Ethnic map of Europe - 2011

[Logan]

This map is crap.

Needs some work.

[Husaria]

Why is part of Poland gray? Germans are a minority in all of Poland/

[Zephyr]

Man, there are a lot of errors:
• In Switzerland:
- only the southernmost canton Ticino is Italian.
- Graubünden (South-East) should be almost all grey (German), with a small green area bordering Italy (Poschiavo)
- the Western part of canton Bern is French speaking!
- Valais (South-West) should be blue, with its Eastern tip grey

• Italy: Vallée d'Aoste (North-West) should be blue.

• Luxembourg, being officially and actually bilingual, cannot be all blue. IMHO a large bilingual area joining the Netherlands to Switzerland over Eastern Belgium, Luxembourg, North-eastern Lorraine and Alsace should be indicated to match reality.

• Brussels and its surroundings are officially bilingual, but in reality almost unilingual French.

• You are over-generous to Denmark. Current border to Germany matches pretty good reality (with a tiny Danish minority near Kiel, and conversely a few Germans in South-Jutland). Skåne, Halland and Blekinge (and moreover Öland and Gotland) are fully Swedish. (And Southern Småland and Östergötland never were Danish BTW).

• Yep, the North of Sweden was colonized in recent times, but the North of Norway has been Norvegian since the Viking era, with Sami population largely assimilated.


The problem with this map is that you freely mix historical claims, current official boundaries and linguistic situation. Most of Navarra is supposed to be Basque but hasn't been speaking Basque for a thousand years. The Basque area on the French side is twice as large as it should be (and include archrival Bearn!). If you go that way, why not give Jämtland and Bohuslän back to Norway, Silesia-Pomerania-Ostpreussen to Germany? Vyborg and Petsamo back to Finland? And Istria back to Italy?

The omission of Wales as a separate area is questionable to say the least.



— Why not? Sardinian is a non-Italic Romance language. Although its use is constantly decreasing, a distinct ethnical conscience remains. Same for Brittany or Occitania. And for Andalucia and Bavaria too, and Ulster... No end in sight...


Brussels in reality is french speaking because it was jacobinified. If it had anything to do with ethnicities, at best they would speak walloon, which they don't. Flemish was shunned.

Just like Rumantsch was discouraged in Grischun (correct name for Graubunden).

[rhiannon]

Full version:
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2680/ethnicdistribution.png

Resized:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2680/ethnicdistribution.png

Enjoy

There's no legend accompanying the picture, so none of this makes much sense. Just giving it a quick eyeball tells me it's wrong. Iceland is ethnically linked to Norway and the British Isles (Scotland, and possibly Ireland), so why it's given the same color as Sweden is beyond me.

[Zephyr]

Why is part of Poland gray? Germans are a minority in all of Poland/

Because Revanchism is a common subject among nationalists.

[Inese]

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9378/eumetaethn.jpg

Latvia and Lithuania are not Slavic! They are Baltic and im very sure most compatriots would go to Germania and not to Severoslavia which would be like USSR imperialism...
And Switzerland to Romania??:rolleyes: Most of Switzerland belongs to Germania!

[HungAryan]

This is a better version (by Arus)
:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/1zfio8h.jpg

[Thraex]

Latvia and Lithuania are not Slavic! They are Baltic and im very sure most compatriots would go to Germania and not to Severoslavia which would be like USSR imperialism...
And Switzerland to Romania??:rolleyes: Most of Switzerland belongs to Germania!

Your sense of humor is completely broken. You can't tell the difference of funny maps and serious maps. Must be a Baltic thing...

[El Palleter]

Latvia and Lithuania are not Slavic! They are Baltic and im very sure most compatriots would go to Germania and not to SeveroslaviaIt doesn't matter who they'd choose to go with. In a relation master to servant, it's the former who makes the choice.

[Comte Arnau]

Latvia and Lithuania are not Slavic! They are Baltic and im very sure most compatriots would go to Germania and not to Severoslavia which would be like USSR imperialism...
And Switzerland to Romania??:rolleyes: Most of Switzerland belongs to Germania!

That's why there is a borderline. Same thing for the different macroethnic groups in Balkania.

Switzerland is split into two.

And as it's been said, no need to take it that seriously, it's clearly a humorous map. I know you love tragic lives up there, but hey, light up your days a bit, at least in summer.

[Verchar]

WTF?
These maps are completely, totally flawed. Just wrong.

Creating a big map of Europe with marked ethnic majorities requires years and years of work.
Not 15 minutes.

I have never seen a well-done ethnic map of Europe that actually corresponds with reality.

[Comte Arnau]

WTF?
These maps are completely, totally flawed. Just wrong.

Creating a big map of Europe with marked ethnic majorities requires years and years of work.
Not 15 minutes.

I have never seen a well-done ethnic map of Europe that actually corresponds with reality.

To begin with, because different people have different interpretations.

People call ethnic maps to those showing the traditional ethnic territories, regardless of the present vigour of those ethnicities in their territories. Otherwise we'd only get maps quite similar to the political country-state ones.

[Alex Delarge]

Since most of you don't favour small countries, let's stop the bullshit and get for real, Europe into only four metaethnic countries. Period.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9378/eumetaethn.jpg

I don't get your choice for the capital of Romania. Is it just because of its centralized position? It should be Rome. :p

[Verchar]

To begin with, because different people have different interpretations.

People call ethnic maps to those showing the traditional ethnic territories, regardless of the present vigour of those ethnicities in their territories. Otherwise we'd only get maps quite similar to the political country-state ones.

