Talk:Andalusians

Andalusians an Ethnic Group

An ethnic group is something quite difficult to determine, but it usually refers to a population whose genetical and cultural heritage has remained intact for a certain period of time. The problem arises when we assess the "period of time" required or what is "cultural" heritage. From the genetic perspective, a person from Andalucía is so identic to individuals elsewhere in Spain that the comparison is ridiculous. As to the "culture", it's clear that the Arab influence was much more felt in the south than in the north of Spain, other kind of influence in Andalucía that doesn't apply to the rest of Spain is unknown. An ethnic group would have been indeed the Morish population; but these were soon expelled after the Reconquista was completed. Let's remember that the Reconquista was accompanied by the "Repoblación", which means that the south was being constantly repopulated by peoples (and their traditions and religion) from the north whose offspring are, with probably a higher proportion of intermarriage with Arabs than in the rest of Spain, ultimately present "Andalusians". That leaves about 500 years of more or less homogenic cultural environment.

Let's not be confused by 19th century ideas of "people","nation","ethnic group", that so much pollute the political landscape in Spain.

It's also remarkable that in the section of Spanish ethnic groups there's no "Galician-Asturians", or "Aragonese" or "Castile-Leonese", or "Canarian". History shows us that they have no less reasons to qualify at the same level as the others. Especially the latter may have a greater claim, though ridiculously small anyway, than any other to be considered under the scope of ethnic groups. However, we only get the typical three: "Catalonia", "Basque" and "Andalusian". Just glance at the papers and you'll know why those three do seem us now worthy of such considerations whereas others equally (un)worthy don't. El que no llora no mama.

I don't agree with this last edit. In my opinion no nation-state is genetically homogenous, but in the case of Spain it has been clearly established that it is far from it and Andalusia, is (to a degree) genetically distinct. (See Spanish people) So are the canary islands, the basque country, catalonia etc... But Genetics do not make an ethnic group. What makes Andalusians a distinct ethnic group is their shared culture and identity which is strong and distinct enough to make them a nation in their own right. If nationalism isnt strong in Andalusia it is because of the historical importance this region has had for the Spanish state (in every sense) , and because Andalusian culture (or a version of it) has come to represent Spanish identity as a whole, especially during the Francoist period. This, despite a psichzofrenic disdain other Spaniards have held towards Andalusians. I would also like to point out that the idea of a repopulation of Andalusia and of the "Novísma Castilla" is a myth. Few Northerners established themselves in the South after the Reconquista and a majority of modern-day Andalusians are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the region.--Guzman ramirez 12:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting this article

I partially agree with the above edit. In any case this issue is 1)complex and 2)very politisced. This article could be greatly improved.--Ismael76 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Depopulation of the Region??? Since when is Andalusia "sparsely populated"? It is much more densely populated than Castilla la Mancha and Castilla y Leon. Birth rates are much higher than in the rest of Spain and now that emmigration to Madrid and to Barcelona (aswell as other countries) is grinding to a halt I imagine population is rising considerably...

Population

In 2005 their total population stood at 7.849.799.

This is the population of the Andalusia region. Not all andalusians live there; in fact, millions of them have emigrated abroad.

Moroccans as related ethnic group?

User Veritas et Severitas, as a Spaniard, seems to be extremely offended by the inclusion of Morroccans as a related people to the Andalusians, and has erased the whole "related ethnic groups" section. Either we stick to that solution or we examine to what extent they are related...

Other and General Identity

--Burgas00 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that I am offended. That is absolutely a subjective opinion. Why should I be offended?. Morocco is a great country and Moroccans a great people, and the only thing that I hope for them is that they stay as they are, hopefully improving their economic situation, which I am sure they can do the same as Spain has done, just look how Spain was 40 years ago, but preserving the wonderful culture and ethnicity (culture, habits, language, traditions, religion) that is theirs. Do not play the racist card with me. I think that you are offending Moroccans with your comments. You tried the same in the Spanish people's page. There people can see the discussion, we do not have to repeat it.

In any case, if you want to use a very broad concept to define related ethnic groups, I do agree, but I think it is not reasonable and practical. In any case, let us do it and let us start with the Andalusians, who are in fact just a sub-group of Spaniards:

Related ethnic groups because of language, culture, historic links or genetic links:

America:

Californians, New Mexicans, Texans, Floridians, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Cubans, Puertoricans, Dominicans, Peruvians, Bolivians, Argentinians, Paraguayans, Chileans and a long etc.

Europe:

Portuguese, Italians, French, Romanians, Greeks, Britons, Dutch, Belgians, Scandinavians and a long etc.

Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Morocco, Western Sahara, Equatorial Guinea, Algerians, Arabs, Libanese, Filipinos, and a long ETC.

Jews.

Sephardi Jews.

