proclaimed 'Spain is different'. I suspect this slogan would apply more to the UK.

Ignacio, I think that you might be misinterpreting what the original writer of the statement "that Spain is less European than the rest of Europe due to the Pyrenees Mountains" actually meant.

It is general knowledge that large physical barriers, whether they are oceans, mountains or deserts, etc, disrupt the flow of communication... well, at least back in the 15th & 16th centuries... (with today´s global and information society, the situation is entirely different) and greatly influenced the development of cultures.

I don´t think that the author meant that Spain and Portugal were less cultured or developed than the rest of Europe, or even that they weren´t part of Europe. I think what the author was trying to say quite simply is that Spain and Portugal evolved and developed differently than the majority of the rest of Europe due to the isolation caused by the Pyrenees way back when. Remember Spain´s tourism line... "Spain is different". :p

My question is a repetition of someone else´s... what exactly is European culture? I´d be hard pressed to say that the French culture is the same as the German culture which is the same as the Greek culture. Each of those countries has their own culture identified by their customs and traditions. I think what the author might have wanted to say is perhaps that the ideology of the Iberian Penninsula and the rest of Europe differed greatly during the 15th & 16th centuries due to the physical separation... and that those differences perhaps still have an influence on today´s Spanish/Iberian culture.

Just as the "Mediterranean countries" are different from the "Baltic countries" or different from the "nordic countries".

Take, for example, the Spanish that is spoken in Spain and the Spanish that is spoken in Latin America. At one point, the languages were the same because it was the Spanish explorers that brought Spanish to Latin America...however, over time the Spanish in Latin America evolved one way and the Spanish in Spain evolved in another. Both being influenced by different factors and now there are differences in vocabulary, pronunciation/accents and even grammar. Just like the English spoken in England and English spoken in the USA. At one point in time, they were the same, however, they differ now (much like the differences in the varieties of Spanish) because of the influence of different cultures and other geopolitical causes.

BTW -- IMHO the western USA does have a different culture than the Eastern USA just as northern Spain has a different culture than southern Spain. Geography does play a large part in economic and cultural development.

Well, Chica, after all, this is another remake of the question commented before in MM's on a sentence by A. Dumas: "Africa begins down the Pirynnees". It's not strange that the spanish teacher was furious, if I felt spanish, I would, and anyway, I am a little, because Iberia includes most of the Basque COuntry.

Mountains difficulted tranfer of ideas or customs, but, as filbert says, seas do even more, and I can't see anybody saying Ireland and the UK are not european.

Besides, as I said before, many countries are "isolated" by mountains in Europe, and thay belong to that specific cultural tree. And I say cultural tree, because the greek culture was adopted by romans in many ways, and the romans spread it troughout their empire, mainly europe. Then they were invaded by barbarians, who became educated on that very culture. And in the XII or XIV centuries the cultured people still spoke latin, and studied the classic greek authors. In Britain, at the beginning of the century, we are told many of the best schools taught latin, greek, and the Classics.

We cannot say that Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, the UK, and Ireland are not Europe, simply because they are almost half of europe and, Greece and Rome, the basis of the culture all of we europeans share, beginning by the former, old concept of democracy, a word that the Greek invented. The values we shared for centuries come form those roots. It was the barbarian germanic and celtic tribes of what today are France, Germany, Scandinavia, precisely who became civilized with the mediterranean countries' culture.

If these countries are "other Europe"; I am very glad to belong to that one.

Also, mountains are a difficulty to spread culture, but they are not impossible to overcome.

As I said above, it did not stop 1.000.000 goths to cross and stablish themselves in Spain, or the roman to conquer it, or the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who crossed the country (more than any other, by the way) in the middle age, to gain forgival for sins, and so on.

Probably (the North of) Spain is the country with a most heterogeneal and intense population and culture flux in Europe at that time! So, that sentence can't be more wrong (if not even badly intentioned).

As for the tendency for violence of the Spanish and Portugueses, let me laugh. Ha, ha, ha. Just take a look at the European History and you'll see a couple of wars , bloodsheds, conquers, religious turmoils, and so on. We were exactly as savage as everybody else, how wouldn't we if we were fighting or allying with the same countries all the time although in different sides each time? If one was savage, the other had to be jus as much!

Chica , I think that you are right. Ignacio it is not meant to be offensive. I can understand your anger, many times northern Europe has been pitted against southern Europe. In the U.S. when many immigrants came to the u.s. in the late 1800's early 1900's there was a classification of who was "white" enough. Those who were excluded were from southern europe or hungarian.
Later on as the U.s. canged , they were reclassified as white. For those of you who live in the U.S. this was a series on pbs.

Anyway, here is the book It is called Non-intervention in the spanish civil war 1936-1939 An International affair by William E.Watters.

I quote"In seeking a precedent for foreign interference in the affairs of the nations of the Iberian Peninsula, we do not have to go back very far in history. In earlier times the nations called it, not interventionor non interventionor non intervention, but interference or non-interference;in the 20th century it was (and is) intervention. Which term is used make little difference, because both refer to the uninvited interposition of one country in the affairs of another.

From the Cultural point of view, The Pyranees are the highest mountains in Europe. Through the centuries they have served as a rather effective barrier to cultural exchange between the people of the iberian Peninsula and the rest of europe. The result has been that the people of spain have usually reacted in domestic disputes in a different (and possibly more violent) manner than the people of Northern Europe. During the fifteenth,sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, most of europe was governed by monarchs who seldom would refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of another nation if they thought they could profit from such a venture."
There it is. My professor in spain said europe begins in the Pyranees. What does this term mean?
I just want to get to the bottom of this.

This just proves how disunited Europe really is...it never has been and never will be. Napolean, Hitler and Stalin all tried but failed.

There are too many distinct groups with distinct cultures for Europe to blend. Although several countries share similar culture and language i.e. Germany & Austria, France & Belgium, Scandinavia, Spain & Portugal. And.....let's not forget about Eastern Europe, because many people tend to forget that there's a whole other part of Europe beyond Austria!

Regarding American opinion of Southern Europeans, it's true that earlier in the 20th Century they were regarded as less white. The Italians were pictured being dark and more ethnic looking than other Europeans and when Walt Disney was looking for kids for the Mickey Mouse Club in the 1950's they were looking for an ethnic looking kid, so they hired Annette Funicello because she was dark...but not dark enough to pass for white in 1950's America.

MATADOR writes: Until the latter part of the 15th Century Spain was under Moorish occupation. In the 16th Century, Spain was a great Colonial Power, making conquests and colonizing much of the 'New World.'

