Category Archives: Spaniards

“From Andalusia to Far West Texas,” by Alpha Unit

The wild ancestor of modern cattle is the aurochs. This nearly seven-foot-tall beast ranged throughout North Africa and Eurasia. Domestication occurred independently in Africa, the Near East, and the Indian subcontinent between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. Humans have been raising cattle for their milk, meat, tallow, and hides ever since.

But the practice of raising large herds of livestock on extensive grazing lands didn’t begin until around 1000 CE, in Spain and Portugal. Cattle ranching, in particular, was unique to medieval Spain.

During the Spanish Reconquista, members of the Spanish nobility and various military orders received grants to large tracts of land that the Kingdom of Castile had conquered from the Moors. Pastoralists found that open-range breeding of sheep and cattle was most suitable for these vast areas of Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, and Andalusia.

It was in Andalusia that cattle ranching took hold, with cattlemen owning herds as large as 1,000 head or more. Those cattlemen oversaw the first cattle drives. Cattle could be driven overland as much as 400 miles from summer pastures in the North to winter ones in Andalusia. The vaqueros who herded the cattle were freemen hired for the year and paid in coin or in calves.

Andalusian ranchers introduced the use of horses in managing cattle – a necessity in the long overland drives to new pastures. They also established the customs of branding and ear-marking cattle to denote ownership. By the time Columbus left Spain on his first voyage, the cattle industry of Andalusia had undergone a few centuries of trial-and-error improvement. On his second voyage Columbus unloaded some stallions, mares, and cattle on the island of Hispaniola, introducing cattle to the New World.

Conquistadors who arrived in the New World in search of gold continued what Columbus began, turning Andalusian cattle loose throughout the Spanish West Indies and other parts of Spain’s colonial empire.

In 1521 Gregorio de Villalobos defied a law prohibiting cattle trading in Mexico and left Santo Domingo for Veracruz with several cows and a bull, importing the first herd of Spanish cattle to Mexico. Hernán Cortés brought horses and cattle to Mexico as well, and by 1540 Spanish cattle are permanently in North America.

Cortés had set about using enslaved Aztecs to herd cattle. Slave labor to herd cattle was overseen mostly by Spanish missions, which came to dominate ranching. Under Spanish law no Indian slave was permitted to ride horses, but this obviously impractical law was ignored. Aztec Indians became the first vaqueros of New Spain (Mexico), where conditions for raising cattle were even better than those in the West Indies.

By the 1600s there weren’t as many Native slaves, as thousands had died over time from exposure to smallpox, measles, and yellow fever, in outbreaks that began among the Spaniards and to which Natives had no immunity. As a result, the vaquero labor force came to include mission Indian converts, African slaves, and mestizos.

New Spain’s borders spread northward into what is now the US Southwest. The sparsely populated northern frontier regions of northern Mexico, Texas, and California didn’t have enough water for farming but the climate and acres of wild grass and other vegetation made them ideal for cattle ranching. Cattle and horses were now a feature of American life and were beginning to shape American identity.

Beginning in the 1820s, Anglo settlers moved to the Texas region of Mexico in search of inexpensive land. Texas was severely underpopulated, so Mexico had enacted the General Colonization Law of 1824, permitting immigration to all heads of households regardless of race, religion, or immigrant status. Anglo Texans were largely farmers and didn’t warm initially to the Spanish-Mexican concept of large-scale ranching. But ranching became popular among Anglos after immigration agents began promoting it. Texas cattle were so plentiful and cheap that most people could begin raising livestock without a large investment.

Anglo Texan cowhands and their counterparts throughout the US were the latest incarnation of the vaquero that got his start in southern Spain. The vaquero rides on, whether he’s Native, mestizo, Black, Hispano, or Anglo.

12 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Alpha Unit, Americas, Amerindians, Animals, Blacks, Caribbean, Colonialism, Cows, Domestic, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Guest Posts, Hispanics, History, Horses, Immigration, India, Labor, Latin America, Livestock Production, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Near East, North Africa, North America, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, Spain, Spaniards, Texas, The Americas, USA, West, Whites

Africans Are Not “Stone Age” People

Now I am not defending the United States. It’s actually inferior to Canada, New Zealand or Australian white settler colonies in many ways.

But this is mostly because a great deal of stone-age people were imported as slaves or Spanish soldiers raped Red Women in the Southwest 5 times a day back in the 1700’s to create a vast Mixed underclass.

Please do not call African Blacks “Stone Age people.” That is how the White Nationalists talk. Africans had had agriculture for 12,000 years when they were imported to the US. Stone Age people don’t have agriculture. I get so tired of listening to White Nationalists call Africans Stone Age people.

Agriculture itself rose in Africa. Africans were probably the first humans to practice agriculture.

There was little if any breeding between Spaniards and Indians in the US Southwest. That was all happening south of the border.

175 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, History, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Spaniards, The Americas, USA, West, White Nationalism

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.

That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.

There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.

We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.

I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.

There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.

As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.

As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.

It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.

I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.

I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.

Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.

In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.