Of course this is just a starting list that we can perfect if you agree. We can even discuss each group separately. We can actually do this in all the peoples articles. May be a good idea. Veritas et Severitas 01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

But how can you compare Andalusians' relationship with Moroccans with Equatorial Guineans or Norweigians. Exchange across the straights of Gibraltar has been a constant feature of the region's history since the time of the Phoenicians to the 20th century. What relationship has there been with with the Philippines or with the Dutch which mirrors that contact? Phoenicians, Tartessians, Greeks, and Romans in ancient history, the Byzantines, later the Vandals from Andalusia invading North Africa which later became part of the Visigothic kingdom of Hispania. Then 8 centuries of Islamic civilisation in Andalusia much of which consisted of Kingdoms (Almohades and Almoravids) which encompassed both Morocco and the peninsula. Then the arrival of Spanish jews and Muslims to Morocco in the 17th century which led to the impregnation of Moroccan culture with Iberian civilisation. Then shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonisation of North Africa with large number of Andalusians moving across the straights and settling there in search for work. The North African influence on southern Spain need not even be explained but Spanish has been the vernacular language of all religious communities of Northern Morocco for long periods of its history even during times which predate the official "colonial period". Did you know that Bullfights were common in north Morocco untill very recently when they were banned as part of an attempt to eliminate Spanish culture in the country by the government.

How can you compare Andalusian's strong bonds to North Africa with supposedly equivalent relationships to Scandinavians or Californians(??).

I am sorry for playing the racist card but I did so after a quick look at your user contributions since you joined wikipedia. I can't help bu suspect that you have an emotional need to defend the unity and "Europeanness" of Spain which is the common thread of all your edits since you joined wikipedia. See your edits on "White people", "Hispanics", "Britons", "Spanish people", "Basque people" etc... Spain is a rich, western european country. This inferiority complex should have long dissapeared by now. --Burgas00 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And for some reason you have some kind of obsession with Morocco which is far from logical, while you ignore the basics of ethnicity. Morocco and Spain, including Andalusia, belong to two clearly different worlds (as different as people can be, I mean people are not that different after all). They belong to two different civilizations. The very fact that you deny basic things that define ethnicity is proof of either a profound ignorance of the concept itself or a stubborn attempt that I have already explained. This is not about historic relationships. People can have historic relationships and still be of very different ethnicities. I could give you a thousand examples. The very fact that you say that Californios do have less in common with Spaniards than Moroccans in that respect is just an example of either your ignorance of California or again your reiterated attempts in one direction. All Europeans have more in common among themselves than Arabs, or Maghrebis, in this case. That does not mean that they are better or worse. That does not mean that they are not also very different among themselves. You are the one who is always trying to make a racist issue of what is not a racist issue. You seem to ignore that Spain and Morocco belong to two different civilizations. Spaniards belong to the European civilization, Moroccans not. Spaniards are a Romance speaking people and derive their culture, language, religion etc primarily from Rome, Morocco not. Morocco was also part of the Roman empire. According to you Moroccans should also be considered a Roman or Latin people or related to them? Of course not, because their culture and ethnicity was shaped fundamentally by another great civilization: The Arab one. Greeks and Turks share a lot of historic links, but they are very different ethnic groups. Poles and Germans, and a long etc. I could give you thousands of examples, but I find this absolutely senseless having to discuss basic concepts. I am not the one that is trying to introduce all the peoples above, although according to your concept of ethnicity I could argue them one by one. And you continue to offend Moroccan people with your comments. Why should Morocco be involved in a inferiority complex?

As to my position in other peoples articles, you should know better. One of the basic wars that I have been waging there since the beginning is precisely that both North Africans and Middle Easterners belong basically to the same race as Europeans, because both the anthropological evidence and the genetic evidence indicate so, not because I just say so, in spite of the reiterated attempts of radicals to say the opposite. Or that a person who looks black can be perfectly of European ancestry and those radicals keep deleting those obvious things. That is one page! I have been sarcastic with them more than once. I do interfere a lot with radical views. It seems that this is going to be one of my major roles in Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I accept your answer as a valid argument.

I have also just checked the Turkish people page in which the Greeks are not included as a related group. These two groups are as close as any two people can get, in my opinion, despite the language difference. Following that example, Moroccans must definitely not be included in the related people section of andalusians. I guess the best solution is just scrapping the section altogether as you did, since it is inherently subjective. --Burgas00 14:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Why? because it is always very controversial and often people do not seem to come to an agreement. Veritas et Severitas 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed all of this thread, as I was pretty much inactive at the time. As the person who originally added Moroccan people as related, I would like the chance to explain myself. At some point in the History of Morocco, up to one third of the population was made up of forced exiled from Andalusia after the Reconquista. Assuming that all of them were just descendant of the same few thousands who came over with Musa and Tarik is just naive and extremely POV. Most of them were born and bread Andalusian of Hispano-Roman stock (to choose a name) indeed. So, in that sense, if it is OK to have an English people page listing Frisians as related people, I sincerely cannot see the problem of doing likewise with the Andalusian people article. In any case, I perfectly happy with the gentlemen's agreement reached between both of you and will be respecting it accordingly. Regards, --Asterion^talk 22:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse Al-Andalus with Andalusia. What we call Andalusia was only a part of Al-Andalus. Most muslims and moriscos who settled in northern Africa came from other spanish regions like Valencia and not mainly from Andalusia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.62.81 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Erase Trajan

To put Trajan as an andalusian makes nosense, its like saying that Charlemagne was french or Ataturk a greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.252.86 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

       I entirely agree with your comment. In general, the whole article doesn't make much sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.16.197 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 

Andalusia a nation?