Spain's "tendency toward violence" occurred centuries earlier and was entirely provoked by Roland's Army and what it did to the people of Pamplona. Charlemagne's son, Roland's army was wiped out by the 'Saracens' (actually people of Navarre) avenging the 'Rape of Pamplona' by Roland's army. This was made quite famous by the epic Chanson de Roland.

After that, the French distanced themselves from Spain. They had suffered a humiliating defeat that would be remembered for centuries. Much of Europe followed suit because they valued their relationship with France more highly than that with Iberia. This was more the reason for Spain's isolation than the Pyrenees.

Spain's culture, music and art flourished and its natural geographical barrier, the Pyrenees mountains may have helped by isolating it from a Europe in which countries were constantly at war with one another.

I had always heard Alexandre Dumas' quote as "Europe ends at the Pyrenees." But that's just a matter of semantics. The Spanish royalty intermarried, first with the Austrias (i.e., Carlos I of Spain was Carlos V of Austria) and then with the Borbones. What we call 'Old Madrid' is actually Madrid de los Austrias. This was occurring even during the years (centuries) when France turned its back on its neighbor to the south.

I think your Professor in Spain was wrong! Even during the Moorish occupation, the Reconquista and the subsequent Spanish Inquisition, Spain's culture was far ahead of that of much of the rest of Europe.

Emphatically not! Who is European? The French, the Germans, the Italians or Czechs or Poles or Norweigans? That's not what you would call an homogeneous lot.

These opinions are simply those of an American who does his best to understand Spanish history and culture. If my 'take' is wrong, I apologize; but that's the way I see it.

I have lived in Spain, the UK and in Greece (where I am from), and all three countries are 'less European' in some way or another.

Everyone is 'less European' in some respect

D

hey everybody

yes thats true

BUT all these countries are part of europe and in the european union while "european" countries like turkey and albania are not.
any ways greece for example is one of the cradles of EUROPEAN society.

england is obviously european and spain too.

thats very wrong to say spain is not european.

the one who said that is just a typical american that does not know much about foreign country.

we as a country have that weak point.

Eu*ro*pe*an adj. Of, pertaining to, or derived from Europe. -Eu'ro*pe'an n.

I'd say that pretty much describes all of Europe as well as a large part of the United States and Canada too!

So, since Spain IS officially part of Europe they cannot, by definition, BE anything but European, particularly not LESS European. They, and Portugal, may be the NEWEST members of Europe though, historically speaking. Or maybe Greece is the newest member.

Good topic of discussion. Saludos, MadridMan

hey everybody

my pal MM

portugal and greece are certainly not the newest members of europe.

correction:

greece is the OLDEST member of europe.
iceland is the NEWEST member of europe.

fmiketheman, but I don't believe (no data to back up my assertions, though) that the countries around the Mediterranean were long ago considered "European" but now they are as they're members of the European Union. When I think of "Ancient Europe" I think, as probably many do, of England, France, Germany and these other historically "WHITE FACED" countries. No? (by the way, many of my Spanish friends are whiter than I am! )

Saludos, MadridMan

Hello,

Madridman:

Well, considering that Greece, Italy, and Spain had the oldest European cultures in Europe several millenium ago. Spain had Tartessos culture which is considered one of the oldest on Earth, it also had the one of the oldest remanainces of old culture in the "Cuevas de Altamira". Even more, it is supossed that the Kenewitt Man (the caucasian man discovered in America) was from Southwest France or Northeast Spain. Considering also that the people from the "Valle de Atapuerca" in Burgos are considered the oldest group of people living in Europe, I don´t know what MadridMan is refering when talking about "which countries long ago were considered "European"...

Did you also knew that in Southern Europe We had real civilizations in our lands while at the same time We called all the people above the Alps,ie Northeuropeans "Barbarians" because they, a part of not having an own culture, in fact, were barbarians, destroyed every culture they manage to find.

Did you also knew that Spain is the OLDEST CONSIDERED COUNTRY IN EUROPE as an unitary concept??. Iberia-Hispania-Spain are the different words for the same concept. Spain as a nowadays country comes from 1492 (I think it is one of the oldest in Europe also).Even in the Bible they talked about Hispania 2000 years ago. I doubt they talked about Norway or Great Britain in the Bible.

Being member of the European Union ten years before or later (SPain entered in 1986) means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in relation about what must be considered much European or not. (In fact all european countries are "european" per se).

When you think of "Ancient Europe" you should be thinking about Greece and Rome, not anything else. Well, at least you should do it if you want to look educate and minimally culturized.

About the WHITE FACED" countries, study a little bit more of ANTROPOLOGY and then if you want We can start to talk about it. Did you know that the Irish, Cornish, Welsh, Scotland come from the aboriginal populations of Gallaecia (Galicia-Spain)??. Did you know that the basques along with the Iberians and Irish are considered the first humans living in Europe, despite they are darker haired and darker eyed than people from Northern Europe. So they are the aboriginal europeans. So the "White faced" camed later. Did you know that there is no single SERIOUS ANTROPOLOGIST THAT can doubt about that all European countries are EQUALLY WHITE (pigmentation doesn´t mean much for antropologist. For them it is much important many other variables. They conclude that all European countries are EQUALLY WHITE, from norwegians to italians, from russians to Spaniards). Yes, Catherine Zeta Jones is a Northern European and is as dark as the average Spaniard. Is she a "WHITE FACED" to you?.

"No? (by the way, many of my Spanish friends are whiter than I am! )"

By the way I am whiter than 90% of Northamericans and I´m fully Spanish (I´m a blue-eyed and have redhair). I´m also whiter than 90% of Europeans, and I´m whiter than 70% of Scandinavians. I have been to Ireland and they ALWAYS thought I was one of them. But not, I´m fully Spanish with spanish surnames like Gonzalez. Curiosities that life brings......And no, don´t start saying that Antonio Banderas is representative of a Spaniard (I don´t even consider him white) because he probably belongs to that 1% top dark Spaniards, so he is not representative of this country. And yes, I´ve seen pictures of you and I´m much whiter than you, and you don´t even look like an stereotipical American for us, in fact many Spaniards are whiter than you (may be you are taller than them but not whiter than them). Just to put things in perspective...

By the way, check your own History. Spain, after England and France, played a MAJOR ROLE in the initial stages of the development of your country. More than half of what is now the US was a possesion of Spain (even Louisiana in that time was about 1/3 of the US and was Spanish, We controled the Missisipi river also, which was the most important commercial location in all America). We sold them to the French, after it, the sold it to England, so what is now the US have much to do with that part of your History were Spain played a MAJOR ROLE. Not only We discovered America, We also founded the first city in the US (St.Agustine), the first University in AMerica, the first Cathedral, ........

