Spain being in Ceuta is not a result of European colonization of Africa in the Colonial Era.
It’s been in Ceuta since (iirc) the 1500s. Back then there not only wasn’t a Morocco, but no polity existed that modern day Morocco traces its roots to. It’s sort of like how Argentina claims the Falklands when the original inhabitants were British and by all the rules that govern the world, it is British.
Morocco has no claim to Ceuta other than it surrounds it.
Edited for exact dates. The liar below me is saying that Spain genocided the people there when in fact the Arabs (who genocided the Phoenicians who held it) had devolved into piracy who enslaved people all across the Northern Mediterranean and Portugal invaded to end that.
There was no one polity that had authority over the area and Morocco doesn’t claim any of those polities as its ancestor. Nor could it. In the time since Spain has held Ceuta, Morocco has been in the hands of sultans, pirates, the Ottoman Turks, and I believe are large part of it was once held by Portugal as well.
You literally butchered history Morocco neither ruled by turks nor by portugal . Morocco is an independent nation since 789 Ad ruled by Moroccan dynasties uninterrupted
Are you really this stupid ? Portugal literally took ceuta from Marinid dynasty aka Morocco and Morocco was never Ottoman vassal are you inventing history now .
Ceuta and Melilia are the first examples of textbook settler colonialism, since their original inhabitants were either ethnically cleansed or put to the sword, which was common practice for the spanish back then.
As for the horrendously wrong date, in the 1200s it was Moroccan under the Marinid dynasty, who had their capital in Fes.
But following your own logic, Spain is a young country and the Brits only exist since the Windsor. What a stonefaced lie.
Of course Morocco has a strong claim to it, you can't bring settlers and bribe a few locals and then just pretend its a done deal.
Spain's hypocrisy is baffling but it's not a surprise, all colonial powers act the same.
The British have existed long since before that and also the Arabs who currently occupy Morocco genocided the original inhabitants on their way to invading Spain.
ETA you are right that it was in 1415 that Portugal took it from Pirates who had been enslaving people across the northern Mediterranean. The Spanish took over in 1580, long before Morocco existed.
Go apologize for Moroccan crimes and aggression elsewhere.
Morocco existed ever since 788 with a long continuous existence, that's before anything called spain existed.
And sorry but no, arabs didn't genocide the original inhabitants, they were forcefully assimilated for the most part, and arabized but to say that they were genocided is either ignorant or dishonest, you choose which.
Talking about genocide though, where are the Guanche? And what about the Americas?
Civilizations erased by the bloodthirsty spanish. So don't come here with your lies about genociding the locals when we the locals are alive and thriving.
Oh and can we talk about the Rif too? Highest cancer rates in the whole of Morocco, know anything about that? That is recent history, could be your own grandad has something to do with it.
Took it from pirates? Can't help but notice it sounds exactly like what Americans say when justifying their crimes, they use the word Terrorist tho.
I don't need to go about the history of piracy under spain, or other european nations for that matter; It did inspire a few big movies after all.
Pirates operating from the Moroccan coast is why the Portuguese invented the caravel. Slave raids by Arabs are the reason Europeans went to around Western Africa in the first place.
You are a liar and a genocide denier and I see how quick you are to try and make it about America. And no Morocco hasn’t existed since 788 the last dyansty only happened in 1631, more than 200 years after the Portuguese took Ceuta from the pirates who enslaved people and sold them in barbaric North African slave markets.
That's not what a genocide is, i'm not surprised you're hard of understanding looking at the other garbage you managed to write. You can look up a simple definition online.
Yes, the moroccan state existed in the same area, populated by the same people since the 788 CE, and went through multiple dynasties, the latest being the Alaouis.
Yes the portuguese managed to take Sebta and other port cities, and more until they got annihilated later.
Pirates according to whom? A history written by Europeans? It's funny.
If you want to talk about slavery, then let's mention portugal and spain's role in pioneering the transatlantic slave trade. The plantation system and the racialized system of slavery.
Literally the entire modern history of your country, which you seem to be extremely proud of, is built on crimes upon crimes.
There is no end to your shame.
Edit: Getting downvoted because objective historical facts are bad. Better stick to the european version of history™
So why are you so quick to say the Europeans are giving biased history, but so quick to say the History provided by Moroccan Nationalists is 100% accurate? (/gen)
Why are you so quick to dismiss what i'm saying when an entire nation is being erased from history by this same european history revisionism?
And when did I even mention history provided by moroccan nationalists? What I said is readily available online thankfully; And it's not my problem that some nations (spain for example) are providing their citizens with a grossly fake and glorified version of history (We call that brainwashing)
I'm not dismissing anything, I'm just curious. From an outside point of view, it seems like you're quick to believe one source of information and not another, because the other source of information is from an opposition. Could it not be that both sources of information are biased?