In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”

In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.

Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.

There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.

Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.

I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.

Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.

I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.

Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!

Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.

All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.

334 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

Caucasian Pride Worldwide

Another William Playfair Web writes: Robert –

You believe in Caucasian pride more than what is culturally regarded as “White” pride, do you not?

Actually I do! I do not understand White nationalists who go on and on about who is really White. Jews aren’t White? Spaniards, Greeks, Portuguese and Italians aren’t White? Albanians and Turks aren’t White? White Berbers aren’t White? White Egyptians aren’t White? Arabs aren’t White? Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and the Caucasus people aren’t White? Kurds aren’t White? Iranians aren’t White? Afghans aren’t White? Pakistanis aren’t White? North Indians aren’t White? You sure could have fooled me because they sure look White to me all right!

When I think of White, I think of my basic Caucasoid stock. When I go to the stores around here and see Punjabi Indians, Punjabi Pakistanis and Yemeni Arabs, my first thought is, “This is a member of my family!” That’s because they look like I do. And I believe they may think and behave like I do too, if you want to break the races down into Asians, Caucasians and Blacks.

I do not understand why White nationalists hate those people and say they are not related to them. Those off-Whites look like me! How can I hate someone who looks like me? I can’t. If you look like me, the way I see it is you are a member of my family, and I really feel a sense of joy when I meet members of my racial family out and about…because…it’s like meeting family!

Now granted some Arabs and Berbers are too Black to be considered White. Prince Bandar is simply not a White man. I do not know what he is. Possibly he is a mulatto. A lot of Egyptians seem to be broadly White. We had some Egyptians running a gas station near where I used to live, and I came to know them very well. The guy who ran it was simply a White man, straight up. His sons were just White guys, though their skin was rather dark.

Granted, there are some Afghans who may be too Asian to be White, but most Afghans just look like Whites to me. Surely there are some Pakistanis who are just too…something else…to be considered White, but once again, most Pakistanis just look like regular Whites to me. And the people of North India are surely White. A few North Indians are too Australoid to be White.

As far as the rest of India, you have to look at the person to see if you would classify them as “basically White” or “too Australoid to be White. I don’t give a hoot about skin color. Why should I? If some guy looks exactly like I do in terms of phenotype except that his skin is much browner than mine, why should I hate him? And why should I say he is not a part of my family? If you have a face that looks like mine, you are part of my family, no matter what color your skin is.

62 Comments

Filed under Afghans, Albanians, Anthropology, Arabs, Armenians, Azeris, Berbers, Central Asians, East Indians, Egyptians, Europeans, Greeks, Iranians, Italians, Jews, Kurds, Near Easterners, North Africans, Pakistanis, Physical, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-White, South Asians, Spaniards, Turks, White Nationalism, Whites, Yemenis

Mexico, A White Country

I received this comment tonite. Interesting. Let me know what you think of it.

Hi.

I live in North Mexico, and we are mostly white like the Spanish or Italians.

It was because in this part of Mexico Tarahumaras did not breed with Spanish conquistadors for religion, and Indians were fewer than in central or southern Mexico. We Norteños do not like when people try to teach us Aztec or Mayan customs. Our music is similar than German polkas. Our traditions are different than Southern Mexicans.

For example, we prefer basketball and baseball over soccer, and that is because we are taller than the rest of the Mexicans. You can Google Aracely Arambula or Eduardo Najera – those guys are from Chihuahua state, the most Caucasian state in Mexico along with Sonora. We are very racist against the nonwhites – it’s sad but true. We discriminate against them, calling them wachos, nacos, Indians, Indios, Aztecs, Veracruchangos, etc. We the north part of Mexico are richer and developed than they are and they are emigrating here, looking for a jobs. I am 100% sure it is our European side that is creating this wealth.

I live in Chihuahua state, near Sonora.

Chihuahua holds one of the largest proportions of Whites in Mexico, as is the case in much of northern Mexico. Caucasians make up 60% of the population most of them of Spanish origin, but also of French, Basque, Italian, Irish, German, Dutch and Middle Eastern descent, while the rest of the population are Mestizo groups of predominantly both Spanish and Indigenous descent. Amerindians form 5% of the state inhabitants and remain isolated in the forests of southwestern Chihuahua.

The admixture with the natives was never sizable in Nueva Vizcaya due to the scarcity of natives (most of them warriors and anti-European Conchos and Tarahumaras) and the size of the territory.

It is not only Chicanos who are white. Even we Mexicans who live in Mexico are mostly White too.

A study conducted by Mexico’s National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN) reported that Mestizo Mexicans are 58.96% European, 35.05% Amerindian mostly, and 5.03% African.

Sonora shows the highest European contribution (70.63%) and Guerrero the lowest (51.98%). Guerrero also has the highest Amerindian contribution (37.17%). The African contribution ranges from 2.8% in Sonora to 11.13% in Veracruz.

80% of the Mexican population was classed as mestizo, defined as “being racially mixed in some degree”. The study was done with volunteers from 6 states and an indigenous group known as Zapotecs. Subjects came from the states of Sonora, Zacatecas, Veracruz, Guanajuato, Oaxaca and Yucatán (Mexico is composed of 31 states and one federal district).

