To add come crucial context the article deceptively chose to omit: the Alhambra decree was passed in 1492, the same year that Spain was liberated from seven centuries of Moorish conquest and colonization [1], during which it had been used as a literal source of Christian slaves [2]. That partly motivated the decree, as "Both Muslim and Catholic sources tell that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders" [3].
I was also surprised to see the article cite, as reason for opposing reparations for this decree, that it did not extend the same courtesy to the Moorish invaders - all without mentioning they were invaders, or that there had been any invasion or occupation. It even implores Spain to "reconcile with its past", when reconciliation with the past is what brought about the Alhambra decree in the first place.
I think history is a bit more complex than that. The article you link about slavery in Spain also tells that the Spanish did the same to the moors. Also, in 1492 Spain as such didn’t exist. The Moors invaded the Visigoths! It was no more a rightful invasion that what the Visigoths themselves did when Rome fell. I see the reconquista as a very effective example of National Myth. I personally don’t really agree with it.
Moore complexity: the Visigoths didn't necessarily invade Roman Gaul or Iberia but were resettled there after their time in Rome, which wasn't the Roman capital when they sacked it.
In 418, [Western Roman emperor] Honorius rewarded his Visigothic federates by giving them land in Gallia Aquitania on which to settle ... and eventually were invited into Spain by a Roman usurper in the autumn of 409 .... This was probably done under hospitalitas, the rules for billeting army soldiers. The settlement formed the nucleus of the future Visigothic kingdom that would eventually expand across the Pyrenees and onto the Iberian peninsula. That Visigothic settlement proved paramount to Europe's future as had it not been for the Visigothic warriors who fought side by side with the Roman troops under general Flavius Aetius, it is perhaps possible that Attila would have seized control of Gaul, rather than the Romans being able to retain dominance.
> I think history is a bit more complex than that.
I am introducing that complexity. It is the article that omitted it to tell a simple bad guys oppressing good guys tale.
> 1492 Spain as such didn’t exist. The Moors invaded the Visigoths! It was no more a rightful invasion that what the Visigoths themselves did when Rome fell.
So you should have no trouble or qualms justifying the colonization of the Americas or India using that same logic, correct? It's strange how fluid and complex identity is in some cases, but straightforward in others. The Alhambra decree wasn't passed by "Spain" either, but by Castile and Aragon, yet we have no trouble drawing a line between these entities, at least when we want to assign blame.
The kingdom of Castile committed what would amount to a genocide in todays terms of the Moriscos and tried to wash its history of the Muslim past. But there’s still a lot of influence in the Andalusia region and even some crypto-moorish people may have survived to today.
It is valid to point out the discriminatory nature of inviting back only Jewish descendants but not of the Muslims they expelled and murdered. It is not simply about colonialism, as Al-Andalus became a very mixed up place, in many ways a bright example of tolerance at times, of scientific progress at times, and cultural refinement. Not to mention that the people ruled by the Visigoths invited Tariq bin zayed when he invaded across Gibraltar, so that he would remove king Rodrick. Today a country like Castile would be viewed as a more undeveloped, “barbarian” radical neighbor thwarting a more prosperous & enlightened yet divided realm.
The popular thought in Spain on “invasion” and Reconquista is completely colored by the politics of the country occupying Iberia today. With names like “matamoros” belying a history of contempt for the Moors. But it does not erase the crimes perpetuated by the historical Castile successor states, which still affect the descendants of those mistreated today. And one day, as they tend to, the tides of history change again they will.
> Not to mention that the people ruled by the Visigoths invited Tariq bin zayed when he invaded across Gibraltar, so that he would remove king Rodrick.
Per wikipedia [1], it was rival factions of Visigoths, that the Moors expertly divide and conquered. I'm sure otherwise you are correct, and with the minor exception of enslaving the locals, the Moors were able to build a bright example or progress and science and tolerance on the land and backs of those backwards savages, sorry, barbarians.
During one of the multiple raids in 710, the Muslims "made several inroads into the mainland, which produced a rich spoil and several captives, who were so handsome that Musa and his companions had never seen the like of them". The natives of Hispania viewed the Berbers in a similar way as the Byzantines viewed the Arabs, as barbarians, and feared an attack by them.
(From [2] we can infer the likely fate of these captives) sure seem to describe a plain invasion to me, no scare quotes needed. It also doesn't look like the people welcoming the Moors as liberators, as you tried to paint them. But perhaps you know something I don't - history is not my forte.
[2] The harem could contain thousands of slave concubines; the harem of Abd al-Rahman I consisted of 6,300 women. They were appreciated for their light skin. [presumably not all the slave women ended up somewhere as comfortable as an imperial harem, but wikipedia is very economical in describing that aspect of Al Andalus] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Spain#Slavery_in_Al...
Berbers were considered a different group than Arabs and still today there are distinctions. There is a distinction between the Almohads and later Almoravids who later invaded Al-Andalus and their different ways and culture than the previous Andalusians of the Umayyad Caliphate.
You can check out for yourself, most of the Muslims in Andalusia were from converts from Hispania by the later periods.
>Half of the Christians in Al-Andalus are reported to have converted to Islam by the 10th century, with more than 80% by the 11th century. Many Christians who did not accept Islam as their religion became increasingly Arabized in terms of culture.
[1].
When the emphasis is on the word invasion of Hispania by the Moors, but not on the invasion of the Christian kingdoms to the north (often termed the “Reconquista”), it is part of a politically biased narrative to support the idea that the Kingdoms like Castile, Asturias, Aragon, etc were merely retaking what was theirs. But in reality this was its own invasion and propaganda was used to justify a “Reconquista”. They forged an imaginary connection to the Visigoths in order to create the idea that Iberia was all theirs for the taking.
You can look this up, for a long time the term Reconquista was not even mentioned, it was used as a political tool to grab more land & claim a fight for Christendom. But the truth of Al-Andalus is that it was much more mixed up than this simple dichotomy. Even Castile had a religious edict of tolerance until they chose to revoke it following the establishment of control over Granada.
A lot of Spanish nationalist thought and the historical Catholic narrative constructs the idea that the Moors were merely foreigners. But Al-Andalus featured intermarriage and largely voluntary conversion of natives of the land.
There are even documentaries about the Moriscos who went in hiding in mountains and various ways they worked around the Spanish oppression at the time & attempt to root out their culture and religion.
For more on details of the original entry of the Moors into Iberia and how minorities like Jews welcomed the new rulers, see [2].
I was also surprised to see the article cite, as reason for opposing reparations for this decree, that it did not extend the same courtesy to the Moorish invaders - all without mentioning they were invaders, or that there had been any invasion or occupation. It even implores Spain to "reconcile with its past", when reconciliation with the past is what brought about the Alhambra decree in the first place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Spain#Slavery_in_Al...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#M...