Spaniards and Portuguese

I'm speaking of the europeans, not the central and south americans.

How come they have contributed so little to western art, music, literature, and especially philosophy, science and technology, in comparison with the French, the Italians, British, Germans and Greeks? Their cuisine isn't exactly world renowned either, especially in comparison to their Latin cousins, or with other Mediterranean countries (the Greeks).

Is it a race and/or culture thing? Something else?

The Portuguese population is small, so they have an excuse, the Spanish do not. Are they underachievers? ?

I'm not saying their sunny peninsula has produced nothing, nothing, no cultural achievements- Picasso, Cervantes, the guitar, Spinoza... just less... quite less.

Hernan Cortes and his small band of merry men single handedly annihilated Aztec civilization... that's quite an achievement.

Your perception is squewed by your upbringing. Naturally, the education you received was anglosaxon centric.-
Anywhere south of the US and all the way down to Tierra del Fuego, there is overwhelming spanish and portuguese influence in all aspects of life.
In Africa and Asia there is also strong iberic influence in some countries


It's there. You 're just not aware of it.

If that were true, French, Italian, German and Greek achievements would be less talked about.

Italy and Greece don't really belong in that list. Their developments are a part of a classical education anywhere in the world, since they were pretty much all that there was in the ocidental hemisphere during the classic age. (Unless you want to consider the celtics and whatnot).

As to France and Germany, anglosaxon.

It's worth mentioning that if we relied of school education alone, where the sumerians, assyric, bysantine, etc only get a mere mention, you'd think they didn't have much to contribute, either.


If you want to get into the merits of who has done more, you'll fall into a long and fruitless discussion, as measurements of worth are very subjective.

The French are not Anglo Saxon, they're Franks. A darker, swarthier race. But still Germanic in origin.

I have to disagree about the Spanish. Some of the greatest painters that ever lived such as Velasquez, Goya and El Greco were Spanish, not to mention Picasso, Dali, Zubaran, Miro, etc... There's also the music of Albeniz and Rodrigo.

They've certainly done less on the science side, but their cuisine is excellent.

And they have Santayana <3

It is important not to confuse language with race.

Linguistically speaking, the French speak a language more similar to Spanish, Portuguese and Italian than English and German, despite their Germanic name. Racially speaking, I'm not sure who they're more related to. What is now called France has spoken many different languages at different times, from Celtic, to Romantic, to Germanic. Presently their language is more influenced by Latin, the Romantic family.

In any case, perhaps the cultural achievements of the Spanish have been overlooked by our education system, I'll look into them more.

Portuguese cuisine is also really good. The main highlight is the Bacalhau (a dish prepated with salt dried cod), the sausages, the Pastelzinho de Belem, and Port wine of course.

As to culture, they have their own signature rythm, the Fado, a number of very important writes ( such as Camoes and Spinoza, more recently Jose Saramago), their own medieval literary styles (cancao de amor, amigo, escarnio etc), and so on.

Most of their scientific contributions were during the modern age, when they were big explorers of the seas. Most of the inventions and improvements were in sailing, like the astrolabe and a small sail vessel called caravela, the most famous ones being Santa Maria, Pinta and Nina.

Just off the top of my head. Of course there is a lot more.


Fells like writing an elementary school essay

Of course, there is also the old saying "there are ten Africans to a Portuguese and ten Portuguese to an Englishman", which gives you some idea of the racial values attached to the Portuguese from the perspective of northern Europeans.

I've tried their food and wine once or twice. Not as well renowned as French and Italian but, maybe just as good, or nearly so, I'll have to get further acqauinted with it.

I'm not familiar with their writers and philosophers other than Cervantes and Spinoza.

I am familiar with their explorers, Hernan Cortes, Megellian, Vasco da Gama, but not their navigational and ship innovations. Looks like I have a little research project in development.

Racially speaking, the Frech are probably most related to their geographical neighbours- Spain, Italy, Germany, etc, and with Europeans in general. Linguistically speaking, they're more related to the latin languages, as I've already mentioned. Why Anglo-American education focuses on the Frech more than the Spaniards and Portuguese, is beyond me.

Interesting question.... strange but true. Spanish is a properly latin language... why its fruits are so far less than the French and Italian is a mystery...
Spinoza was Dutch, wrote in Latin and Dutch, was born in Amsterdam... although he was descendant of Portuguese Jews his family lived in Holland for about a century and a half when Baruch was born so to count him as Portuguese is a bit of stretch. That leaves even less significant Portuguese creators. It may be noted that even a small country as Holland produced more in terms of standard-setting art and culture than did Spain and Portugal together.