There is a lot to say but I simply don´t have the time now.

We could also start to talk about Giovanni Cabotto or John Cabot or the REAL "JOAN CABOT". Cabot is a catalan surname, there are thousands of Spaniards that have a Cabot surname. Why did the English changed a supossed Cabotto real surname to Cabot?, Is it that they could nationalize a name but not a surname, and that is why the had to remain with the Cabot surname. I can start other day about it.

Saludos.

How ancient is your ancient? 776BC would count as ancient in Greece, which would be like yesterday for the Egyptians and so on.

Brief history of the EU from http://europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm and other sources:

1951: Belgium, West Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands become the European Coal and Steel Community

1957: Treaties of Rome, "European Economic Community" born

1973: Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom join in

1981: Greece joins in

1986: Spain and Portugal join in

1990: German reunification, East Germany absorbed

1992: Treaty of Maastricht, "European Union" born

1995: Austria, Finland and Sweden join in

2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia join in

Pending: Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania

I completely disagree with the statement made by your prof - but have a vague understanding of where that attitude might have come from - (though from a professor??? )

Eddie writes:
"the French distanced themselves from Spain. They had suffered a humiliating defeat that would be remembered for centuries. Much of Europe followed suit because they valued their relationship with France more highly than that with Iberia. This was more the reason for Spain's isolation than the Pyrenees."

France weielded great economic and political influence throughout Europe for a good portion of history - plus during at least a portion of that time, Spain was heavily involved in the Americas' - her interests were directed elsewhere.
As was the case with Portugal re Brazil .....

Certainly, geography has always been a natural barrier especially prior to more efficient, aka modern, means of travel.
And yes, politics (+ econonomics and religion as they often go hand-in-hand) has always played a major role in influencing culture.

I think perhaps your professor was looking at very small and specialized segment of history rather than at the larger picture .....

My opinion is that this statement quite wrong.

Just a quick glance at history will tell us that:

- We were colonized by phoenicians, greeks and romans, just as most of Europe. There were roman emperors born in the hispanic provinces (an example of how integrated they were in the empire)

- We were invaded by goths (german tribes) and then arabs as other european countries (the arabs invaded also part of Italy, Greece, the Balcans...).

- In medieval times the Santiago's Road (Camino de Santiago) got into a constant influx of european pilgrims who brought their culture.

- The Catholic Kings made every possible alliance with european countries. The King Carlos I (V) was born in flanders. Felipe II was King of Spain, but also Flanders, Burgundy, Milan, Naples, Sardinia, Sicily,...

- We received the influence of different art styles, gothic, barroc, neoclassic...

- Then the influence of the French Revolution, being conquered by Napoleon...

And it was not until we entered Franco's dictatorship that Spain was blockaded and isolated not only from Europe, but from the rest of the world.

Until Franco's regime decayed and we entered the European Union and the NATO.

Fernando

I think that long ago (thousands of years ago) that if you were "Mediterranean" you never considered yourself "European" but rather... Mediterranean. And if you were "European" you didn't consider yourself "Mediterranean". Of course we cannot know what people thought of themselves before the vast majority of people didn't leave their own communities and immediate surrounding areas. Do we believe that the ancient Greeks & Italians thought of themselves as Europeans? While I don't know for sure I imagine they didn't but considered themselves Mediterranean?

I'm learning a lot from this topic. Let's keep the discussion going. No doubt my New Years' trip to Greece will further educate me in how Greeks saw themselves as citizens of their immediate world.

Saludos, MadridMan

I guess the interesting is to find out when Europe was geo-politically defined as a continent and by whom? I mean, at some point in time, people weren´t aware of the different continents (pre discovery of America).

Madridman, perhaps you are right when you say that the Mediterranean countries referred to themselves as "mediterranean" but remember, back then, Italy didn´t exist. Just Rome and a bunch of city-states which were eventually unified to become what we know as Italy today. I believe the same is true with Greece.

Unfortunately, my ancient world history is not as good as I would want it to be. I, too, am learning a lot from this discussion. Eddie, I love your posts because they are just chock full of history!

Keep them coming folks!

How ancient is your ancient? asks Dimitri.

Well, for me pretty much anything before -50s is ancient.

History is interesting, but today and onward from now will be even more so!

I like to keep things simple, and think that 'the other europeans' are just slightly less spanish!!

Hola Matador,

Unfortunately, just because a book is published, it does not mean that its content is correct, as the nonsense this author has stated in your post, if I may re-quote:

The fallacy that this author is committing is in basing his cultural assumptions in that the main pathway into Spain was limited to the Pyrenees!

He needs to be reminded that during the Roman empire there were several emperors and philosophers from Hispania( Spain)who came and went at will from seaports such as Gedes (Cadiz).

Any enlightened person would tell this poor soul, that the Mediterranean region is well known for its shipping, and that most of Spain's as well as England's contact from the rest of the world comes from the sea via its seaports! The same can be said of Portugal, Southern France, Italy, and Greece.

Most traffic into and out of Spain, prior to the advent of aviation was via these ancient sealanes. The ports in Northern, Southern, and Eastern Spain provided avenues of transportation for the diffusion of ideas as well as trade for centuries.

The author is also incorrect in his assertions regarding the nature of the Spanish people as being more violent because they are more insular, in regards to the Spanish Civil War.

Apparently this man does not know the bloody history of the many countries and principalities of northern Europe well. Any European historical timeline can provide convincing evidence that this statement is ludicrous.

Lastly Matador, you said that Miguel de Unamuno makes this statement (p. 732, Vol 3, Obras Completas, Nuevos Ensayos: España y los Españoles):

If your teacher was quoting Unamuno, this is a positive statement.

So...Antonio Banderas is not a good representative of a Spaniard...well then...what do you think of Julio Iglesias? He's darker than Antonio and EVERYONE knows he's from Spain! So, what kind of representation is he making to the rest of the world? My goodness people, y'all are too obessed with this notion of how white you are or should be. Not all Europeans can be the color of mayonaise (do you really want to be?), have blond or red hair, or have blue eyes. The majority of Europeans are not blond/blue eyed.

Everyone knows that Spain and Portugal are part of Europe. The food, music and dance are definitely European. Colonial and 19th Century America recognized Spain as a European power. Even the KKK recognizes Spain and Spaniards as being white (what an awful example). Those professors that make statements that degrade Spain's European heritage are fools and more than likely not fans of Spain. England, France, Germany and Italy will always be considered as being the definitive examples of what is Europe. Even though Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and spread it's culture to the rest of the continent, people don't normally view it as part of Europe, maybe due to it's proximity to the Levant and it's Byzantine past.

