14 ms·
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
by vrganj 3mo ago
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
- alecsm 3mo agoNo. 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?
- vrganj 3mo agoNot 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?
- alecsm 3mo agoSo 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.
- KellyCriterion 3mo agoCurious: If these two do not consider them as occupied, as what are they considered in their understading?
- alecsm 3mo agoThey are considered just Spain. Nothing more, nothing less.
- KellyCriterion 3mo agoErrr, to whom should Hawaii be given/transferred?
- KellyCriterion 3mo agoWrong - 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. --
- umbra07 3mo agoThe above user's comment never claimed that Ceuta was always a part of Spain...?
- torcete 3mo agoAnd 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.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]