It does not even correspond with "traditional ethnic territories".

[Comte Arnau]

I don't get your choice for the capital of Romania. Is it just because of its centralized position? It should be Rome. :p

Nah, Rome is too eastern and Romania actually was born because of its decline. If from Italy, the capital should be in Milan (Mediolanum), which was the capital of the Western Roman Empire. But I like it central, so yes, Avignon, the City of the (anti)Popes, the city with the Pope that supported all the Romance territories (but Italy), while Rome was supported by foreign non-Romance territories. :p;)


It does not even correspond with "traditional ethnic territories".

You say this only because Slovakia is put together with Czechia. :tongue

[Verchar]

You say this only because Slovakia is put together with Czechia. :tongue

Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks are three separate ethnicities, three southern Slovak counties are not majority Hungarian, Belarussians are not Russians, et cetera, et cetera...

Really, people should not draw maps of countries they know nothing about :rolleyes:

[Mordid]

Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks are three separate ethnicities, three southern Slovak counties are not majority Hungarian, Belarussians are not Russians, et cetera, et cetera...

Really, people should not draw maps of countries they know nothing about :rolleyes:

Czechs and Slovaks are same to me, no offense.

[Comte Arnau]

I don't remember now if it's already been posted. An interesting 'racial map' of Europe (racial clearly meaning 'ethnic') from the Source Records of the Great War, vol. 7, 1923.

http://www.anesi.com/rmap1.jpg



Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks are three separate ethnicities, three southern Slovak counties are not majority Hungarian, Belarussians are not Russians, et cetera, et cetera...

Really, people should not draw maps of countries they know nothing about :rolleyes:

I agree with the second part.

As for Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks... I understood that both Bohemians and Moravians were Czech, like both Castilians and Andalusians are Spanish. Can Moravian really be considered a language rather than just a different variety or is the ethnic difference only a cultural one?

[Osweo]

As for Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks... I understood that both Bohemians and Moravians were Czech, like both Castilians and Andalusians are Spanish. Can Moravian really be considered a language rather than just a different variety or is the ethnic difference only a cultural one?
Interesting that you zoom in on the language (the pillar of course of your own particular Catalan nationalism), and see a difference between 'ethnic' and 'cultural', where I see the two as vague interrelating aspects of the same spectrum.

As i see it, the difference between a Bohemian and a Moravian is that when one pisses in the stream by his house, the piss ends up via the Laba in the North Sea, and the other's piss via the Dunaj in the Black Sea. ;)

I'd love to hear more of the cultural differences between the two Czech regions, of course.

[Comte Arnau]

Interesting that you zoom in on the language (the pillar of course of your own particular Catalan nationalism), and see a difference between 'ethnic' and 'cultural', where I see the two as vague interrelating aspects of the same spectrum.

Ethnic nationalism, particularly in Europe, has either language or religion as the pillars, it's not a particularity of the Catalans. Mention me any nationalism that doesn't consider it an essential pillar.

Siempre fue la lengua compañera del Imperio...

[Osweo]

Ethnic nationalism, particularly in Europe, has either language or religion as the pillars, it's not a particularity of the Catalans. Mention me any nationalism that doesn't consider it an essential pillar.

Siempre fue la lengua compañera del Imperio...
Ask an anglophone Protestant Irish Nationalist like Wolfe Tone or the like. :shrug:

For me it's the Common Story that counts. People have been 'through the mill' together for centuries. Chances of fate have seen some divided by religion, but still acknowledging their common nature. Linguistic difference is of course a great divider between minds and souls, but there are nations that have lost a language who still know who they are and who they're not.

[El Comunero Errante]

I don't understand very well why Jordi keeps of putting Castilians and Andalusians in the same ethnic sack and yet lets aside Catalans, Valencians and Basques.

To me, as a meta-ethnicity,we are all Iberians, and there's something intrinsically unique and common to all of us. But it is also clear as water to me, that despite the common history, and sharing a country such as Spain, the differences between the Spanish regions are not always greater where the language is different. For the record, most Castellanos Viejos (specially Cantabrians,Riojans,Palencians and Burgalese) are much closer to the Navarrese-Basque cultural and enthic sphere than to the Andalusians and the Canarians.

There's even massive differences between western and eastern Andalusia, enough to be considered separate sub-ethnicities of Iberians

I do not care really if Catalans break-away. When the moment comes that the vast majority of them wants their own state, then they shall have it. Seen how Europe is developing, I would not even mind thatthe whole Iberia is split into tiny pooor states if that is going to help Iberians to remain as such and not be swallowed into the multi-kulti mono-racial,one-thought Empire of The Big Capital.

I would rather have just one Iberian state and work all together for the increasing of our rights and quality of life and the defence of our mutual culture, territory and diversity.

But what has become of the current Spanish State (I am talking about the State itself, not about the Spaniards) is something so shameful, so degrading, so corrupt (and don't come up with cheap retoric about how many countries are much worse) so in the hands of a group of people that just couldn't care less. After seing what has become of the Spanish interior, swallowed and emptied by the monstrous "de-facto" city-state of Madrid or alternatively the monstrous Costas. Afterseing how the identities and cultures of so many Spaniards are fading away in the marabunta of a fake souvenir-selling plastic culture of cheesy stereotypes to sell to foreign turists, speculators and all sorts of scum.

If this is what we are to become, then the most patriotic thing to support is the total dismembering and the temporary impoverishment of the country.