I was just wondering...if Spain is less European, then it must be more of something else...WHAT...more Spanish??? It's definitely not African! Arab perhaps? Maybe in some words and foods, but then the majority of Western European languages trace their ancestry to Indo-European roots. Is it more Mediterranean? Well of course...but then so is Italy, Greece and the South of France. So, what's wrong with that? It can't be more Scandinavian like Iceland, which geographically speaking is part of North America. What about the Irish? Are they not refered to as the "Negros of Europe?"

It all boils down to snobbery, bigotry, and classism!

Matador:

I readily believe you are not meaning to b offensive, however, the one who wrote that sentence probably was. One just cannot say something that simply is as untrue as that and not mean offense.

It is not an unknnown fact that Africa is not a continent that, during History (maybe previously it did) has been know, for hosting developed civilizations or cultures. When the author says Spain is not Europe, he is obviously trying to vinculate us with (you are right, Osomajor) northern african muslim people (darker).

There is a general "culture" that is spread through some occidental countries that the spaniards are more like "brown" than "white".

First, I would like to say that, if I had a drop of black or arab blood or even a stream of it, I would just feel as proud of myself.

Then, I must say I don't think I have any or, if I do, it must be very scarce, since blue eyes, along with very light skin, and sometimes blonde or redhaired people is the appearance of both sides of my family. I myself am pretty pale (except for summer sun-tan), have clear brown greenish eyes, and my hair is dark brown/black (the remains, ha ha).

That said, I'll tell you that , no matter that I don't care about race, I was always very surprised when I was told in Britain, for example, (I think in the USA too) that I didn't look like a spaniard. At London, they thoght I was british , and when it became obvious I wasn't (by my speaking), they were pretty surprised that I was a spaniard.

This seemed very surprising to me because most people I had met in my homeland and in the North of Spain, where I had lived for decades were as white as they were, and as pale as they were, only that blue eyes and blondes were substantially lowere percentages. However, when women dyed their hair, you couldn't tell because it fitted perfectly well their shin. In fact, in hairdressers, they use to counsel women on which dye they should use, recommending those with celtic appearance and/or freckles skin, red colour, and those who are very pale and used to be blonde when children (a lot of us, many times it darkens a lot afterwards) becuase blonde colour suits them and is more believable.

However, when I reached Madrid, and to the southern provinces I was pretty surprised that there were people whose family had been spanish as far as they could remember, and they couldn't be told from a Morocchian or Argelian person, if they were left in those countries.

Along with this, I saw shires with people as light-skinned as the northern areas.

The reason for this racial distribution is the moorish influence. Eddie, the invasion of Northen African arab hordes pushing noth most of the roman-germanic population, and absorbing the roman-iberian population that stayed (because they prefer to have new masters to losing their lands) was mainly in the southern part of the country.

It is true that it was an arab army the one who defeated Charles the Great in Roncesvalles, sung in the Chanson de Roland. What is not usually recorded in the History books is that the leader of the moorish army was the Emir (general in chief) of Zaragoza, supported with allied southern troops, and that they were allied, through their menacing power, with the basque. The basque were forced between the two big kingdoms, the Frank (french), who had invaded Catalonia taking advance of the germanic kings of Spain and nobility weakness (war going on with arabs), and as a buffer against the moors, who threatened to invade France.

While they were retreating, they burnt to ashes Pamplona, the Capital of the basque tribes by then. That's why the basque climbing tribes prepared an ambush at Roncesvalles pass, blocking it, and thus dividing the french army in two, making the french an easy prey for the following moorish army. This was the end of hero and General Roldán, who gloriously died in that battle.

I am referring to you this episode to remark that:

First: The arabs were not settle down in the North. They neither had an arab population nor big armies in the North. The only northern region they hold for more than some years was the Aragón area. And the leader of this region was just an Emir, a general of the southern kingdoms, who frequently needed the support of those to survive. No arab population. Besides they soon lost the land which was disputed by Catalonian counts and basque-navarre kings until an Aragonese kingdom was formed.

Second: There are areas, like Catalonia, the Basque Country, and all the area North of the Cantabrican mountain chain, where no arab was seen , unlees it was an embassador or a merchant, no matter that some paid tribute not to be invaded, in periods of weakness.

Because of this, and because of a similar situation in Italy, along with the turkish invasion of Greece and a brief control of Romania and most or all of Hungary, there are some areas in the european regions that have a darker skin, fruit of the mixture of white race with brown northern african arab race.

Since inmigrants to the USA from Italy came form the southern underdeveloped formerly arab areas, and had darker skin, it's not strange that in the USA they classified Italians as a mixed race. However, most of Italy, and Spain too, do not have that mixture of races. In fact, if you go to Milano oranywhere in the north, you couldn't tell them from french or other central european people. In fact, there is a region in the north of Italy when they still preserve their germanic dialect.

I find the racial issue unimportant. What I find important is the fact that some 'gentlemen' use it to try to diminish us because of political reasons or just out of personal chauvinism (a reflect of their low self-valoration). No matter that I don't care a damm that I am white or black, I dislike somebody trying to show I am less than him because supposedly I am darker (or wither, or bluer) than he supposedly is.

It's like with saxons despicing anglos because they were slightly different ethnically, or celts, or normands despicing anglo-saxons afterwards, no matter they are all part of the white caucasian race. Pure chauvinism.

Mr. Watters is showing a worrying lack of knowlwege for a professional historian, and he is obviously referring to that French chauvinistic phrase Dumas said and Unamuno commented:

"Para afrentarnos y rebajarnos se inventó aquella frase de que el Africa empieza en los Pirineos, y aqui nos hemos pasado los años procurando borrarla y citándola como un bochorno. "

I'll translate it " To affront (insult) us and humiliate us was invented that phrase that Africa begins in the Pyrenees, and here we have passed years trying to delete it and quoting it in embarrasment". Pretty clear, by one of our most known thinkers.

