Hacker News Reader

Comment by alecsm | Hacker News Reader

Because it is Spain, it's not a "territory they are keeping".

Ceuta was Spanish before the US even existed.

Algeria used to be France, not just a "territory they are keeping".

So we have an overseas territory in another continent whose acquisition literally marked the beginning of the age of colonization. Sounds like a colony

It is not. It's an integral part of Spain, and their citizens have exactly the same rights than the rest of us. They also have representation at the parliament. Ceuta has been part of Spain before Morocco existed, there's no claim they can make. It even went back to Roman times, when the territory was called Mauritania Hispania. That included the Riff, so if anybody needs to return any territory that would be Morocco.

Why is the US part of the consideration?

How do you think it became Spain? Do you think some African dudes one day started saying "Hola, ahora somos Españoles?"

Nah, some Portuguese guys with weapons showed up in 1415 (it was Portugal before becoming Spanish through marriage). You know what you call it when people with weapons expand their territory on other continents? Imperialism.

How do you think Morocco became Morocco? Do you think some Moroccan dudes one day started saying they are Moroccans?

That's how stupid your question is.

There are several countries that span over more than one continent and that doesn't mean they have to give away their territories just because.

The question is: Where do you draw the line?

Because if you go back far enough, then "always any territory belonged already to someone else or the ancestors somewhen in time"

:-))

So, one might argue the "original borders" are the "true one" at that point when national states started to exist (in fact, the nation/national state is a very young construct, around ~300 years)

Not just because. Because it causes huge logistical problems (as evidenced by this post) for no conceivable gain and was an ill-advised acquisition from an era of imperial conquest.

The only reason to hold on to it at this point is Western chauvinism. The rest of Europe has long given up its colonial holdings in Africa. Why are Spaniards holding on to this relic that causes nothing but trouble? Just let the Africans have Africa.

Same logic applies to Gibraltar (just let the Spanish have Spain) and the Falklands (just let the Argentines have Argentina) fwiw. All these little colonial outposts cause nothing but trouble and only still exist because of chauvinism

No.

Ceuta and Melilla have been Spanish cities for centuries with 95% and 86% of Spanish population. How would you feel living where your family have been living forever and one day they tell you you're no longer Spanish, you're out of the EU and you live in Morocco.

Is the US giving away Hawaii? Is Russia giving away its Asian territory? What about Turkey? Does Spain have to give away the Canary Islands too?

Not forever. Only for a few hundred years. And they'd still be Spanish, and they'd have the option to move to Spain proper.

And if they didn't want that, then their ancestors shouldn't fucking have brutally conquered land on another continent? Or they could've spent the last few hundred years moving back to where they came from? Just because their imperialism is a while ago doesn't mean it's just.

> Is the US giving away Hawaii?

Does the US have huge logistical problems holding on to Hawaii and cause a problem for the rest of the supernational organization it shares open borders with? Does Russia? Turkey?

So the problem is logistical. Ukraine has a major logistical problem holding a third of its territory, should they give it up?

Also, again, using your argument. Why doesn't the US give away all its territory that they conquered during centuries? Do you think the Arabs that invaded northern Africa should also go back to where they belong?

You sound like someone who has zero self awareness and even less history knowledge.

Not even the UN considers Ceuta and Melilla as colonies or occupied territories.

Curious: If these two do not consider them as occupied, as what are they considered in their understading?

They are considered just Spain. Nothing more, nothing less.

Errr, to whom should Hawaii be given/transferred?

Wrong - see post above:

-- Spain became a unified nation in 1492 after the union of the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon.

Ceuta was acquired "somehow around that time block", so its not true to say that Ceuta was always (ie "since ever") a part of Spain, since it was acquired shortly after the forming of Spain. --

The above user's comment never claimed that Ceuta was always a part of Spain...?

And even before that, during Roman times, it was called Mauritania Hispania and it was considered part of Hispania. We are talking about millennia of history here backing up that Ceuta is part of Spain.

Arab colonialism?

Unfortunately, this is not the correct interpretation:

Spain became a unified nation in 1492 after the union of the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon.

Ceuta was acquired "somehow around that time block", so its not true to say that Ceuta was always (ie "since ever") a part of Spain, since it was acquired shortly after the forming of Spain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com