But back on topic, Bataiyero, nobody outside the Catalan Independentism ,not even in Catalonia, would dare to suggest that a Burgalese is more similar to a Sevillian or a Tinerfenyo, than a bloke from Lleida, Huesca or Corunha.

I amnot anti-Catalan (how could I be??),and not even a sworn enemy of independentists.But I am a foe of bullshit.And that my friend, is sheer buffalo's diarrhea.

Andalusians today are one (oreven two) ethnicities of their own, as are Canary Islanders. Do they root in Castile? well, partly yes, but Castile is not the only ingredient of Andalusia. If you want a sub-ethnicity of Castellano-Leoneses, try Extremadura, and believe me, even Pacenses are much more alien to Burgalese people than Asturians or Basques will ever be

[Comte Arnau]

For me it's the Common Story that counts. People have been 'through the mill' together for centuries. Chances of fate have seen some divided by religion, but still acknowledging their common nature.

The problem is that common history can be interpreted in very different ways. But I agree with you, after all. It is obvious that if Catalan is spoken in Valencia and Majorca it is not because people there woke up one morning and decided to speak it, but because of a history of expansion, repopulation and assimilation.


Linguistic difference is of course a great divider between minds and souls, but there are nations that have lost a language who still know who they are and who they're not.

Has I said otherwise? You may have Ireland in mind, I can have Aragon. The fact is, one can struggle to emphasize things that are not a different language or religion, but once those distinct elements are lost, it is really difficult for the assimilated people not to eventually feel they belong to the same ethnic group of the assimilators. Ireland is, after all, an island and an independent state, which clearly helps to a sense of ethnic identity that can survive an eventual complete loss of their language. Aragon is a Castilianised nation instead.


I don't understand very well why Jordi keeps of putting Castilians and Andalusians in the same ethnic sack and yet lets aside Catalans, Valencians and Basques.

To me, as a meta-ethnicity,we are all Iberians, and there's something intrinsically unique and common to all of us. But it is also clear as water to me, that despite the common history, and sharing a country such as Spain, the differences between the Spanish regions are not always greater where the language is different. For the record, most Castellanos Viejos (specially Cantabrians,Riojans,Palencians and Burgalese) are much closer to the Navarrese-Basque cultural and enthic sphere than to the Andalusians and the Canarians.

There's even massive differences between western and eastern Andalusia, enough to be considered separate sub-ethnicities of Iberians

You're simply confusing things. I am far from saying that Castilians are the same as Andalusians, or that Catalans are the same as Valencians. Not even Catalans from, say, the NW Pyrenees are the same as coastal ones or as Catalans from the southern Delta. But different lifestyles and the culture derived from them, usually caused by the geography and weather of the region, are not the same as an ethnicity. I can feel very comfortable among the Danes and even feel closer to them than to people from, say, Alcoi, in certain aspects. But that neither makes me a Dane nor changes the fact that both Alcoians and Lleidatans belong to the same ethnic group. Even if I managed to speak Danish natively.


But back on topic, Bataiyero, nobody outside the Catalan Independentism ,not even in catalonia, would dare to suggest that a Burgalese is more similar to a Sevillian or a Tinerfenyo, than a bloke from Lleida, Huesca or Corunha.

I amnot anti-Catalan (how could I be??),and not even a sworn enemy of independentists.But I am a foe of bullshit.And that my friend, is sheer buffalo's diarrhea

I already exposed my reasons. I'm not to blame if it was Castilians the ones who expanded onto Seville and Tenerife. :shrug:

[El Comunero Errante]

The problem is that common history can be interpreted in very different ways. But I agree with you, after all. It is obvious that if Catalan is spoken in Valencia and Majorca it is not because people there woke up one morning and decided to speak it, but because of a history of expansion, repopulation and assimilation.



Has I said otherwise? You may have Ireland in mind, I can have Aragon. The fact is, one can struggle to emphasize things that are not a different language or religion, but once those distinct elements are lost, it is really difficult for the assimilated people not to eventually feel they belong to the same ethnic group of the assimilators. Ireland is, after all, an island and an independent state, which clearly helps to a sense of ethnic identity that can survive an eventual complete loss of their language. Aragon is a Castilianised nation instead.



You're simply confusing things. I am far from saying that Castilians are the same as Andalusians, or that Catalans are the same as Valencians. Not even Catalans from, say, the NW Pyrenees are the same as coastal ones or as Catalans from the southern Delta. But different lifestyles and the culture derived from them, usually caused by the geography and weather of the region, are not the same as an ethnicity. I can feel very comfortable among the Danes and even feel closer to them than to people from, say, Alcoi, in certain aspects. But that neither makes me a Dane nor changes the fact that both Alcoians and Lleidatans belong to the same ethnic group. Even if I managed to speak Danish natively.



I already exposed my reasons. I'm not to blame if it was Castilians the ones who expanded onto Seville and Tenerife. :shrug:

Well, Castilians expanded to Valencia, Catalonia and Navarra too.Does that make you Castilians in disguise? Also, Danes belong to a real different ethnic group, the Germanic, concretely to the Dane-Scandinavian branch ,so your comparison is out of place.

Now what do you feel closer? a person from Perpignan? or a person from Elche, a Burgalese, a Sevillian or a person from Lisbon? all of them belong to the same ethnic group, and at the same time they are all different sub-ethnicities. Probably the person from Perpinya or Elche will feel the closest . They could all have separate states if they chose to,but they can also have a common state too, if that would suit them. Borders have moved a lot through history, they will move in the future, and they will keep on moving since ethnicity is not something permanent. There were no Catalonians or Castilians before. Not even portuguese :P

[Comte Arnau]

Well, Castilians expanded to Valencia, Catalonia.