To summarize, it's a discriminatory chauvinistic phrase whose only intention is humiliate the spaniards, because neither ethnically (for most of the spanish) nor culturally nor historically it's true. Spain was not only a crossroad for all the European cultures mainly through the sucessive setlements of european races, but also through the heavy traffic the Camino de Santiago generated, and the reinforcements in form of settlers that kept on coming and coming from the poorer farmers in Europe who were given exemption from taxes and disputed border lands they had to pay many times with their lifes. As I said before, because of this, Spain was probably the richer meltpot of the european culture, much more than France, Germany or any other, where traffic from one state to other was only made by merchants or armies. And obviously, Unamuno was hoping that we could prove we weren't inferior in any way (which we weren't), but he was only making a wish that Spain would be more advanced than the rest of Europe. Because of this, and the meaning of blood-thirst the british took good care to spread (although they, and the rest were exactly the same), along with the spanish Flandes "Tercios" armies, who were unmercyful, but were the best quality armies in Europe, and happened to be composed of two thirds of recruits from other european countries,mainly German and Italian from the Empire (or kingdom)lands, so spaniards were blood-thirsty?

Antonio Banderas is darker than most spanish, and Julio Iglesias isn't. To have the "Latino" look they need to suit in their careers, they have a lot of Ultra violet sessions. In fact, Julio Iglesias is a real fan of UVA sessions.

A photo when he was a kid

I wouldn\'t say he looks very dark

Not that it matters much, because Banderas, as a tipycal southener has, truly, a mixed race. Just pointing this fact out.

It all boils down to snobbery, bigotry, and classism!

Very true!

Chica:

Europe was geo-politically defined early by the Greeks. They expanded throught the Mediterranean and explored atlantic areas (hence the name). The Gibraltar rock, and it's opposing Morocchian rock were referred in Odissey as Scyla and Caribdis, two islands of disaster for sailor, ... The very name of Europa comes from Greek mithology.

As for Italy, it depends when you refer in time. previously to the foundation of Rome, there were a lot of european peoples in Italy, samnites, etrurians, and others, each having a small kingdom, following the rule that one king could only rule in a land as big as to let you (king) reach any part of it with your sword and a horse in a day's ride, that was few times superated except for some empires.

The romans, if we believe their myths and/or History, come from Eneas and his people, a group of exiles from Troy, which was a former Greek colony in Turkey. They merged with the local population in a disputed area, forming a force that stood and later invaded the invader themselves, thus occupying all of Italy.

At the early stages of Rome (as en Empire, not a city only), there were different status of citizenship, being one 'Roman citizen' (regardless of where you were born if you were noble), and 'latin citizen' (second in rights), who happened to be what today is Italy, which developed a sense of nation that was lost later in the medieval split. The Italy citizens were greatly more loyal and supportive towards the Imperial Government. So, Italy existed.

Greece was a bunch of city-states but they were linked by a pan-hellenic comunion. They were ruled by the germanic races dorians, and jonians, who were confederated in one or several leagues all the time, in spite of the rugged land they had under their feet, and the fact that part of it was islands. Hence the Olympic games, hence the coalition for the Trojan wars, hence the coalition against the Turkish, and so on.

MM:

Yes, the Greek themselves invented the word, but anyway you want toput it, I don't think they felt Mediterranean, as this would mean be the same culture than the nomad tribes of morocco, Argelia, and others, except for Egypt which had had a flourishing civilization worth admiring. Wether you call this area Europa or "North Mediterrean and the Northern savages' land", it's all the same. It's the same land, and it's not the mediterranean.

MM and Fmiketheman:

Spain has always been a member of Europe, just as Poland.

Many people mistake words, what make us speak incorrectly (I myself do sometimes, and later I need to correct) that can lead to wrong conclusions because we use wrong concepts:

Greece is the oldest member of the EU or former EEC, which is a political joint, but it's as old as Britain or Demnark as a cultural or geographical land.

Español20: I clap on most of your exposition on History of Spain, although I believe there is no need to emphasize so much wether we are wither than some white americans or not.

Eddie: Obviously, as you see, I don't agree with your premises about isolation, but I agree on the conclusions.

Ignacio:
Thank you for your comprehensive history lesson. I have visited Liebana and El Monasterio de Santo Toribio where the largest known fragment of the Cross on which Christ was crucified was sequestered and is still guarded. It would be taken higher into the mountains when the Moorish Armys approached. And they did come close!

You write: This leaves me a bit confused: Who did Don Pelayo's army (with the assistance of a landslide) defeat at Covadonga (Asturias)? If it wasn't the Moors, who could it have been?
P.S.
My friends in Cantabria all insist that D. Pelayo was a Cantabrian, although Asturias claims him as one of its native sons.

Yes, it was Don Pelayos's army the one that defeated the moors at the Asturias mountains. This is the mountain chain I am referring to as Cordillera Cantábrica. It runs from the basque country along the sea, leavings a 60 miles or 100 kilometres wide area between it and the sea, and it acted as a fort where the remains of the germanic-roman nobility organized resistence and succesfully stopped the moors.

As you well know, Cantabria and Asturias are boundary territories, and Covadonga is more or less in the joint of both, close to the Picos de Europa. So, although in the History books they say he was Asturian, it could perfectly well he was Cantabrian, although, of course, he could have been from any part of Spain. As son of Duke Favila that took control of the remaining christian troops when, due to intestine traition, the moor army and half of the christian army fell upon the christian king Don Rodrigo, because of disputes on throne rights.

A brief on this

La lucha de los pueblos Astures y Vascones contra los musulmanes, será la misma que ya habían sostenido anteriormente contra los Romanos y los Godos

As you can see here, we indomitable northern rebels :p kept fighting the arabs the same we had done with roman and germanic invaders.As in the Goscinny and Uderzo's comic Asterix with the small irreductible gaul village, we have always been very proud of our independence, although we didn't have magic potion, hahaha.

It was all that 100 km fortress that allowed us to survive, detouring moorish attack to more productive lands in France, which made Charles the Great send his army.

Since the move North was, in terms of History, a rush, and a sensible percentage of all the spanish population had refuged in the North, it was easy, by sheer demographic pressure, once the arabs impulse was stopped, to recover Galicia, León, Palencia and Burgos. Some of these lands were recovered by Pelayo (Galicia?) himself and kept for most of the time remaining to our days but for short periods. Most of the rest of the mentioned were recovered by his son, Alfonso I, who raided Central Spain since he hadn't an army strong enough to defend it, becoming a no man's land for decades or even centuries.

This is a GREAT thread! I'm remembering historical facts I'd long forgotten plus gaining new insight and knowledge. Mucho gracias one and all!
No time to comment further as I need to look like I'm working but can't wait to check in later and read more.