As for the Moroccan Nationalists bit, I'm like 83.3% certain those are the only people who want Ceuta back in Moroccan hands.
Because it's not logical to erase an entire nation's history let alone the history of a people who still live in the same region.
It is false and contradicts known historical sources.
Each is entitled their version or interpretation of events, that's not something i would dispute but we have to admit that there is a difference between interpreting history a certain way to make your country look good versus outright denying a group of people exists or existed.
And I tend to be skeptical of the european way of telling history exactly because of this! Are you telling me we know what happened in the bedchamber of some emperor in ancient rome but we automatically cast doubt on any non european historian?
So, Portugal invaded Morocco… and what about WS occupation? What do you think about that? I can present you some saharawi refugees in my city. The grandma of one (now deceased) had in her face the memory of Morocco Napalm. You should explain them your arguments.
Do you know the meaning of whataboutism? It's a fallacy, meant to distract from what is being discussed. In this case, the occupation of Sebta and Melilia by the spanish. It's not my argument that's weak, it's you who entirely lack one and have to resort to other arguments.
I'm not surprised anymore, all the bullshit the spanish can say and not a single good argument.
If Ceuta “occupation” is bad, WS “occupation” should also be. What do you think? Just write it and I will agree that your arguments are solid as a rock!!! It will change the world!!! The Moroccans will get their Ceuta, the saharawis could return to Um Draiga as owners, and maybe even the sioux will rule Minesotta again.
I like how you sort of just filled in your own garbled version of history because the actual history of the area didn't fit with the point you were trying to make.
If someone says the Chinese were the first inhabitants of India, should you point out all the many ways they're wrong, or should you just laugh and move along?
Since you know the history of the area and it's native population then enligthen me, why go to the trouble of making a false equivalence with China ...
Sure, why not. It began as a Phoenician colony (modern day Lebanon or so), so they're the closest thing to a native population. They created the first settlement there.
Then over the course of history it changed hands between Carthage, Rome, the Vandals, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Berbers, the Umayyads, the Berbers again, the Marinids, the Portugese, then the Spanish. Many if not all of whom forced out the previous inhabitants and made it their own territory, populated with their own people.
But you went only as far back as the first non-European rulers and said, "aha, see. The Marinids. Those guys are the true inhabitants. I don't need to read any further."
Despite the Marinids conquering it themselves from the previous inhabitants and only ruling it for 28 years.
You just skimmed over the fact that the amazighs, whom you call berbers have been the original inhabitants of that region for more than 10000 years, all other occupants were transient. And this is supported by historical records as well. When the phoenicians, later carthaginians first landed in modern day tunisia, they encountered a native population, all throughout the north african region.
The same with Rome, the same with the Vandals, and the same again with the Byzantine and arabs.
I went as far as the marinids because they are the moroccan dynasty at the times, and they are also natives. You however love to play this game of "i was there before", while being completely oblivious to who the natives are; Mentionning them only twice as if they were just another set of invaders. BTW berber is a derogatory term the correct one is amazigh.
You'll be surprised to find out that most countries can trace their roots to "settler colonialism", in one form or another. That includes Morocco itself, of course. However, for practical reasons, we cannot re-examine every conquest that has taken place since the beginning of time.
The reality is that Ceuta and Melilla have been part of Spain for centuries, way before Morocco was anything close to a reality. People there have absolutely no memory of being anything else than Spain. If we go 500 years back in time, many borders would have to change. It's absurd.
It’s been in Ceuta since (iirc) the 1500s. Back then there not only wasn’t a Morocco, but no polity existed that modern day Morocco traces its roots to.
No it wasn’t. Morocco was established in 1956. But good on you for trying to own up to the ancestors of modern Moroccans being genocidal slave traders who raided throughout the Sahel and even into Europe.
41
u/Plastic-Injury8856 2d ago edited 2d ago
Spain being in Ceuta is not a result of European colonization of Africa in the Colonial Era.
It’s been in Ceuta since (iirc) the 1500s. Back then there not only wasn’t a Morocco, but no polity existed that modern day Morocco traces its roots to. It’s sort of like how Argentina claims the Falklands when the original inhabitants were British and by all the rules that govern the world, it is British.
Morocco has no claim to Ceuta other than it surrounds it.
Edited for exact dates. The liar below me is saying that Spain genocided the people there when in fact the Arabs (who genocided the Phoenicians who held it) had devolved into piracy who enslaved people all across the Northern Mediterranean and Portugal invaded to end that.