Another question - Why were so many of the important musicians, philosophers and scientists Austrian / German? Why is this type so strong in producing high value?

eyesinthedark wrote:

Why Anglo-American education focuses on the Frech more than the Spaniards and Portuguese, is beyond me.

I think that this is because the English language derives for about one third of French, and the unified nation England could not have existed without the constant French invasions of the Island.
Also, French has been the ''civilized worlds'' leading language for centuries, before english took over that role... Spanish may be spoken by a lot of people but, as you note, not in culturally significant circles.

And why are so many nobel prize winners jewish?

Who cares? Some nobels are really stupid, like the ones in economics...

And how many of those notable germans and austrians were jewish?

phoneutria wrote:

And why are so many nobel prize winners jewish?

I'll answer with a quote, as brevity is your way of hiding your romantic, modernistic, commonplace, feminine, simplicity:

Mencken, H.L. wrote:

The Renaissance, it seems to me, is easily and sufficiently explained by the fact that the Black Death, raging from 1334 to 1351, exterminated such huge masses of the European proletariat that the average intelligence and enterprise of the race were greatly lifted, and that this purged and improved society suddenly functioned splendidly because it was no longer hobbled from below. For a thousand years the population of Europe had been steadily increasing, and tis best men had been forced, in consequence, to devote themselves to the wasteful business of politics–the grabbing of new territories, the opening of markets, the policing of the proletariat. Their ability thus had no opportunity to function in a dignified and splendid manner; they were condemned to such dull, degrading tasks as harass United States Senators, generals in the Army, Tammany bosses, college presidents and captains of industry.

Then, like a bolt from the blue, came the Black Death. In less than twenty years it reduced the population of Europe by at least 50%–and yet it left substantially all of the wealth of Europe untouched. More, it killed its millions selectively; the death-rate among the upper classes, as every Sunday-school scholar reading Decameron of Boccaccio knows, was immensely less than the death-rate among the submerged. The net result was that Europe emerged from the pandemic with the old pressure of population relieved, all the worst problems of politics in abeyance, plenty of money, and newly-found leisure. The best brains of the time, thusly suddenly emancipated, began to function freely and magnificently. There ensued what we call the Renaissance.

In it is contained the hint that partly explains your query.
The other part is contained in the history of that people, who are no race but an attitude.

What I'm trying to get at, is that to make a list of notable people and sort it by ethnicity doesn't magically reveals who are the bestest ethnicity (which is what the tone of this thead leads to, and to me it shows nothing but a desire to hold on to some sort of ethnic pride, unless there is a hidden lesson here that my so simple mind failed to grasp).

There is a multitude of factors at play. It's not that simple.

What a simple way of dismissing an explanation and insinuate either personal knowledge or a reliance on ignorance to support a moronic idea which has the only benefit of feeling good and of agreeing with current sentiments.

According to this female to ask: "Why are there divergences?" is a question requiring an answer far too complicated to consider or to dare answer.
Let's assume, instead, that there is no divergence and go home agreeing that it is all about edumucation.
You see, it's all about personal effort, and it has nothing to do with the past...with nature.

So, why are chimps less developed than humans?
They lacked the edumucation/guidance to think outside their creed or to question their existence, and the ambition...just like this female's family.

It's all about love people.


Here allow me to display this stupidity in practice:

Why do animals kill; is violence natural?
The question is not so simple.
Perhaps they were not given an alternate way of living.

Notice that there is no actual alternative offered, but it is implied. In this brevity is essential as going into it further will only expose the stupidity of the mind using this tactic.
The insinuation need not be defined or stated, as it relies on pure sentiment to take over where it has no lucidity to offer.
Fill in the blank in the most self-satisfying answer you can imagine; consider it just as good as any other, and go home happy that you were so "open minded."

My previous post stands. My criticism is not on the question, it's on the method.

I do think that the answer is complicated, but we're only on page one. Why don't we break from the ethnic pissing contest right here, and move on to finding better answers?

What criticism, dear?

A two sentence declaration of personal conviction is not a critique.


"Better" answers?
You mean, less hurtful?

I gave you the first hint; here's a second:
When a people in their passive aggressive state call themselves the "chosen" this raises the wrath of those who are their betters. At this point the herd goes into a tighter defensive stance, which includes a secretive collusion which excludes all others and one that infiltrates into the otherness through the cracks.