Ignacio, I'ld recomend you and everybody to read about Américo Castro and his version of history and Spain, is much more interesting.
When the arabs came to Spain they conquered the country really quickly, the people in the cities opened them the gates of the cities and supported them, there wasn't a big arab inmigration so the people in the south should be already dark (probably the iberians came from Africa too).
There are a lot of myths about the Reconquista and about the arabs in Spain and the fights between arabs and cristians because there is where the idea of a Great, Free and Unique Spain as an heritage of the visigotic kingdom beguins.

Say ... what?

Of course, I am not reading a new History book just for this matter, besides all the multiple matters that I have to face these days, but ...

... I never heard anything like that before!

I know the gothic nobility was not precisely a nice master, but after several centuries, they had civilized a lot, except for the fight for the throne, where they kept on being absolutely unreliable to each other.

But there is a difference between isolated low populated willages or even small province capitals not fighting a huge arab army (with iberian renforcements) and welcoming it.

Obviously, the 5.000 peasants, old, children, women and men living usually in not fotified willages or towns could do nothing but escape or surrender to a 12.000 - 17.000 wild nomads army rich in cavalry.

However, some resisted, like Cordoba, Mérida, Cartagena and others, which were besieged for months (that's not exactly receive invaders with open arms). Others (mainly in the power of the traitor noblemen) negotiated surrender in exchange of tribute. I wouldn't consider open arms this either.

The previous paragraph data are obtained from article by Joaquín Vallvé. Catedrático de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Chronoloy of the conquest (in English). ...d the half[/b] , so spain was NOT under muslim arab control for 700 years. Part of it was never, other areas only for a couple of decades, the rest of the northern part a maximum of 300 years (mainly the no man's land south of Burgos and North of Madrid).

Here you have also a drawing of the musl... free. English. About the middle of the page, under 'Spain'.

Here you\'ll see among other matters, h...moors (English) :p , plus the anihilation of the troops of Charles the Great mainly due to them according to the author.

All the net is full of this kind of testimonies.

BTW; the fact that Iberians may or may not have came from Africa does not mean that they were darker, or the Swedish would be black, if we realize where the human stood up for the first time.

The history is much more complex but you can see in that resume
711-713 Conquest of Iberia, in only 2 or 3 years only 50.000 soldiers conquered almost the whole country. This is difficult to explain without the aid of the people living in the country and they find the following aspects:
1.Religious renovation
2.descomposition of the society
3.help of jews minority
you can read a little bit more here (in Spanish)
http://www.satrapa1.archez.com/articulos/media/alandalus/alandalus.htm
It's difficult for me to find information on how many people lived in Spain in that time and how many arabs came.
It's easy to find the reasons why Américo Castro has not been studied in Spain until recent times as he was exiliated in USA during Franco times.

Miguelito:

An army of 50.000 soldiers was by no means a small army at that time. In fact, it was a huge army . A roman legion, some years ago, had about 5/6.000 men, and many times there was one or two legions to hold or conquer a country.

In the middle age, with the scarce farm production, a high percentage of the population had to be working in the fields to feed the rest. This left a minimum amount of population that included artisans, merchants, soldiers, ...

Many times a count did not have more than 100 men-at-arms to control the territory. Armies were composed of the sum of those noblemen soldiers, plus some recruited (usually by pressure or force) peasants.

That's why 50.000 is huge.

However, the arabs themselves were much less. Once the usurper (goth king) was treasoned, the noblemen who fell upon his troops had no chance but to join the arabs. That's why some (or many) counties surrendered or joined the arabs; with the kings party, the traitors could only hope death.

The fact that some counts readily became muslim, ..., doesn't it sound a bit strange to you? I don't think there was a miracle or something. They did it to preserve their priviledges.

Of course, there has been said that there was a religious dispute within spanish christians by then (¿arrian heressy?), but the REAL reason for the 'traitors' was that the king of the country had usurped the throne, and they (in their hatred) preferred the country to be given to the arabs than to the usurper, specially if they were confirmed as noblemen in the new society (just as the romans did when the goths invaded the country). In fact, when you read the "goth kings list" our fathers had to learn at school: “Ataúlfo, Sigerico, Walia, Teodorico, Turismundo, Eurico, Alarico, Gesaleico, Amalarico, Teudis, Teudiselo, Agila, Atanagildo, Liuva, Leovigildo, Recaredo, Witerico, Gundemaro, Sisebuto, Suintila, Sisenando,Chintila, Tulga, Cindasvinto, Recesvinto, Wamba, Ëgica, Witiza y Don Rodrigo”... "

Don Rodrigo. He was given a different treatment because History doesn't consider him a real king. So believed the rebels.

But the arabs were not so few, and they were not so weak as you say. They went up to France, and conquered Bordeaux and had to be stopped in Poitiers, in a battle that a reinforced frank army was about ro lose.

This is a resume of that battle:

Ambos ejércitos se establecieron en las cercanías de Poitiers en el mes de octubre y estuvieron vigilándose hasta que Abd al-Rahman tomó la iniciativa y envió a sus tropas a la lucha. Los francos resistieron la ofensiva durante todo el día. Hacia las cuatro de la tarde el emir envió un nuevo contingente de tropas y los francos continuaron su resistencia. Sin embargo, la llegada de las tropas de Eude de Aquitania por la retaguardia motivó la dispersión de los musulmanes ante el posible saqueo de su campamento. La retirada musulmana provocaría el avance franco, llegando hasta el campamento islámico, en cuyas cercanías pasaron la noche. A la mañana siguiente Carlos dirigió sus tropas hacia el campamento, apreciando que se había producido una estampida del enemigo por la noche. El franco había conseguido la victoria y el sobrenombre de Martel, "martillo de herejes". A pesar de la importante victoria, la presencia musulmana en el sur de Francia se mantendrá hasta que Pipino el Breve consiga su expulsión definitiva y Carlomagno establezca la frontera en la zona del río Ebro.

They won the battle, where the arabs were attaking them , only because they received reinforcements of the Duke of Aquitania that were about to reach the arab camp, where thay kept the spoils of war (they were taking every valueble thing as they moved North) . The arabs were kicked and some died in the retreat, including their general Emir Abd-el-Rahman. However, this was not a decisive victory, and it took the franks decades to push them out of France and extend the French south border up the Ebro river (Mainly Catalonia).

I don't think that the French had also religious disputes or arab-favourable jew minorities (because of the christian intolerance, in Spain), and so on, but they were about to lose. In fact, the arabs mainly retreated, but were not destroyed by any means.

In fact, they did NOT have an pre-civil war situation like we had in Spain, AND however, they had big problems to stop them, and didn't get rid of them out of their country until Charles the Great (neither Charles Martel nor Pipino the Brief could move them form the south of France.

