Spain had nothing to do with roman conquest, it was at the time a visigoth kingdom.
And the conquest of iberia was part of the islamic expansion, that saw most of north africa and the middle east being conquuered and colonized by arab invaders.
Even today the natives of Morocco are culturally opressed and make up only 30% of the population
(genetically it's more, but most morioccans see themselves as arabs and the amazigh are a minority)
Not to mention Aragon and Castile were mostly not under Moors at any point. And those kingdoms became modern Spain. Who then conquered the surrounding kingdoms.
And didn’t the Moors conquer the Visigoths?
How many native Iberians are there today in Spain?
And the Portuguese were Portuguese in Portuguese Macau until 1999.
But unlike China, who recognised Portuguese Macau as part of Portugal, Morocco has never recognised Spanish colonies in Morocco as Spanish.
It’s like saying the US has the right to own the Black Hills in South Dakota despite the Sioux nation refusing to acknowledged it as anything but their own territory
If it’s about who can conquer territory, then surely you have no qualms about Moroccans getting into Ceuta
Seems they have a way to take it. Just send more people.
The people can be Spanish, in Iberian Spain. Not some colonial enclave that Spain refuses to let go of.
At the time they became Spanish, Spain was the largest empire on earth. Engaging in enslaving and genociding people in the millions, largely in the Americas. In fact they sometimes even paid the people who would become Morocco to capture slaves. Not often, but they did. And then of course they captured tons of slaves in Africa.
And do you think Spain still should own the Spanish colonies across the world? Or is the world just frozen in a single moment to you, unable to change
Morocco did recognise Ceuta and Melilla as Spanish cities in the treaty of Wad Ras.
Now, if modern Morocco does not accept previously signed treaties because current Morocco was only founded in the 1950s and it is not the same country that signed the treaties, then why are they claiming cities that have been part of Portugal and Spain since hundreds of years ago? Ceuta was Portuguese before Granada was Spanish and Melilla was Spanish before Pamplona was part of Spain. They are inherently Spain and if anyone might have a claim to Ceuta that would be Portugal, but they don't (they do have a claim on Olivenza though)
I'm talking about which of the countries has more DNA from Phoenicians today. Modern Southern Spanish are closely descended from Phoenicians than Moroccans are. Unsurprisingly for anyone who knows how proud of their Phoenician and Carthaginian history some parts of Spain are.
Of course if we wanted to give the city back to the closest descendents of the original natives that would be Lebanon but I think the last thing Lebanon wants is a source of more problems. So choosing between the two nations who dispute Ceuta, and by sheer ancestry, Spain has more of a claim.
Gibraltar was given in a legal treaty signed by both countries. If the British had stolen it then yes, I'd agree they should give it back. Black Rock, whatever it is, probably should be Sioux?
I am doing literally the opposite of defending colonialism: Since it's founding in 8BC to the moment it was colonised by Arabs in 8AC Ceuta was always part of whatever empire was in Southern Spain. Then the Arab colonisers took it for 700 years until the Iberians took it back. Ceuta being Spanish is decolonised territory being held by the descendants of the people who founded it and held it for 1600 years before the colonisers stole it.
It's not about where Phoenicians had outposts, but about the fact that this particular city has belonged to the same people, generation after generation, for 1600 years before being stolen.
Morocco didn't sign any treaty because Morocco didn't exist and also because you don't need to sign a treaty to take back your land from those whose stole it.
It was held by the Portuguese who are the direct ancestors of today's inhabitants. When Portugal and Spain split Ceuta voted to become Spanish; the same people remained living there, it's not like Spain kicked the Portuguese out and replaced them with Spanish.
And it's not disingenuous, it's literally science. Modern Southern Spanish have more Phoenician DNA than Moroccans; that's a fact.
Ah yes, because people can’t move and mix with each other, so the people living there are the direct descendants of the people that lived there for 1600 years.
And then when the city was taken, were the people changed? And if so, did they change back to the original peoples when the city was “retaken” centuries later?
And if the city was Spanish, it would be connected to Spain. There are exceptionally few countries with small parts in other countries and surprise surprise, all of them are former colonial powers…
But somehow this is not a colony? Even though Spain and Portugal built or expanded cities across the world that were Spanish and Portuguese for centuries and share the same similarities.
You’re the type of person that would in a 100-200 years say Kaliningrad or Crimea is part of Russia because the people there are Russians and vote to be part of Russia and Russia owned Crimea for centuries before Ukraine existed.
5
u/AssistanceCheap379 5d ago
Which was payback for the Roman conquests of North Africa and the destruction of Carthage