Mexico is a White and Western country. We like bullfights, we eat with forks and spoons, we eat pork and beef. We like charreadas (a Spanish sport), Basque pelota (another Spanish sport), mariachi (similar to any European band), Spanish guitars, horses, and European architecture, etc.

We love Europe!

We have glorietas like in Spain. We admire the White race because our TV actresses and presidents are mostly European like Vicente Fox.

And even our founding father of Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo, a criollo or full white Mexican like me.

We Mexicans are quite happy being more European than Aztec or Mayan.

Now Spaniards are having an economic crisis, and they are emigrating to Mexico, Spain’s Greatest Son, again.

26 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Culture, Europe, Europeans, Hispanics, Latin America, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Spain, Spaniards, Whites

Caucasoids, Ancient and Modern

Anthropology1994 writes:

What about the Jews, Arabs, and Mediterraneans? Are they a new race or an archaic race?

Arabs are a very old race. If you go back 12,000 YBP in Europe, the skulls and genes look like Arabs. So Arabs could be seen as proto-Whites or proto-Europeans. You can make a good case that Arabs are ancient Caucasoids.

Jews are very new. They have only been around for ~3,000 years. Keep in mind that Jews are more or less the same race as the Kurds, Turks and Armenians.

Meds are a very old race. In the maximal view of the Med race, they go back quite some time. Meds are a much older race than Nordics.

There are some Berber groups that seem to be very ancient Caucasoids, in particular the Mozabites, who have very odd phenotypes. They also show up on a lot of Caucasoid gene charts.

Some other possible ancient Caucasoids that show up on these charts are Orcadian Scots and Uyghurs. In Europe, Basques and Sardinians are quite old. But the Sami are probably the oldest race in Europe. They may be the ancient proto-Whites or proto-Europeans or what is left of them. They go back 11,000 YBP. The Sami also show a close relationship with Berbers which implies that the Berbers might also be the remains of ancient Europeans.

I have always thought that some of the South Indians were ancient Whites. The Dravidians have odd phenotypes but the skulls are mostly Caucasoid and they show up Caucasoid on most gene charts. They seem to have some from the Iranian or Near East region long ago, which adds weight to the idea that they are ancient Caucasoids.

A paper that reviewed the history of the Caucasoid race from 42,000 YBP showed repeated mass movements of Caucasoids between North Africa, the Levant, the Caucasus and India, so you can make a good case that these lands are the homelands of the ancient Caucasoids from which the race was birthed.

 

6 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Arabs, Armenians, Asians, Basques, Berbers, Europeans, Jews, Kurds, Near Easterners, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Scottish, South Asians, Spaniards, Turks, Uighurs, Whites

Bitch World Tour

SHI writes:

It’s extremely common for British and Scandinavian bitches (especially Sweden and Denmark) to suffer from entitlement mentality, feminazi mindset, support for emasculation of men, heartless cruel behavior, lack of human warmth, betrayal and cheating in relationships. These are the ones that are 100% likely to act bitchy in a nightclub especially because you gave them the wrong look and don’t have enough money. Their expectations from men are unreal and according to them, there’s not a single man worthy enough to touch the ground they walk on. They’re all gold-diggers or rich wannabes and it’s their worst behavior which is copied by other cultures – they’re like a bad infection that has spread in every other country. Ever wondered why Englishmen are always found drunk at the pubs and suicide is highest in Sweden. It’s a lack of love and basic human intimacy which we take for granted in other cultures. It’s not wrong for women to pose a challenge to men but acting with wanton cruelty is just vile.

Englishwomen and Scandinavians are bad to the bone. These creatures are deluded enough to believe that they are the best any man can get and will act whatever way they please with no consequence. It’s simply not true, there are hundreds of millions of good choices to make.

For example, French and Italian women are an absolute delight. They take care of themselves, can act bitchy but in a feminine and demure way which only increases their appeal to men. They aren’t nearly as manipulative and filled with hate.

German women are a mixed bag and can be a bit on the masculine side. What separates them from the Brits is their unrelenting honesty and realistic expectation from men. Also they’re a lot more approachable in any situation.

Spaniard and South American girls are absolutely down-to-earth and like their French and Italian counterparts, absolutely great for casual flirting and even serious relationships. They’re playful, flirtatious, won’t make you feel bad even if you don’t have enough money and will call back if they like you. Absolutely no pretensions. Latin women are least likely to be gold-diggers.

Russian, Ukrainian and other Eastern European women are gold-diggers universally except their expectations are more reasonable compared to the English. Also they can make a man feel real good in their presence.

What do you think, guys?

I will admit that Latin American women are great in general, except that they have this machista/machisimo expectation that a lot of us won’t be able to live up to. I have had some good luck with Russian women. I never knew any Ukrainian or East European women except a Polish-American girl whose people had been here a while. She was really cool and so was her Mom. Of the Spaniards, Italians and Frenchwomen, I have only dated Frenchwomen. They can be charming, but I had a French girlfriend who was twice my age as a young man (I was 21, she was 37) and she turned into a Hellacious ballbreaking bitch. But other Frenchwomen can be quite sweet.