I have found some numbers.
711: 10.000 berebers with Tarik
712: 18.000 arabs with Muza
7000 syrians with Balch (I don't know the year but in 756 the arabs have to go )
And a continous dropping of arabs and berebers up to 60.000 in the first years...
The population should be around 4 or 5 millions of people in the conquisted area. 90.000 of them jews. Then there have been other big migrations of berebers, almorávides and almohades in s.X, s.XI & s.XII, I haven't found the numbers, but it looks that they are a minority although the native population adopt their culture.
Although the army was important, I think it's a very big space to conquist in only three years without help from inside. It's hard to write all the possible causes, specially in English cause I cannot make copy/paste from things I find and I have to develop all myself. I think there are many stories that we were told in the school that confuse the real history, in fact we study the 700 years period of islamic almost as a whole, and there are many changes in all those years, for example with the religious tolerance, when the arabs arrive they bring a culture with a big tolerance (I've heard that people even drunk wine) but with the later migration of almorávides the religious tolerance is reduced and many mozárabes migrate to the Cristians kingdoms.

Anyway, I don't remember why are we talking about this.

Kudos to all of you! What a great thread...Ignacio, Miguelito, Español along with Eddie, thanks for helping to further my education!

(humbly) Thanks!

Very educational for people like me.

I agree with Chica. You guys are awesome!

Thanks to everyone for making everything clearer. Thanks to Madridman as well for this forum. I have to say that while I was in spain for 11 months, this website was an invaluable source of information, no matter what city I stayed in. As a matter of fact I found a place to live in madrid this past summer due to a website that a member posted here. Hala Madridman!

Well, let me tell you that I wouldn't mind being any other race that the race hat I am. Every races seem the same to me, of course no race is better than another.

Miguelito said: Iberians were a pretty small monority in Spain since the roman settlement took place. Today, the "latin race" (italians, spaniards, many french or even many romanians)is the same "latin race" composed by ancient roman citizens. Roman were dark haired. In fact, when roman legions invaded Germania (germany) and took german slaves to Rome, roman people were surprised by the "sunny colour" of germanic blonde hair. many roman women began to dye their hair blonde, just like the german slave women. The skin of nordic tribes was, also, more pale than the roman skin, but just because they lived in sunless lands. I live in the coast, and I've seen many nordic people that loves to have sunbath and they get their skin tanned.

It's true that common people didn't reject the arabs (but Church and aristocracy did). The middle age Al-Andalus arabs were, at that time, the most cultured, advanced and peaceful people in Europe. German tribes that invaded northern Spain and stayed there were also accepted.

When the arab Grenade kingdom was conquered and the "Reconquista" finished, a new concept was born: the "blood purity". All people suspicious of having a little drop of arab blood were forced to leave. Only a few of them could stay in Spain, but they were forced to abjure the islam religion and become christian. In the same way, most of jewish people were thrown out, too, and those who were lucky and stayed, were also forced to become christians.

------

Other questions:

"European Union" doesn't mean "Europe". it is jus a political and economic agreement, but a country that stays out of EU can't be considered as less european.

The origin of european (and western) civilization is the greek-roman culture. All western institutions were created by greek and roman. Spain, as an early part of Roman Empire, was in that origin. In fact, every people who became "romanized", was in that origin. And the whole Europe was romanized earlier or later.

-------

The "ostracism" of Spain from the rest of Europe was an intermittent process. It began with the fall of Spanish Empire, but the culminating moment was the 1936 Civil War and the subsequent Franco's dictatorship. Those events are not a true reason to consider Spain "less-european". For centuries, Spain was the political center of Europe and the dominant great power, and, for example, the courtly protocols and manners used by every european royal and aristocratic circles, were born in the Spanish royal court.

The true wall between Spain and the rest of Europe are not the Pyrinees (it wasn't for over 2000 years), in fact, the true wall was the impoverishment of the country, the royal misuse of imperial richness, the intransigence of church, etc.
And unfortunately, the 1936 war and the Franco's regime.

Historically, Spain cannot be considered "less european" because Hispania, Spain and the Spanish Empire are in the basis of Europe.

Of course, and in a pejorative way, some people (even some spaniards), used to say "less european" meaning "they're poor" or "they're weird".

------

I laughed at the Antonio Banderas and Julio iglesias question, I was surprised by that funny debate.

In fact, banderas is naturally pale-skinned (watch some of his old spanish movies, when he was younger and almost anonymous), like Iglesias is.
hey keep their skin tanned because they're artists and they are trying to respond to the "latin" stereotype. I am not sure, but I think that american audiences expect a "latin" or "spanish" performer to be tanned, and they would dissapointed if a supposed latin artist is a non-exotic and even non-hot paleface lol

Of course, in almost the whole Spain is easy to keep your face or arms skin tanned even without going to the beach for a sunbath. During spring, summer or even autumn, my face and arms are pretty darker than the rest of my body, because I wear t-shirts and I don't use to have almost naked sunbaths.

But, you know, I'm white but I see those black girls and i find them simply beautiful. There is only one true race: the human race.

AMEN Spaniard!

Ignacio wrote: How true! I'd say the majority of Americans (remember, most Americans are considered "stupid" - according to that silly quiz we've all been taking here) believe that Spaniards are naturally dark or olive-skin-colored. I hear this a lot from friends.

Saludos, MadridMan

"brown northern african arab race"-ignacio

HAHHAHAHA you don't make it sound very appealing!

First of all sorry for my english I know is horrible .

I wanna say somethings about all your posts:

1.- ¿ What means the discussion of if spaniard people is more or less white than other europeans to say spain is more or less european?
That discussion have no sense today cause inmigration in all first world have made that people mix theyselves with people from other countries.
Is Cher american??? ......I say yes .....Is Cher White? ( her father is from Siria)....well I don.t know but people in USA say Cher is White , but most important : is Cher less american than Robert Redford ( extremly blonde) .... I think no.
In 2002 hundreds of persons from each country of Europe ( bornt in their country and with parents and grandfathers from their country) were analyzed genetically for know witch was exactly the mix adn and race of all europeans countries .

The study say more or less that spaniards , portuguese and italians ( except north) were a mix like that: 65% north african - 35% north european , Greece 60 NA , 30 NE -10 Asiatic .
France 20 NA-80NE , Germany 95-5 .
Well.....then........ Witch is more European???.... Is more European Germany who is 95-5 than Italy who is 35-65???.
Rome invented the Republic , developed the ingeniery , the civil rights and laws .
Greece developed the pholosohpy , science , democracy , history and clasic architecture .