:confused:

España uniforme, España asimilada, España foral, España colonial. An image is always worth a thousand words. :D

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4dwC660snHE/Tg-O0pie64I/AAAAAAAAAQM/IWGCt1Y_oZQ/s1600/Mapa+Espanya+del+1854+menys+resoluci%25C3%25B3.jpg


Also, Danes belong to a real different ethnic group, the Germanic, concretely to the Dane-Scandinavian branch ,so your comparison is out of place.

A "real" different ethnic group? Lol. So you belong to the same ethnic group of all other Romance peoples? Now who's talking about bullshit, lol.

If you want a "real" ethnic group, you could have chosen the Mongols then.


Now what do you feel closer? a person from Perpignan? or a person from Elche, a Burgalese, a Sevillian or a person from Lisbon? all of them belong to the same ethnic group, and at the same time they are all different sub-ethnicities.

I feel closer to a Catalan from Perpinyà or Elx than to a Burgalese, Sevilian or Lisboeta, when it comes to ethnicity. Now, when it comes to individual persons, if the guy from Elx is a jerk and the Lisboeta is a cool guy, I'll feel closer to him in personal interaction, of course. There's no point in mixing concepts up.

[El Comunero Errante]

:confused:

España uniforme, España asimilada, España foral, España colonial. An image is always worth a thousand words. :D

em... that is a political map of 1854. It didn't look the same in 1270,neither in 1450 or in 1936. This is what a political map of Spain looks like:

http://www.spaindreams.com/home/gifs/mapa.gif


Looks familiar? Ethnicities change.some fade away,some are assimilated,some expand,some fusion or melt. Some separate to join again later. As for today, Valencias might or might not be Catalans , that is not for me to say,as I am neither Catalan nor Valencian and my experience to both limitates to a couple of summers working in Barcelona,and visits to my Aunt in the Castellon province)

But what I can tell you is that Andalusians, over the centuries, have developed into 2 ethnic groups with personalities different enough to be considered as such. And it is not only due to climate or geographical distance. Castilians are but one of the Ingredients. It is only foolish to think that Andalusians are Castilians that moved south,like if there was no people before the reconquista.Castilia is a much more recent product of the history than the people that lived in Andalusia There is also a lot of Basque, Catalan, Galician, Gypsy blood down there as well as the original substrate of aboriginal peoples that,as you might know, differ from the beginning to the northern , central eastern and western Iberians

. There is and have always been a completely different idiosyncrasy ,distribution of the land, plus, effectively all the aspects related to the land and the weather itself that help as much to develop the Andalusian type.

For all the respect that I have for your persona here, sometimes you can show yoiurself to be quite racist and Castellano-phobic. Of course you will jipper japper now on how you're only enemy of Espanolistas and Imperialistas Castellanos and not Castilians per se. But failing to recognize the Andalusians as an ethnic identity as much as the Catalans are, denotes a complex of superiority. You don't have to want to be a separate state to want to be recognized as a separate and distinct "pueblo". El Pueblo Andaluz as well as El Pueblo Catalan are currently 2 of the peoples integrating spain, along with the Castilians. You wanna part ways? you won't see me rising arms against that. But if you do, it won't be because you're something more different to the Castilian than the Andalusian is.

Do I belong to the same Ethnic group than South French and Portuguese? well, as much as I do to the Andalusian or the Catalan,and,in a broader sense, as a meta-ethnicity , of course I am an Ethnic Romance. Do I also belong to a unique subgroup of romance peoples? Of course I do, and that group is not the "Spaniard",as you would like it to be, since Spaniard is a nationality apart from an ethnic group, to which both you and I belong,like it or not

So yes, one person can belong to different ethnicities,or, better said, different layers of ethnicities. In some of these layers you the Catalan, and me, the Burgalese are standing together, in some other layers we stand along other people.

[Comte Arnau]

em... that is a political map of 1854. It didn't look the same in 1270,neither in 1450 or in 1936. This is what a political map of Spain looks like:

http://www.spaindreams.com/home/gifs/mapa.gif

Frankly, I thought you were smart enough to catch the intention of including that map: the use of such words as uniform, assimilated and colonial. I don't see the point in this political map in a discussion about ethnicities.


Looks familiar? Ethnicities change.some fade away,some are assimilated,some expand,some fusion or melt. Some separate to join again later. As for today, Valencias might or might not be Catalans , that is not for me to say,as I am neither Catalan nor Valencian and my experience to both limitates to a couple of summers working in Barcelona,and visits to my Aunt in the Castellon province)

I thought you were one of the Spaniards to still know the distinction between ethnicity and political citizenship. Apparently this is not so.


But what I can tell you is that Andalusians, over the centuries, have developed into 2 ethnic groups with personalities different enough to be considered as such. And it is not only due to climate or geographical distance. Castilians are but one of the Ingredients. It is only foolish to think that Andalusians are Castilians that moved south,like if there was no people before the reconquista.Castilia is a much more recent product of the history than the people that lived in Andalusia There is also a lot of Basque, Catalan, Galician, Gypsy blood down there as well as the original substrate of aboriginal peoples that,as you might know, differ from the beginning to the northern , central eastern and western Iberians. There is and have always been a completely different idiosyncrasy ,distribution of the land, plus, effectively all the aspects related to the land and the weather itself that help as much to develop the Andalusian type.