I don’t have a lot of experience with Italian women, only friendship, but they are very feminine. The men run the show over there, and the women are resigned to that. Upper-class Spanish women are complete bitches. I have known some German women but not really dated them. They can be a bit masculine, but really most of them are just regular women deep down inside. I have no experience with Scandinavian women except Americans. I knew a Finnish-American whose people had been here a while. She was great and a total beauty. I also knew a Swedish-American “Black Swede” whose people had been here a long time. She was nice when I met her but then she stood me up for a date.

I have had mixed experiences with British women but overall pretty good. I haven’t run into the entitled mindset.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Danes, English, Europeans, French, Gender Studies, Germans, Hispanics, Italians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Russians, Spaniards, Swedes, Ukrainians, Women

Lobert Rindsay Comments on the Moors of Al-Andalus

Lobert Rindsay is a university professor from Mexico who set up his blog in a sort of a tribute to my blog in order to continue along the same lines in a sense. He specializes in racial makeup of various groups in the Mediterranean region and Hispanosphere.

Lobert Rindsay on Al-Andalus:

Hello Robert, thank you for supporting my blog. I admit that my older (2 year old) post on the race of Mexicans is more a creative work. While I admit that the Amerindian component may have been underestimated in my earlier work (in light of newer studies and more research), it suffices to say that the white component of Mexico is often underestimated as well.

More importantly though, we need to end these silly cliche ideas.

First off, the Afrocentrist claim that pre-Islamic North Africans (including Egyptians) were black is plainly wrong as can be seen by Roman and Greek mosaics of Berbers and Egyptians, as well as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs where the Egyptians clearly distinguish themselves from Berbers, Semites, and blacks.

Second of all, the subsequent claim that the Islamic invaders of Iberia were black doesn’t hold up, unless the Muslim army was composed of Tuareg or sub-Saharan Africans.

Finally, the more common claim that the Muslims of al-Andalus/Iberia were a minority and/or that they were of non-European origin is also (mostly) a falsity (since a minority of Muslims were of foreign origin). Of course, the first Muslims of Iberia were Arabs & Berbers, just like the first Muslims of Somalia, Iran, and Indonesia were Arabs, but we know that the grand majority of Muslims in those countries today are indigenous.

It is not a Eurocentric claim that the Muslims of Spain were mostly indigenous whites. Perhaps watching videos or Googling images of the descendants of the Moriscos/”Moors” (the expelled Andalusi Muslims) living in North Africa should open some eyes.

In fact, I think it is an insult to call the Andalusi Muslims “Moors”, because it implies they are a foreign element; it is like saying that Persians are Arabs. So do not say that Averroes or Boabdil are Moorish or black or Berber or even Arab. They are Iberians, or, if you will, Spaniards. You could call them Andalusians or Andalusies, but no Anglophone calls Egyptians as “Masri” (from al-Misr, the Arabic name for Egypt).

I hate to break it to some people, but the hands that crafted al-Hamra (Alhambra) and the emirs that resided there were not black, nor even Berber/Arab, they were Spanish. I don’t wish to be some sort of chauvinist nor some sort of Eurocentrist, it is merely the historical image of al-Andalus that is most supported by legitimate evidence. If the pale skin, or blue eyes, or overall Iberian/European appearance of the descendants of the Iberian Muslims living in North Africa doesn’t convince you, then I don’t know what will.

I refer sometimes to the Iberian Muslims as Andalusi, but I would rather call them what they really are on a genetic level, Iberians or Spaniards, also considering that in my opinion, “Spain” should rightly refer to the whole peninsula and that Portugal is a medieval remnant of a crusader state that refused to integrate into the larger Iberian Christian nation. Well, I tend to make large comments (unfortunately!) but I hope that clears things up.

It took me a bit to understand what he was getting at here, but I think I figured it out. What he is saying is that the original Moors from Morocco and Tunisia were probably not all that Black to start with (more likely that they were the more White Berbers). Not only that, but they were always few in number, as per the Arab style of conquest which involved a small number of Arabs ruling over a large group of non-Arabs who progressively become Arabized and Islamicized.

This is how it went down in Spain also. Over time, the vast majority of Andalusian Muslims were simply native Iberian Whites who converted to Islam for this or that reason. So over time, the Moors were not even North Africans; instead they were just Spaniards like everyone else in Spain.

You can go to Google and look up photos of the descendants of the Moors who were expelled in Spain who now live in Morocco and Tunisia. They are very White-looking even by Berber standards. Clearly they are mostly of Iberian stock.

The Berbers themselves are a very ancient Caucasian or White group, with links going back to the oldest Caucasians in Europe, the Lapps or Saami. There were also infusions of North European blood going back 2-3,000 YBP. In the northern part of North Africa, the people are often quite White (especially in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria) while as you go towards the South, the people tend to get Blacker. The Berbers themselves are now mixed with White and Black Berbers. The Tuaregs in particular are a very Black group of Berbers, but even they are 14% White.