If u wanna know why doctors in sociology say that occidental world is a Greco-Latin-Cristian world ask yourself what in your life is G.L.C and what is from the other tribes or countries that ruled the world ( germanics , Celtics , Muslims , Chinese Zulus , Aztecs , Persas , Indians ,etc , etc....)
Let.s gonna see exemples:
Tongues more importants of world:
French , Spanish , French , Italian , English ( yes english , you must think that english is not a latin tongue but is so influented but latin in the first century and by french that a english spoken person could not literally spaek if he forgot the latin words of his language:
Ex- Have , is , right , mountain , paper , fire , new , person , ( all those are basic worlds , and are almost thousands and thousands in english)

The Rights and Laws:
ALL LAW SISTEMS in ALMOST ALL WORLD are based in Roman classic Right.

Engeniery and Architecture:

The overwhelming majority of most important buildings in world are constructed bassed on mathematics and know -how of Greeks and Latins , others are simply copied ( classic and Neoclassic architecture , ex.- Whasington D.C.)

Philosophy and Religion:

The idea of soul is a mix of cristian religion and Plato world of ideas philosophy , you must thing that each church , and each tradition and each saturday of your life are marked with this ( even if you don.t believe in God).

We could continue , and continue and never end....
Then.....Is Jhon Tururro ( USA actor ) and dark haired and skinned son of italian inmigrants less american or more european?? , Is Pau Gasol ( spaniard ,nba star and blonde) less spaniard and more european????...
And I ask more :
Is Letizia Ortiz ( future queen of sapin and blue eyed and blonde ) more spaniard than Antonio Banderas ( dark hair and skin) .....I THINK NO.

Is Spain less european? YES IT IS.
In Europe people work from 9 to 5.
We work from 9 to 9.
In Europe people have a light lunch (at 12) and a big dinner (at 7PM).
We lunch late at night and dine at 3PM, not at midday.
In Europe it rains in summertime, Spain is dry and hot as hell in summertime.
We have crazy all night parties, while in Europe the party ends at 11PM.
We expend absurd ammounts of money in buying a house, while in Europe hiring is the main housing method.
Our diet has some unique components that make it...delicious!
May I continue?

You North Spaniards are not as pure as you think a place Pas Valleys in Asturias Northern Spain Has a higher genetic corelation with North Africa then the rest of Spain also simple because some one is dark does not mean they are mixed race their are people that 1/4 black and have blue eyes and light skin
your external phenotype has nothing to do with your internal geneotype.

If it were that way, I wouldn't be ashamed. Even the blondest norwegian has probably some other race blood drop.

However, I find your comment a great joke. Go work as a comedian.

I hate to revive a long dead thread, but I guess the question I would ask is, why does it matter if Spain is more or less european?

Is it "better" to be considered european? I think one thing that is hard to dispute is that Spain's history has been very different from the rest of Europe. Different is not bad. Different is just different.

You know, California and Texas have very different histories than Maine and Minnesota. Georgia and Virginia have different histories from New York and Pennsylvania. The cultures even today are different--the people aren't homogeneous, they don't think about things exactly the same way, but we consider them all to be americans. Not to say that every Southerner loves Yankees, or that people from other parts of the country don't think of California as the "land of fruits and nuts." The difference here in the US is that we don't consider them less "American" for the difference. Perhaps if Europe ever becomes truly unified, people will come to understand that differences can exist and even help to make the union stronger. It's kind of neat to live in a country where the land and the people can all be so different, and yet, still have that one common thread.

Though, I wonder if it could happen in Europe, where people all speak different languages? Would hate to lose the significant cultural contributions of all the different places that make up what we think of as Europe today. Would hate to see French people forced to speak German!

Anyway, prejudice against people from other places is just part of human nature. We have these same prejudices against the different parts of the US (ask most americans not from the South what they think of white southerners, and at some point the word "uneducated" or some variation on that theme is bound to enter the conversation, even though it isn't any more true there than in any other part of the country--lots of uneducated people to be found in California or Massachussetts, I assure you!) I think it is just part of human nature to want to feel superior to others. The key for Spain is just not to believe the things people say, and keep working for progress. California was once a poor state (long time ago...) but the people were hard working, and they were able to draw many people with an energy to achieve things, and now it is the 8th largest economy in the world. Most of that progress happened in the last 60 years. So, where a state or country might be now doesn't mean they will be in the same place in several years. Go Spain!

The question is that Europe is less spanish!!

Spain conquered Napoli Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, even north Africa, América and Filipines, but only in the new world they speak spanish, so 400 million people do it now, so we can say the world is more spanish than french or german, but is a stupid joke, Spain is different of course, but I think Germany is different too, and France and Russia and Italy, all are different to others, and for sure we are more inclined to the spanish world, is easy to understand there are more cultural links with Argentina or Colombia than Germany or Poland, but geografically and politicaly we are europeans, we love democracy, freedom and peace who are the EU feelings, I don't care about ethnics, but for sure spanish mother tongue speakers are a huge amount of people who share the language as comunication vehicle, so we can understand Argentineans better than frenchs even when those are our neighbours and the other live in the other corner of the world, so the meaning isn't we are less Europeans, the meaning is that Argentineans are more Europeans, because they descent from Europeans as many Americans from North to South.

In other way we haven't amny links with Africa and their cultures, religion, and languages are mostly unknown for us (unfortunatelly, I think)

In the XVIII and XIX century we want to learn from the French, but Napoleon decided went to Spain to conquer us, the result for us was horrible we restored the Bourbon pest in the figure of Fernando VII the worst King we had ever, but French troops were cruel with population, killing civilians, women, kids, as a result they were defeat as the possibilities of Spain's development, so we were relegated from the european forums, later the romantic voyagers as Washington Irving painted one image far away from the reality, where only there was toreros, bandoleros and racial girls... typical topics from Spain who survived for centuries, IMO those topics didn't disturb us in the past because Spain was involved in American wars and they didn't care about European affairs until the end of the war against USA in 1898 in Cuba, Puerto Rico and Filipines, so when Spain lost the rest of their colonies, those terrible losts finished the Spanish empire and prompted Spanish people to search their new way, and in the XX century we suffered the consequences, some fragile kings, some dictators, two republicas since 1898 to 1978 when we decided give us a new opportunity to progress with the Constitución, 80 years later but finally we could decide our future freely...

What is Europe?. Spain less european because of their past in the Middle Age. In that moment of the history the Estates didnt exist. Only the Empires, and the Spain was a Empire mixed of different cultures (part of Italy, Netherland and France...) So, what is Europe?