Really, if you think that Andalusians have passed from being southern Castilians to being a new derived ethnicity or whatever you like, cool, I simply don't care. After all, "Andalusian" is also a sort of invented umbrella term, as Fresa well knows.


For all the respect that I have for your persona here, sometimes you can show yoiurself to be quite racist and Castellano-phobic. Of course you will jipper japper now on how you're only enemy of Espanolistas and Imperialistas Castellanos and not Castilians per se. But failing to recognize the Andalusians as an ethnic identity as much as the Catalans are, denotes a complex of superiority. You don't have to want to be a separate state to want to be recognized as a separate and distinct "pueblo".

Lol. If you call that respect, you can save it then. So now I am a "Castellano-phobic" racist because I don't think Andalusians are a distinct ethnicity? What the fuck have you drunk today? A complex of superiority? Geez, you Spaniards solve all your troubles thinking that Catalans feel superior. Won't it rather be that you feel inferior? I've already exposed many times my view on what constitutes a distinct ethnicity, and it does not have to do with political will of separation. I personally consider the Dutch and the Flemish to be the same ethnic group, even if they happen to have two different political states and two different identities. And this does not make me feel superior to the Flemish or whatever... Conversely, the fact that the Aranese want to stay in Catalonia doesn't make them ethnic Catalans. They're Catalonian citizens, but ethnically Gascons. So I fail to understand your logic. It rather looks as if you are the Andalusophobic, not me. Sounds to me like those Catalans who don't like having anything to do with Valencians, because they think all Valencians are españolist chavs.


You wanna part ways? you won't see me rising arms against that. But if you do, it won't be because you're something more different to the Castilian than the Andalusian is.

Lol. From the very moment the native language of an Andalusian is Castilian while mine is not, it already makes me more different. But as I said, ethnicity and political will for independence don't necessarily have to go hand in hand. If Andalusians would like to be independent, so to speak, good for them, it'll be their decision. Or if an ethnicity wants to keep belonging to a country where a different ethnicity prevails, that's ok, although they'll always have to be struggling to survive.


Do I also belong to a unique subgroup of romance peoples? Of course I do, and that group is not the "Spaniard",as you would like it to be, since Spaniard is a nationality apart from an ethnic group, to which both you and I belong,like it or not

Clear up your mind, please. You say you are not from that group called 'Spaniard', but then you belong to the ethnic group of 'Spaniards', whatsoever it means? Wtf? And you even include me in it, just because? Looks like you're simply confusing ethnicity with nationality again.


So yes, one person can belong to different ethnicities,or, better said, different layers of ethnicities. In some of these layers you the Catalan, and me, the Burgalese are standing together, in some other layers we stand along other people.

Nah. People can have different identities and more than one nationality. But ethnicities, one, and more rarely, two.

[El Comunero Errante]

Nah. People can have different identities and more than one nationality. But ethnicities, one, and more rarely, two.

Mexicans and Cubans have the same Language as Castilians.Are they more ethnically similar to us than Catalans?



Being a region of Castile and being Castilian is something very different. As you might now since Catalonia is a Region of Spain and yet you do not identify as a Spaniard because you believe Spain is a synonym of Castile. Which is fine with me, whether I agree or not

Andalusia has been integrated politically into Spain for hundreds of years, and yes,It has been Castilianized . That doesn't mean that the people that we call Andalusians (an umbrella term,I agree, but then, so is Catalan) are just Southern Castilians,that is like saying that Americans are trans-atlantic Brits. There is a lot of Britain in America,but there is much more to America than that. In the same way,Andalusia was reconquered and repopulated to a certain extent from the Crown of Castile (which as you know,it shouldn't be confused with Castile itself),but it has also been historically a different region, and throughout its whole history, there has been much more to Andalusia than Castile.



What I meant by you and I being Spaniards, well... I was talking just about that: nationality


But in the end, all the matter of debate here is the meaning of the word ethnicity.It is clear than for you and for me they mean very different things.

For you ethnicity is something crystal clear, that can even be reduced to Language and/or Religion. For me ethnicityisa much broader and complicated term that circles , above all, around culture,way of life and idiosyncrasy . We could open a thread to discuss that. There might even be various opened already,but I mean one specifically to discuss the meaning of Ethnicity in the Iberian context

Spanish for me is also an Ethnic term. for you it means Castilian,for me it means Iberian (at least non Portuguese Iberian)

I am under the impression than under your concept of ethnicity, Argentines are Castilians too, and Canary Islanders probably too.


Language is not everything. Not even religion.There are many other factors that are as determining, such as politics,demographics, history, geography.


I am from Burgos, yet I have lived 5 years in Seville and spent a big part of my childhood in the south of Badajoz. And I can't stress enough how different those peoples are to the Atlantic Spaniards. They are much more a different country to us than Navarres or Basques will ever be. I know I have only spent 2 summers in Catalonia, but I can still compare the first impressions that both cities produced to me:

Barna and Vic, even Benicasim stroke me as different yet familiar. Sevilla was a fucking shock. full stop. As it was every summer when I went down to "el pueblo" (and I'm saying this in a very positive sense, I have always valued the richness of the Spanish diversity, and yet felt that there's also a common soul to all of us)

People from Aragon are closer to Castilian and Leonese than Andalusians, despite originally being a different ethnicity too with their own language . That is a fact. Under my definition of ethnicity, they clearly are one of their own (both Aragonese and Andalusians). A person from Oviedo and a Person from Santander, Vitoria or Burgos are different in a regional sense. As you mentioned Pyrenaic Catalans are from Coastal ones. But people from Andalusiaare different in a much deeper sense. There's not much , save the language, that an Atlantic Spaniard or an Old Castilian will find familiar in both the land and the people of the south. I mean,yes, of course, there is stuff, after all we have been politically united for houndreds of years,we are both Iberians and have much in common.