Here is the second hint, offered in two parts:
First...

Evola, Julius wrote:

In reality, the codification of the traffic with gold as a loan with interest, to which the Jews had been previously devoted since they had no other means through which they could affirm themselves, may be said to be the very foundation of the acceptance of the aberrant development of all that is banking, high finance, and pure economy, which are spreading like a cancer in the modern world. This is the fundamental time in the “age of the merchants.”

Second...

Marx, Karl wrote:

What are the mundane principles of Judaism? Practical necessity and the pursuit of one’s own advantage. What is its earthly god? Money. The Jew has emancipated himself in a typical Jewish fashion not only in that he has taken control of the power of money, but also in that through him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit have become the spirit of the Christian people. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the earth. The exchange is the true god of the Jews.

phoneutria wrote:

And why are so many nobel prize winners jewish?

My favourite Nobel Prize winners are blacks.

All of them bar one have won it either for peace (speaking how terrible racism is) or literature (writing how terrible racism is).

There was the one that won it for economics.

"Empirical evidence does not always provide much support for the Lewis model."

Who cares... he's black!

Satyr wrote:

What criticism, dear?

A two sentence declaration of personal conviction is not a critique.

What conviction, dear?

Quote :

"Better" answers?
You mean, less hurtful?

I mean less lazy.

Quote :

I gave you the first hint; here's a second:
When a people in their passive aggressive state call themselves the "chosen" this raises the wrath of those who are their betters. At this point the herd goes into a tighter defensive stance, which includes a secretive collusion which excludes all others and one that infiltrates into the otherness through the cracks.

Here's an interesting model.
Now, has there been a people who has not considered itself "the chosen"? And isn't that why there is always another people who claims to be their better?
With that in mind, can you claim that these traits are exclusive to one or another?

Ohhh lots of quesrion mamarks.

Quote :

Here is the second hint, offered in two parts:
First...

Evola, Julius wrote:

In reality, the codification of the traffic with gold as a loan with interest, to which the Jews had been previously devoted since they had no other means through which they could affirm themselves, may be said to be the very foundation of the acceptance of the aberrant development of all that is banking, high finance, and pure economy, which are spreading like a cancer in the modern world. This is the fundamental time in the “age of the merchants.”

Was Evola a devout catholic?

I wonder if he was aware that medieval catholic priests translated a passage of the bible to mean that all loans with interest were sinful, while jews, who could read the origilans only took usury to be sinful, and thus, whenever someone needed a loan, jews were the only ones willing to give it. Who would pass up such business advantage?
I do think that the very moral peoples of christian europe don't mind these aberrant developments so much. It has largely been responsible for putting them where they are..

Quote :

Second...

Marx, Karl wrote:

What are the mundane principles of Judaism? Practical necessity and the pursuit of one’s own advantage. What is its earthly god? Money. The Jew has emancipated himself in a typical Jewish fashion not only in that he has taken control of the power of money, but also in that through him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit have become the spirit of the Christian people. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the earth. The exchange is the true god of the Jews.

The exchange is the true god of this age. This isn't, and never was an ethnic trait.

If there is one thing that we may have agreed to be an important cause for the observations in the the OP, it's wealth. How wealth turned out to be concentrated in some hands rather than other hands is probably an important branch to explore.

* marks (freudian slip?)
*originals

phoneutria wrote:

Here's an interesting model.
Now, has there been a people who has not considered itself "the chosen"? And isn't that why there is always another people who claims to be their better?
With that in mind, can you claim that these traits are exclusive to one or another?

Oh sweetie, you have no clue. That's why in your simplicity you want more "complex" answers.

The Jews excluded all from salvation, dear; from eternity.
The Christians, being an offshoot of their dogma, corrected this, making their "exclusivity" a correctable offense. You could buy yourself into their ranks and gain salvation, dear.
The Greeks considered all barbarians but they also had a way in. You only had to be educated and trained to think as a Greek.
Not the Jews, dear, not the Jews.

phoneutria wrote:

Was Evola a devout catholic?

Was he?
He was born one, like I was born into the Christian Orthodox faith.
Do I sound like a devout Christian, dear?

phoneutria wrote:

I wonder if he was aware that medieval catholic priests translated a passage of the bible to mean that all loans with interest were sinful, while jews, who could read the origilans only took usury to be sinful, and thus, whenever someone needed a loan, jews were the only ones willing to give it. Who would pass up such business advantage?