The racial makeup of Mexico is quite confused. Lobert Rindsay states that Mexican genes are 55% White, but that may be in error. More recent studies put the White genes at 30-42% and the Amerindian genes at 55-67%. Mexicans are ~4% Black across the board.

But the Mexicans in the US have traditionally been the Whiter ones from the north of Mexico. The usual racial makeup was 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black, but the most recent study puts Mexicans in the US at 47% Indian, 45% White and 8% Black. Why they are so much Blacker than Mexicans as a whole, I have no idea. So US Mexicans have become quite a bit more Indian and Black and quite a bit less White over the last 30 years or so. This is because more immigrants are now coming from the more Indian and even Black parts of Mexico towards the center and especially the south.

14 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Arabs, Berbers, Blacks, Egyptians, Europe, European, Europeans, Hispanics, History, Islam, Latin America, Mexicans, Mexico, North Africa, North Africans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Spain, Spaniards, USA, Whites

Why The ETA Political Wing Was Banned

Repost from the old site.

I received an interesting email from one Gonzalo Polo (website here), a Spanish nationalist. I am publishing the parts of it that can be published here. I normally don’t post the names of emailers as it is a violation of Netiquette, but he issued a veiled threat to me, so he gets named. If you don’t want me to reveal contents of your mails, don’t threaten me.

I always supported the Basque and even Catalan separatist causes. In the Basque movement, I supported the armed wing called the ETA. This mail points out some less than flattering things about the ETA, so I am running it, and it also tells us some interesting stories about the history of the Iberian Peninsula.

I am posting it to provide another perspective to the National Question in Spain.

I still think that Spain should allow a referendum on independence, and that is really what this whole fight is all about. I understand that Spain will never hold this referendum, which makes me wonder when they crow that only a minority of Basques support separatism. So hold the referendum already. Truth is, I do not think that Spaniards are civilized enough to split up their nation.

Few nations are.

Only the former USSR and Czechoslovakia have broken up peacefully, with Quebec and and the UK showing a willingness at least. Spaniards have always been terribly intolerant as a people, a tradition like the peculiar one of church-burning that is proving hard to break.

At least the intolerance part is traced by Carroll Quigley back to the Arab occupation, said influence of which makes the area from Latin America across the Mediterranean to Pakistan the Peru-Pakistan Axis, as he calls it.

That much of Spain’s industry is in the Basque Region makes separatism supposedly lethal for Spain, but I doubt it. Spain is a mature and wealthy country and I think they could handle separatism just fine, but Spaniards are just too backwards to do it. I include the famously liberty-lovers the French in this backwardsness, and all of Asia, including those supposedly more highly evolved humans in Northeast Asia.

China is utterly insane when it comes to Tibet (as we saw in the past few days) and Taiwan, and in this way they are firmly in a backwards Asian tradition. Burma, Indonesia and India won’t tolerate separatism either, and the result has been horrible massacres and even genocides.

I suggest that a willingness to break up one’s country is the ultimate act of a civilized people, and it is a litmus test for seeing how civilized you are. By that test, most of the world fails except for some Europeans, but that makes sense. Europeans are the only people who will even try to play by the rules of war either.

The Catalans seem to be debating separatism in their media, and there are some interesting debates going on. One of them is revolving around the nature of the ethnic nationalism that Catalan nationalism is. There are good progressive arguments saying that all ethnic nationalism leads to some variety of fascism, since, like the anti-Semitism I discussed previously, the impulse has nowhere to go but to the Right.

Put another way, internationalism is language of the Left (yet note armed separatists are often Leftists) and nationalism is the language of the Right. It was only the stew of 70 years of internationalism that so wore down the nationalist sentiments of the USSR and enabled them to cleave off 15 republics with very little bloodshed.

There were bloody and fascist-like nation-building episodes in many of these new countries, but that’s just the normal nation-building experience, and if we had to deny the legitimacy of every nation that had ever done this, we would have few countries left on the globe.

It’s probable that that same evil Commie internationalism allowed the Czechoslovaks to separate so amicably. You can’t say that 43 years of Goulash Communism didn’t do any good at all.

Nationalism created the Axis in World War 2 and probably led to World War 1 too. All these fetishists of the state that demand states have their precious “monopoly on violence” and that all armed non-state actors surrender all arms immediately or be destroyed as “terrorists” might want to think that one over sometime. Note that the worst enemies of the Axis ultranationalists were the armed partisans, often Communists.

If you lurk around Internet fascist, Nazi or nationalist forums long enough (and I like to do this for a lark) you will notice that these types hate no one worse than Communists. As nationalists are often not members of the towering heights of capital, one wonders what all the fuss is about.

Fascists, and the nationalists who dress up like them once in a while, Halloween-like, hate Commies over the nationalism question. Commies are dubious, at best, about nationalism. The blood drenched soil of ethnic and Lazarus-like nationalism is the essence of fascism. That’s what the whole bloody Commie-fascist fight is all about in a nutshell.