My point is, there is a very important cultural gap between the North of Spain and the South.Don't think that I don't know thatthere is also a big gap between East and West. But for you, East compared to the West is everything.For me, both are equally important, yetI still feel that,at least in terms of culture,people and way of life North vs South differences are stronger than West vs East

[link]

The map shows language retention, I think. The Castilian speakers in the south may still identify as Bask.The question is, would they also be viewed by other Basques as such? From what I know, their demonym is "Euskaldunak" - a literal translation would be "Basque speakers". So I had the impression that they're an ethnolinguistic group, i.e. if you don't speak Basque, you are not Basque.

[Zephyr]

that is like saying that Americans are trans-atlantic Brits. There is a lot of Britain in America,but there is much more to America than that.

America can never be compared to European paradigms. They have statehood ruling territories where a mix of ethnicities live.

You ask a Pole what's his ethnicity. He'll reply "I'm a Pole". But an American from the United States will reply "American", which is not an ethnicity, rather a demonym. At best they are "citizens from USA of <abcdef> descent".

As for the Iberian Peninsula, there's not only a North-South divide. There's a East-West divide since immemorial times. It has not been political only, it's present throughout history:

20000 — 15000 BC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Homo_Sapiens_in_Europe_-_solutrean_distribution_map-fr.svg/1000px-Homo_Sapiens_in_Europe_-_solutrean_distribution_map-fr.svg.png

1300 — 1000 BC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Peninsula_Iberica-Bronce_Final.png

200 BC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG

This the base of the peninsular ethnic reality. And then came the Romans and so forth.

[Comte Arnau]

Mexicans and Cubans have the same Language as Castilians.Are they more ethnically similar to us than Catalans?

Don't try to play the demagogue, this is about ethnicities in Europe, where peoples with a common language and culture/tradition attached to it, share a specific geographical continuum. Ultrapeninsular territories (and I might even include the Canary Islands) are Castilianised territories, not Castilian ones. The fact I give an essential importance to language does not mean it is the only element to constitute an ethnicity.


Being a region of Castile and being Castilian is something very different.

I don't follow you here.


As you might now since Catalonia is a Region of Spain

No. A "region" is always a constituent part of a territory, just like a "dialect" is a constitutent variety of one language. Catalonia, as a nation, transcends even the borders of political Spain. Only the Autonomous Community of Catalunya is a "region" of Spain. And not even that, as it is a "nationality", because the Spanish Constitution distinguishes between regiones (such as Murcia) and nacionalidades.


and yet you do not identify as a Spaniard because you believe Spain is a synonym of Castile. Which is fine with me, whether I agree or not

No. I don't think Spain=Castile. I think Spain has been made as the Greater Castile, which is different. The constituent Castile is the one formed as a result of the medieval expansion of old Castilians, from their birth and independence from the Leonese to the final stages of the Reconquista. The story from the 1500's to the 2000's is a different one, a gradual process of Castilianisation of the peninsula which often didn't even have to do with Castilians themselves. What I don't understand is why you all insist on telling that Spain is not the Great Castile, when you do know that the only language everybody is forced to know in any corner of Spain is Castilian.


Andalusia has been integrated politically into Spain for hundreds of years, and yes,It has been Castilianized . That doesn't mean that the people that we call Andalusians (an umbrella term,I agree, but then, so is Catalan) are just Southern Castilians,that is like saying that Americans are trans-atlantic Brits.

I have already said what I think about non-European territories.

Andalusian is a geographical umbrella term. Catalan is an ethnic umbrella term. There is an obvious difference. "Andalusian" is comparable to "Balearic", a late umbrella term for Minorcans, Majorcans, Ibizans and Formenterans, which are all Island/South-Eastern Catalans (at least, the traditional ones). And does it makes Balearics the same as Catalonians? No, Catalonians are not Balearic and Balearics are not Catalonian. But they're all Catalan.


In the same way,Andalusia was reconquered and repopulated to a certain extent from the Crown of Castile (which as you know,it shouldn't be confused with Castile itself),but it has also been historically a different region, and throughout its whole history, there has been much more to Andalusia than Castile.

If Andalusia happened to retain a Romandalusi language, things would probably be different, as it'd definitely give Andalusians a completely distinct sense of common identity with regard to Castilians. But it is not the case.

If what you're saying is that Andalusians are not Castilians because they were not in origin, then your argument brings us to believe that Castile and Castilians are only the very original cradle, mainly around Burgos, and that not even Valladolid or Toledo are Castilian.


But in the end, all the matter of debate here is the meaning of the word ethnicity.It is clear than for you and for me they mean very different things.

For you ethnicity is something crystal clear, that can even be reduced to Language and/or Religion. For me ethnicityisa much broader and complicated term that circles , above all, around culture,way of life and idiosyncrasy .

It's always better to have things clear, IMO. Otherwise definitions could vary in accordance with the mood of the day.

And no, I don't reduce ethnicity to language or religion. What I always say is that those two cultural elements are the two essential pillars for self-identification as a distinct ethnic group in any single ethnicity of the whole Old World, as it can be verified all throughout History.