I just wonder why is Andalusia considered in wikipedia as a nation, and not Murcia, Extremadura or Castille. Who has decided that they can be considered a nation, although andalusians do not consider them as one? Andalusia is a just the southern part of Spain, not a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.78.60 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Andalusians consider ourselves as a nation, you should know that!! It's written in the law!! --88.11.54.202 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't really believe what you wrote. Ask any andalusians if they consider Andalusia a nation and 95% of them will say clearly no. If you are really an andalusian you will know this perfectly. The law speaks about a "nacionalidad" (not about a nation) which is an ambiguous term brought by politicians who seek more political power and to do so they copied the definition thought for Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia.

Hi, I am Andalusian and I consider Andalusia as a nation, and please, don`t compare Andalusia with other parts of the Spanish state, Andalusians is the people that more has contributed to the "Spanish idiosyncrasy" throughout history. ¡Viva Andalucía libre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.229.55.86 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Andalusians for the most part consider themselves a distinct ethnic group, they have their own culture and distinct dialect of Spanish. They even look different from Castilians and other Spaniards, typically having dark hair and eyes. While they are indeed related to Castilians and other Spaniards, they are a distinct ethnic group like Catalans or Basques are. Skyline25X2019 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Andalusians for the most part consider themselves a distinct ethnic group, they have their own culture and distinct dialect of Spanish. They even look different from Castilians and other Spaniards, typically having dark hair and eyes. While they are indeed related to Castilians and other Spaniards, they are a distinct ethnic group like Catalans or Basques also are. Source: I am Andalusian. Skyline25X2019 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andalusians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007210407/http://andaluciajunta.es:80/CCVV_FDComu_CAE/0,19057,5263732_17010963,00.html?fpChannel=17010963 to http://andaluciajunta.es/CCVV_FDComu_CAE/0,19057,5263732_17010963,00.html?fpChannel=17010963
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930094945/http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/iea/dtbas/dtb06/dtb2006.pdf to http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/iea/dtbas/dtb06/dtb2006.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ahimsav.com/149-nov_archivos/page0006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Number of Andalusians abroad

I think it should be stated somewhere in the box that there are 10s of millions of Andalusian descendants in Latin America. It should not just include Andalusian-born people.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable People born in the south of the Iberian Peninsula

This section dominates this article and is highly problematic. No other "peoples" article I follow contains such a list of people born in the geographical area, and considering the size of the area and the size of the population the list is unlikely to be anywhere near complete. So the problems are:

1. Too big an undertaking. Completion is likely to be impossible
2. Original research
3. Not a single source. Every single entry needs to be sourced
4. Disproportionate effect on the article

I want to just delete it, but someone has put a lot of effort into that list, and will understandably be upset if I do. Thus this talk section. What to do with this? Do we have consensus to delete from here? Is there somewhere we can preserve the list? Is there another page (perhaps an existing list page) that it makes sense on? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

For deletion; I couldn't agree more, the section is a dumpster fire. I just thinned it out a little bit, but I am also fine with deleting the section as a whole, its a very hard to define type of section and most ethnic peoples pages don't contain these sections. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to delete the section. I recognise that a consensus of two is easily challenged, but the list of names is unsourced and problematic. After my deletion I will link the diff so that any editor can quickly find the deleted material, and if they wish, create a list article using the deleted information. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the deletion, so that any editor may quickly find what I deleted. It would be a good start for a list article somewhere (but it is entirely unsourced so would need a lot of work). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

For deletion; I agree. It'd be one thing if they were sourced, but they're not. Notable people sections get added to over the years, with people just going to the notable people section of an article and adding whoever they want, with no thought given to proving notability or even relevance to the article. Heck, half the time, they don't even insert it in the correct place. LanHikari64 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic Group

An editor has today attempted to reintroduce the term "ethnic group" for Andalusians. I previously challenged this because ethnic groups are not well defined, and neither is is clear that Andalusians would see themselves as an ethnic group. I think my term (which was also the settled term on this page for a very long time) is more neutral. Are there arguments for changing it to ethnic group? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Saiz et al. 2019

An editor inserted text in this edit: [1] However the study does not say what was being claimed. Apart from the fact it is single study, primary sourced, the conclusion of the study was:

However, contrary to what might be expected based on historical data that favor a gradient of North African genetic influence from south to north, most such influence has been found in Galicia and northern Castilla [...]. After the Reconquest, the Moors were distributed homogeneously throughout the Peninsula, but their final expulsion in 1609 was absolute in certain regions of Spain, Valencia, and western Andalusia, whereas in Galicia and Extremadura, the population dispersed and integrated into society.

I have thus reverted the additions pending something more concrete and nuanced. I also reverted the addition of "citation needed" on the claim that Andalusians are from Andalusia. See WP:FACTS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)