There’s also the fact that fascism is a last-ditch effort of capital to preserve its privileges in the environment of a serious threat by the Left. The seriousness of the Left Threat provokes a deadly anti-Communist reaction in the fascist. Commies are no longer some ludicrous phantasm – they are marching in the streets – and we need to kill as many of them as possible and put the rest in jail.

It’s curious why more don’t support ethnic separatism. Ask an American, if you can get lucky and find one who even understands the concept, and 90% chances are they support the state and oppose the armed separatists everywhere on Earth. Most folks you meet on the Net are the same way.

But go to a separatist region and you will find large numbers who support separatism. It seems we are not empathizing well enough with the national aspirations of our brother humans.

That ethnic nationalism brings out the caveman in anyone is shown how the separatist Catalans are total nationalist pigs when it comes to granting the Occitan speakers their legitimate human rights.

The ETA political wing was banned (although their men were elected in the last elections to the Basque Parliament under another name, and therefore they act as deputies in the Basque Parliament and mayors in some villages) because they used the public money they earned to send it to the ETA, and also because they gathered information about politicians and submitted it to ETA.

They have decided to boycott Spanish elections so they do not present candidates.

The current President of the Basque Parliament (the moderate Basque PNV) and all political parties of Euskadi (including leftist radical but non-violent Basque parties) define the ETA as a terrorist group (the EU and the US also).

In the last general elections of Spain the political wing of ETA asked Basques not to vote. Even considering that in the villages where ETA supporters have more influence, that this means that if you vote you become a target, people who decided not to vote grew 10 per cent since last elections.

ETA murdered a retired socialist politician who walked in the streets along with his wife and daughter a day before the elections. He was a poor man who worked in a highway booth and handed tickets to the drivers. ETA political wing’s major of the village of Arrasate-Mondragon refused to condemn the assassination.

For this reason all the rest of the parties who governed the town in coalition with this party (including radical left parties) determined not to back her position. This means that there will be soon be another mayor in this town formed by a coalition of the rest of the parties.

For your information I would like to highlight that the PNV (the moderate Basque party) is so scared about the ETA that in the last Basque elections, they could not find candidates for some towns. The Spanish socialist and conservative parties found candidates and, for instance, Mrs. Regina Otaola (Otaola is a Basque name and she is 100% Basque) is the current mayor of Lizarra.

All socialist and moderate candidates in the Basque Country have bodyguards. The man who was murdered two days ago had no right to have a bodyguard because he retired from politics so he was an easy target.

I also would like to inform you that the population of the Basque country is diminishing, the reason being that about 1/3 to 1/4 of 100% Basques have determined to run away from their homeland – the reason being that they want their children to live in a non-violent atmosphere so they have moved to other regions of Spain, for instance my brother-in-law Mr. Aguirre Ormaetxea (100% Basque).

For your information, the language spoken in Galicia is not a dialect of Portuguese, although both languages have a common origin. In the 8th century the Arabs invaded the entire Iberian Peninsula except the mountains of the north. Only the mountains of the North of Spain from Galicia to Catalonia were not invaded.

The original Spaniards (a blend of races and peoples united under the Roman Empire and highly sophisticated at that time, as opposed to people from Northern Europe) started to recover territory from North to South.

Little kingdoms such as Portugal, Castilla, Navarra, Leon and Aragon started to fight Arabs. Galicians joined the kingdom of Leon and Portuguese created the kingdom of Portugal.

Catalonia at that time was invaded by the Emperor of the Sacred Roman Empire, a German emperor of the tribe of the Francs who controlled France and Germany under the blessing of the Pope. The Catholic Church maintained the fiction that the Roman Empire was still alive.

Catalans expelled the Francs from the Hispanic Mark (the name of Catalonia at that time that included a province that nowadays belongs to France) and joined the kingdom of Aragon (a big kingdom that nowadays covers the regions of Aragon, Catalonia, Majorca and Valencia). The French Catalans do not have a Catalan department; Catalans have no rights as a minority in France.

The valley of Aran is part of the province of Lerida (Catalonia), although it is located in the Northern part of the Pyrenees Mountains. People from Aran speak an Occitan (Langue d’Oc) dialect similar to the one was spoken in all Provence before the Germanic tribes imposed French (the former Langue d’Oil that was spoken in Norther France).

Occitan is not spoken nowadays in France. The nationalist Catalan parties do not allow the Aranese language to be taught at school, and they force children to learn Catalan instead of their native language.

The Catalan and Spanish languages are spoken in all the Mediterranean coast from the Border of France to the region of Murcia (including the Balearic Islands). Catalan was never spoken in the current region of Aragon except in the border with Catalonia where children are able to learn the Catalan language thanks to the Aragon Government.

In the Regions of Majorca and Valencia, Catalan is freely spoken as well as Castilian. The people of these regions vote PP or PSOE – Spanish conservative or socialist parties. In the last general elections, the winning party was the Socialist Party, and nationalist CIU party obtained only 11 seats. Furthermore, the president of the Catalonian Parliament is also a socialist.