Spanish for me is also an Ethnic term. for you it means Castilian,for me it means Iberian (at least non Portuguese Iberian)

Lol. So Spanish doesn't mean Castilian, but Iberian, yet only "non-Portuguese Iberian"? And can you tell me what joins "non-Portuguese Iberians"? I'll help you: official knowledge of the Castilian language. ;)

I can concede you a common sense of identity with Iberia, but the whole of Iberia. I feel just as close to someone from Cáceres as to someone from Porto, I don't understand the 'Portuguese barrier' you mention. But even so, to us Catalans -and I'm sure it's the same for Basques and even, to a lesser degree, with Upper Aragonese- there has also traditionally been a sense of closeness with Languedocians/Gascons, a geographical and cultural continuum. We've looked at Europe in the face, not as 'something beyond the Pyrenees', as most Iberians have typically done. It's only that forced recent layer of Spanish vs French conceptions that are breaking that common lace.

Spanish will only really be an ethnic term when the uniformization of all citizens of Spain is completed, so that nobody can identify with anything other than Spanish. And I sincerely hope Catalonia is a different country when that day arrives. Or Andorra will have to admit 'cultural refugees'. :p


I am under the impression than under your concept of ethnicity, Argentines are Castilians too, and Canary Islanders probably too.

Language is not everything. Not even religion.There are many other factors that are as determining, such as politics,demographics, history, geography

I wholeheartedly hope that, after all the previous explanation, my thoughts about this question are finally clear.


My point is, there is a very important cultural gap between the North of Spain and the South.Don't think that I don't know thatthere is also a big gap between East and West. But for you, East compared to the West is everything.For me, both are equally important, yetI still feel that,at least in terms of culture,people and way of life North vs South differences are stronger than West vs East

Both the N/S and the E/W divisions are important. Just like they are in Europe as a whole. But ethnohistorically, the real difference is E/W, as the constituent ethnicities that survive to this day are in that direction, being modern Iberia a result of their expansion southwards. And historically too, the Sistema Ibérico range has been a natural barrier in many cases. Not a complete barrier -neither have the Pyrenees been one- but a barrier. Have you ever wondered why there has always been in History that sort of ethnic E/W division? Celts in the West and Iberians in the East, the Crown of Castile in the West and the Crown of Aragon in the East, Ibero-Romance ethnicities (Portuguese, Leonese, Castilian) in the West and Occitanoid ones in the East...


The question is, would they also be viewed by other Basques as such? From what I know, their demonym is "Euskaldunak" - a literal translation would be "Basque speakers". So I had the impression that they're an ethnolinguistic group, i.e. if you don't speak Basque, you are not Basque.

Each Basque is a world of his own, I'd say. I have a very good Basque friend who is clear in this: 'if the person doesn't speak in Basque to me, I'm sorry, I can't consider him/her Basque.' That's why she considers the Basque-speaking Upper Navarrese more Basque than some people from the Basque Country. And she makes it natural, it's not a political consideration, as she gives a fuck about politics. It just comes spontaneous in her.


America can never be compared to European paradigms. They have statehood ruling territories where a mix of ethnicities live.

You ask a Pole what's his ethnicity. He'll reply "I'm a Pole". But an American from the United States will reply "American", which is not an ethnicity, rather a demonym. At best they are "citizens from USA of <abcdef> descent".

As for the Iberian Peninsula, there's not only a North-South divide. There's a East-West divide since immemorial times. It has not been political only, it's present throughout history:

I completely agree. :thumb001:

[Archduke]

bump

[Mordid]

bump
Oh no, you didn't.

[Alex Delarge]

Because a Valencian thru and thru is more different from a Castilian than a Portuguese is.

:confused:

How does this work? For one thing a portuguese will struggle to talk in castillian. And castillian surnames are inexistant here, unlike in Valencia since some centuries.

[Alvarado]

:confused:

How does this work? For one thing a portuguese will struggle to talk in castillian. And castillian surnames are inexistant here, unlike in Valencia since some centuries.

The vast majority of Valencians don't want anything to do with Catalonia. Some of them are even reluctant to admit that they speak Catalan.

[Alex Delarge]

The vast majority of Valencians don't want anything to do with Catalonia. Some of them are even reluctant to admit that they speak Catalan.

Well, i am imagining my mother alone in Madrid and a valencian lady. My mother would be a complete tourist and outsider, she doesn't speak any language other than portuguese (with a southern accent). The valencian lady on the other hand would be pretty much at home. I mean she would be in her country in the end of the day.

I have a hard time figuring how my mother would be closer to castillians.

[Lábaru]

Well, i am imagining my mother alone in Madrid and a valencian lady. My mother would be a complete tourist and outsider, she doesn't speak any language other than portuguese (with a southern accent). The valencian lady on the other hand would be pretty much at home. I mean she would be in her country in the end of the day.

I have a hard time figuring how my mother would be closer to castillians.

The Valencian lady is in "home", generally a Spanish don't feel himself like a foreign in Madrid, only a minority, people with personal and political problems.

[Willem]

Full version:
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2680/ethnicdistribution.png

Resized:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2680/ethnicdistribution.png

Enjoy

Frisians consider themselves distinct from the Dutch, and also the North-Eastern part of the Netherlands were originally Low German speakers and therefore closer to Germans than to Hollanders.