Sweetie, using your apologetic, "Why would a rapist pass-on a slut going inot pulbic with her tits and ass on full display?

phoneutria wrote:

I do think that the very moral peoples of christian europe don't mind these aberrant developments so much. It has largely been responsible for putting them where they are..

Who, the fuck, is talking about morality, dearie?
You know, for someone needing more "complex" answers you sure sound and think like a simpleton.

My dear, the answer as to why Jews are despised can be found in the words of Jews themselves.
Read Heisman, for one, if a contemporary is what you wish for.

phoneutria wrote:

If there is one thing that we may have agreed to be an important cause for the observations in the the OP, it's wealth. How wealth turned out to be concentrated in some hands rather than other hands is probably an important branch to explore.

That it bothers you means that you buy into the premises of the principles which makes it possible, dear.
My dear, all you need is pretty cheap (as of yet) and it only matters when it comes to how wealth is used and how it seduces simpletons like you.

You are a "material girl, living in a material world" but you'll never admit it, will ya dear?
No, because this would entail thinking outside the box, and you need a substitute box before you can do that.

Quote :

Interesting question.... strange but true. Spanish is a properly latin language... why its fruits are so far less than the French and Italian is a mystery...
Spinoza was Dutch, wrote in Latin and Dutch, was born in Amsterdam... although he was descendant of Portuguese Jews his family lived in Holland for about a century and a half when Baruch was born so to count him as Portuguese is a bit of stretch. That leaves even less significant Portuguese creators. It may be noted that even a small country as Holland produced more in terms of standard-setting art and culture than did Spain and Portugal together.

Right, where is the Spanish Galileo, the Spanish Vivaldi, Rossini, Verdi and Puccini, the cello, the piano and the violin (Spaniards did make the guitar)? The Spanish Caravaggio, Donatello, Raphael, Botticelli, Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Giotto? The Spanish Saint Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli and Giordano Bruno? Where is the Spanish equivalent of Italian Fascism, for better or for worse, again Italians are at the forefront of western culture. Fascism, a movement arguably as or nearly important as capitalism and communism, a movement which greatly influenced Hitler's Nazism, where is their Mussolini, their Giovanni Gentile and Julius Evola? Why are Italian cars, clothing and cuisine so popular? Why have Italian Americans, for better or worse, been at the forefront of American culture? Italian American actors (Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, John Travolta, Nicholas Cage, Silvester Stallone, Danny DeVito, Joe Pesci) Italian American film directors (Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Michael Camino, Brian De Palma), singers (Sinatra, Dean Martin, Madonna), from politicians to mafia, the list goes on and on. Where are the Spanish and Portuguese Stereotypes? I can list multiple stereotypes of Italians, positive and negative, multiple French, English, Irish, German and Greek stereotypes, even Scandinavian, Polish and Russian stereotypes, but does anyone know anything about Spaniards and Portuguese? It's like they don't exist.

Quote :

Another question - Why were so many of the important musicians, philosophers and scientists Austrian / German? Why is this type so strong in producing high value?

Good point, the Germans must be superior, I am not German myself, I am Irish, Scottish and Italian, but my hat goes off to the German people.

Here's another question, why are the words Slav and slave so similar?

Quote :

I think that this is because the English language derives for about one third of French, and the unified nation England could not have existed without the constant French invasions of the Island.
Also, French has been the ''civilized worlds'' leading language for centuries, before english took over that role... Spanish may be spoken by a lot of people but, as you note, not in culturally significant circles.

if anything, the English should have belittled the French. Then again, Satyr could be right, if you make light of your historical rivals, who you've been in conflict with for centuries, what does that say about you, if your enemy is so pitiful? Therefore, all the more reason to boast about how great your enemy is, not as good as you, but great, formidable.

Nevertheless, I think it's because the Spanish have been more culturally stagnant and complacent than the French, plain and simple. The Spanish have been more medieval in their outlook, more Jewish. That's not necessarily bad, as Europeans, I think we must embrace both our Greek and Jewish heritage- they balance us out as a people, make us richer, more diverse. This forum is certainly more Greek in it's outlook, and iLP outwardly is very Greek, i think inwardly is more Judeo-Christian.

in many ways western civilization is very schizophrenic, and i think this is both our greatest strength and weakness, our tendency towards extremism in outlook. What philosophies could be more antithetical and antagonistic than Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian? I think we must balance these outlooks, there is a time to be humble, other worldly, ascetic, conservative, and there is a time to be proud, this worldly, hedonistic, progressive.