Catalan radical nationalists pretend to create a new country that would include the regions of Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca together with French Catalonia. French Catalans, Valencians and people from Majorca want to remain in Spain and dislike Catalan imperialism.

I would also like to point out that Guernica is a painting the Republican Legitimate Spanish Government asked Picasso (Picasso was born in Andalusia, namely in Malaga) to paint in order to show the world the horrors of the Spanish Civil War. Once the painting was finished, it was shown for the first time in the Universal Expo of New York, namely in the Spanish pavilion.

The US government refused to return the painting to Spain once the war was over, and it remained in the Metropolitan until Franco died. I would like to point you out that around one million people died in the Spanish Civil War. Guernica was bombed by the Germans, but many other Spanish towns were also bombed and destroyed by the Russians.

I would like to highlight that neither the US nor the European democracies helped the Republican Government of Spain because they were scared about Hitler so they preferred not to see what it was happening except for Germany (who backed Franco) and Russia (who backed Republicans.)

Once the Civil War was over, many republicans ran away from Spain and stayed for years in concentration camps in France (my grandfather among others).

Many democrats felt that the US and the European democracies were acting in bad faith, so many people (like Hemingway) came to Spain to fight as volunteers with the Republic.

P.S. In a recent poll published by The Economist, you can read that only between 1/4 and 1/3 of Spanish Basques back independence. In the last elections to Spanish parliament Basque PNV party obtained only 300,000 votes in the Basque Country.

3 Comments

Filed under Art, Art History, Basques, Catalans, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, Galician, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Internationalism, Italic, Language Families, Left, Linguistics, Marxism, Modern, Nationalism, Occitan, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Romance, Socialism, Spain, Spaniards, Spanish, War, World War 1, World War 2

The Basque Independence Movement

Repost from the old site.

Although it is not a popular cause in the US, this blog strongly supports the armed struggle of ETA, the armed Basque nationalist Red front. The Basque cause is very poorly known in the US and probably in most of the rest of the world, hence, here is a bit of a primer.

The Basque people are probably the last remaining group of the original populations that inhabited Europe before the Indo-European (IE) invasion and conquest about 8000 years ago. The best theory indicates that the IE people probably came out of the southern Ukraine near the Black Sea.

Their first stop was Anatolia, and this is why the Hittite languages (ancient languages of Anatolia, or Turkey) are by far the most divergent languages in the IE language family.

In fact, I subscribe to a controversial theory that renames Indo-European as Indo-Hittite due to this deep split. For those who don’t know about the IE language family, IE, or proto-IE (PIE), was the mother tongue of most of the languages of Europe.

European languages in the IE family include English, German, French, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Irish, Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldavian, Albanian, Slovenian, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Lithuanian and Latvian and some lesser-known ones.

A few tongues in Europe are non-IE, such as Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Estonian and Basque. Outside of Europe, we have some other IE languages in some pretty distant places, including Kurdish, Persian, Hindi, Urdu, Pashto, Sanskrit and a variety of languages related to them that are not well known by Westerners.

Apparently a divergent group of PIE left the PIE homeland and moved into the area of India, Iran and Afghanistan thousands of years ago.

Before the IE people spread out over Europe 8000 years ago, Europe was home to a variety of peoples who are very poorly known. Almost nothing is known about their civilizations (such as they existed), who they were, what they did, how they lived, what they ate, much less what languages they spoke.

The original inhabitants of Europe at this time weren’t Cro-Magnons, but they weren’t exactly Manhattan metrosexuals with cell phones either. After the IE people spread out across Europe, they apparently displaced, intermarried with, or wiped out almost all of the indigenous people of Europe.

One group that held out for a while were the Etruscans, residents of Italy. We actually have some retained some scraps of the Etruscan language somehow, but it doesn’t seem obviously related to anything else. The only other group that held out was apparently the Basques.

The theory that the Basques are the last remaining original inhabitants of Europe has long been a popular theory based on the fact that the Basque language is unlike any other language in Europe, or, really, in the world. Formally, Basque is considered to be a language isolate – not related to any other language.

However, I believe, based on very controversial theories, that Basque is related to some languages of the Caucasus (such as Chechen), an obscure group of Siberian tongues known as the Ket Family, an obscure language in far northern Pakistan called Burushaski, and also to the vast Sino-Tibetan family, of which Chinese is the most famous member.

Basque seems to me to be closest to various Caucasian languages. The latest genetic research has shown that the Basques have a blood type frequency that is divergent from all other populations in Europe. Interestingly, the closest people with this blood frequency are in the Caucasus Mountains.

In their mountain hideaways, the rugged Basques fought off many intruders and managed to keep a lot of other conquerors out of their hair with a hands-off attitude. Although the Romans conquered the area, they basically left the Basques pretty much alone as too much hassle, a common attitude of many conquerors that came through the region.

The Basques converted to Christianity along with the rest of Europe, and are known for their passionate, conservative Catholicism. With the consolidation of the Spanish nation, the question of how to deal with the Basques came up. For centuries, most governments in Spain and France preferred to pretty much leave the Basques alone.