[Archduke]

more important is that the balkan region is right (except that there are no bosniaks). :coffee:

[Vučko]

Full version:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2680/ethnicdistribution.png


There are a few things wrong with this map;

1. The Welsh are a separate ethnic group.
2. Macedonians are a separate ethnic group.
3. Bosniaks are a separate ethnic group.
4. Montenegrins are a separate ethnic group
5. Belarusians are a separate ethnic group.
6. Czechs and Slovaks aren't the same ethnic group.

[Archduke]

2. Macedonians are a separate ethnic group.
4. Montenegrins are a separate ethnic group
5. Belarusians are a separate ethnic group.

No, no and no. :D

[dralos]

No, no and no. :D
ancient macedonians are bulgarians in denial
montenegrins are alboz in denial
and belarussians well,russians:D

[Vučko]

No, no and no. :D

The map is called 'Ethnic map of Europe - 2011'. Do you deny the existence of these people in 2011?

[Comte Arnau]

:confused:

How does this work? For one thing a portuguese will struggle to talk in castillian. And castillian surnames are inexistant here, unlike in Valencia since some centuries.

I was talking about real Valencians, not Castilianized ones.

As for what you say about struggling in the language... I don't have any problems with English or French when in London or Paris, but that doesn't make more English or French.

[Archduke]

The map is called 'Ethnic map of Europe - 2011'. Do you deny the existence of these people in 2011?

yeah, since they're fake.

[Europa]

So many empty heads around here...
That map is a pile of shit.

[Thraex]

No, no and no. :D

Now, you're going to make me very upset! We are not Bulgarians. We are ancient Macedonians, got it? k thx bai!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsi860xd7F1qlowk7o1_500.gif

[dralos]

danm ancient macedonians you got dushbag on your side now:D

[Arthas]

Interesting map. I think it's clear that some political boundaries need to be changed.

There are a few mistakes though. Northern Ireland should be the same colour as either England & Wales or Scotland.

[kamane]

There are a few things wrong with this map;

1. The Welsh are a separate ethnic group.
2. Macedonians are a separate ethnic group.
3. Bosniaks are a separate ethnic group.
4. Montenegrins are a separate ethnic group
5. Belarusians are a separate ethnic group.
6. Czechs and Slovaks aren't the same ethnic group.

7. Considerable amount of Rusians in Western Lithuania - nonsence. Though actually red Eastern Lithuanian is quite a nonsence too.

[Alex Delarge]

I was talking about real Valencians, not Castilianized ones.

As for what you say about struggling in the language... I don't have any problems with English or French when in London or Paris, but that doesn't make more English or French.

So in what way is a portuguese closer to castillians than a valencian? Genetically, culturally?

[evon]

Full version:
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2680/ethnicdistribution.png

Resized:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2680/ethnicdistribution.png

Enjoy

This is a total failure on several points, Saami ethnic groups are not a majority population in most of the Green areas and they are not one ethnic group, they are several with different languages corresponding to each ethnic group. Russian ethnic groups such as Komi and countless others are totally neglected on this map, there are also lots of other groups around Europe that are not listed...

[Comte Arnau]

So in what way is a portuguese closer to castillians than a valencian? Genetically, culturally?

The ethnogenesis is clear. Modern ethnicities in Iberia -at least the Romance ones- stem from the beginning of the Reconquest. Ethnically and politically, Portuguese, Asturians and Castilians stem from an old single "Leonese" ethnopolitical unity in the North-West, while in the North-East it's all about Frankish little counties. Compare both corners.

800 AD
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/800/800_Southwest.jpg

900 AD
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/900/900.jpg

1000 AD
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/europe/sweu1000large.gif

1100 AD
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1100/1100_Southwest.jpg


Surnames are traditionally very close in Portugal and Castile, with similar practices (all those patronymical endings in -es and in -ez, for instance). While in the North-East they've only become common with the massive migrations of the last centuries.

Galician-Portuguese has traditionally been much closer to Castilian than Catalan has, Catalan being even a possible import to the Peninsula. Obviously old sovereignty has allowed the language of Portugal to follow its own way in the phonological aspect, becoming very divergent from the modern Castilian standard. We could say that both close languages have driven gradually apart, while Catalan has followed the other path, it has become more and more Iberian and Castilianoid. Yet, the core vocabulary still reveals even nowadays how close Portuguese and Spanish are, while Catalan is still closer to Occitan. (Listen to a North Catalan, they speak the language with a French accent, and you'll know what I mean)

The problem with genetics is that analyses are not made following these patterns. More than half the population in the East has mixed with other Spaniards, so it's difficult to be sure. We should see what results would look like if individuals were really traditional from their homeland.

I'm not meaning at all with this that the Portuguese are not an obviously distinct ethnicity. Of course you are, even from the very origin. And different people will always have different opinions because we consider things after different factors. I see things in a diachronical way (throughout time).

Whether you are that different from Galicians or not, you know well that's another story. :p

[Alex Delarge]

Thanks for the long answer, i was curious about your point of view. Now, i'm not disagreeing with history and how the kingdoms emerged but mind was more focused on modern times when i replyed for the first time. And on modern times is highly debatable if a portuguese is closer to a castillian than a valencian in any way you want to compare.
About the language, there is a language barrier on oral mode, while it may not be there on written mode. I don't agree with what you say about surnames, since the only similiar ones are the patronymical surnames a few pan-iberian ones. A lot of Galician-portuguese or just portuguese surnames have no match in Castille, like my own surnames for example.

So, in short, politics and the way history went have made a huge difference to the point that now i would be a complete tourist and foreigner in Madrid (or in Galicia for that matter), while a valencian would not.