The Spanish had their moments of greatness as well, they have had their artists, their writers, their philosophers, their explorers, they had one of the worlds largest empires, they have added to the western canon indeed, but let's face the facts, they have not been as productive as the English, French, German and Italian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Spinoza, I consider him a Portuguese Jew, this thread is about more about race than culture or language.

As for Jews, they are a race 1st and an attitude 2nd. You can't convert to Judaism the way you can convert to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, you're either born a Jew, or you marry a Jew. Why is there atheist/irreligious Jews, but not atheist/irreligious Christians or Muslims? Judaism is a race and religion, it's all tied in for them.

And then, there's that little detail about moors reigning on the iberic peninsula for 800 years...

Satyr wrote:

Oh sweetie, you have no clue. That's why in your simplicity you want more "complex" answers.

The Jews excluded all from salvation, dear; from eternity.
The Christians, being an offshoot of their dogma, corrected this, making their "exclusivity" a correctable offense. You could buy yourself into their ranks and gain salvation, dear.
The Greeks considered all barbarians but they also had a way in. You only had to be educated and trained to think as a Greek.
Not the Jews, dear, not the Jews.

Satyr, darling, that is so incorrect it's embarrasing.

There is nothing jews won't give you for a fee (and a slice of your dick).

Quote :

Was he?
He was born one, like I was born into the Christian Orthodox faith.
Do I sound like a devout Christian, dear?

You sound like you grew up as one. You went through puberty as one, didn't you. did you actually believe it, or was it just force of habit?
Don't answer, toots. It is off topic.

Quote :

Sweetie, using your apologetic, "Why would a rapist pass-on a slut going inot pulbic with her tits and ass on full display?

Absolutely.

Quote :

Who, the fuck, is talking about morality, dearie?
You know, for someone needing more "complex" answers you sure sound and think like a simpleton.

Do I? And you sound like you missed the sarcasm.

Quote :

My dear, the answer as to why Jews are despised can be found in the words of Jews themselves.
Read Heisman, for one, if a contemporary is what you wish for.

Is that what we're talking about? I thought we were talking about acomplishments.
I don't need to know why the jews are so despised. Everybody has their reasons to despise something or someone at a certain point in time, I've got mine. Humans humaning

Quote :

That it bothers you means that you buy into the premises of the principles which makes it possible, dear.
My dear, all you need is pretty cheap (as of yet) and it only matters when it comes to how wealth is used and how it seduces simpletons like you.

Darling, I've already shown to disagree with the opinions in the OP. That they exist, I can't change, and that they are in the boy's head is what has an association with very ancient wealth.

And once again, dear, you could't be further from the truth.

Quote :

You are a "material girl, living in a material world" but you'll never admit it, will ya dear?
No, because this would entail thinking outside the box, and you need a substitute box before you can do that.

Your insult are as innefective as chemotherapy is to heal a common cold. You cannot get to me like this, darling, I am not one of your pets.
Save your cheap phychology for someone who might get impressed by it, or better yet, apply it to yourself and get rid of that blue collar complex you're tracking all over my rug. Will you?

phoneutria wrote:

Satyr, darling, that is so incorrect it's embarrasing.

I think that you said so, with such brevity, means that it is so.
We'll assume you know what you are talking bout.

phoneutria wrote:

There is nothing jews won't give you for a fee (and a slice of your dick).

Oh sweetie, still caught up on superficiality?

phoneutria wrote:

Is that what we're talking about? I thought we were talking about acomplishments.

"Accomplishment"...now there's another one of those terms little girls use in the convectional way.

phoneutria wrote:

I don't need to know why the jews are so despised. Everybody has their reasons to despise something or someone at a certain point in time, I've got mine. Humans humaning

Darling, that "all have their reasons" is an indication of how simple you are.

"Why does the sun come up every single morning?"
"Well, every day it's for a different reason."

Patterns, sweets, is about establishing what elements are common in the predictable emergence of a phenomenon.
Saying "Everyone has their reasons". implies a level of free-thought not found in humans, it implies a complexity too vast to even attempt to explain, and it postpones judgment, pretending open-mindedness.

"Why do bears shit in the woods?"
"Well, I think each bear has its own reasons."

phoneutria wrote:

And once again, dear, you could't be further from the truth.

If you say so...but thanks for keeping your simplicity so short.