During the Spanish Civil War in 1936-39, the Basque Region was a hotbed of Communism, Socialism, Anarchism and all varieties of Leftism. It was a major Republican stronghold. The Spanish Anarchists even “ruled” parts of the Basque country for part of this time, probably the only time in history that any humans have ever lived under anarchist “rule”.

The Basques fought very hard against fascism. Picasso’s famous “Guernica” painting is a painting of the Franco-Nazi air raid on the city of Guernica in the Basque Country, a raid that killed 6,000 people and outraged the world. A Basque Communist female fighter named “La Passionara” became quite famous.

The flood of Nazi guns was too much for the Republicans. The Republicans lost the war and fascism, in the persona of Generalissimo Franco, came to Spain. During World War 2, many Basques fought for the resistance against the Nazis, especially in France. The Basque region was known as a major redoubt and rear base for the French resistance.

When Franco came to power, a new chapter of history opened for the Basque struggle. Franco tried to consolidate Spain as no ruler ever had before. He demanded that all regional minorities adopt a “Spanish” mindset, language and loyalty. He ferociously tried to wipe out all vestiges of the Basque, Catalan and Galician languages and cultures.

Catalans speak a Romance language in between Spanish and French and live along the southern coast of Spain by the French border in and around Barcelona. The Romance family is a subfamily of IE that is derived from Latin. Romance includes Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Catalan, Sardinian, Corsican, Romansh (an obscure language in Switzerland) and some lesser-known tongues.

Galicians speak a dialect of Portuguese, believe it or not, and live along the rocky northern coast of Spain by the border with Portugal. Many Galicians are fishermen.

The Basque people resisted Franco for a while, but he put many of them in prison and really hurt the Basque movement. In 1959, a faction broke away from the Basque Nationalist Movement, formed the ETA, and took up arms.

They planted several bombs in Spanish cities that year. In 1968 , the ETA officially adopted armed struggle. The insurgency has been going on for 46 years now, though it is not as strong as it used to be.

Hardly any Americans realize the significant level of support for even the armed insurgency in the Basque country of Spain. As of a few years ago, there were regular street protests and even riots, as young nationalists run amok through the streets, smashing stuff and writing graffiti.

I have seen video footage in the past decade of very militant pro-ETA rallies in the Basqueland with large crowds of supporters milling around.

Many folks you would consider to be regular folks – middle-class people who dress well, drive nice cars and have good jobs – are strong supporters of even the armed Basque movement. It’s quite a shock to see dowdy-looking housewife types and middle-aged office workers with potbellies angrily waving banners supporting the ETA bombers.

Yet this is the reality of popular support for Basque nationalism, even the armed wing, in the Basque Country. Although Batasuna, the political wing of the ETA, was banned recently, another party took its place and garnered around 15-20% of the vote. Total support for complete independence in the Basque Country or Euskara, as they call it, is around 35-40%, or possibly higher, in my opinion.

Note: I just spoke to a German Communist friend of mine about the support level for the independence movement in Basqueland. Here is what he said: “Oh, I think almost all Basques support full independence. And even many Spanish migrants in Basqueland don’t really oppose the ETA or the independence movement.”

Note the presence of Spanish migrants who have moved into the Basque Country, mostly to take jobs. They are really the wild card in any poll about levels of independence support in Basqueland.

What is the struggle about, anyway? Well, a significant number of the Basque people (maybe almost 100% – see above) want independence from Spain.

Possibly a lesser number desire independence from France, but the struggle in French Basqueland is another matter and beyond the scope of this post. The Spanish government has always refused to hold a referendum on independence for Euskara, a key Basque demand.

The Czech Republic split from Slovakia, referendums have been held on independence in Scotland and Quebec, and yet Spain bucks the tide in the civilized world. The economy is surely a stickler. The Basque country holds much of Spain’s heavy industry, and how well Spain would fare economically after Basque succession is largely unknown. But it should at least be a subject of discussion, and Spain has put it out of limits.

As long as Spain refuses to provide a Basque referendum on independence, the Basque struggle, including probably the armed front, will go on. That’s all there is to it. Spain can end the insurgency tomorrow by opening peace talks with the ETA (Spain has never done this) and ultimately agreeing to hold a referendum on Basque independence.

An interesting sidelight to the Basque struggle is the role of women and feminism in the conflict. Some of the toughest ETA cadre have been women, often tougher than the men. And ETA male fighters, though nominally Marxist, have long been known to hold surprisingly conservative, Old World type views on the role of women in Basque society, opinions heavily tinged by conservative Catholicism.

1 Comment

Filed under Antiquity, Asia, Basque, Basques, Catalan, Catholicism, Caucasus, Christianity, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, Feminism, France, Galician, Gender Studies, Genetics, Government, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Isolates, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Left, Linguistics, Marxism, Modern, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Romance, Sino-Tibetan, Socialism, Spain, Spaniards, Spanish, Terrorism, War, World War 2