Talk:Limpieza de sangre

Basque territories
the basque territories where conquisted by arabs, the reconquist of Spain started in Asturias, by king Pelayo in Covadonga, so asturians had maintained their original purity not basques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.172.112 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Limpieza de sangre and Basque nationalism
I am surprised to read that you relate "limpieza de sangre" to the Basque issue and nationalism. The concept of "limpieza de sangre" is basically and historically related to the Conversos or Cristianos Nuevos who converted from Judaism in Spain. The degree of integration into Christian society depended also on the number of generations that could be counted since the original conversion.


 * "Ethnic Christian"--what a concept! Sweetfreek 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's indeed quite imbecile to conect ethnicity to religion. But what did the Nazis did? And still today the concept of anti-semetism/anti-judaism "works"!

The Moors Were Not "Arabs"
The ancient Moors are not to be confused with Arabs. Arabs are native to the Arabian Peninsula not North West Africa. Yes, the Moors were Muslims and spoke Arabic, but the religion of Islam and aspects of its culture can be accepted by every race and nationality. The ancient Moors were North African Berbers and what anthropologists classify to have been of the "Caucasoid" persuasion. Similar to ancient Egyptians, Carthaginians and so on.

Yes, they did have an Arab common class (which represented a very small minority of the demographic) and Subsaharan slaves (which again made up an insignificant part of the over all Moor demographic) that they indeed had brought to the Iberian peninsula and yes, they did introduce the majority of the Jewish population to Iberia.

Where did you get the idea that so-called "sub-Saharan" Africans were slaves? Are you alos trying to imply that "sub-Saharan" means black and that is the only place where the black man in Africa is? The pictures I have seen of the jet-black Moors clearly don't show them as slaves, but as masters. This revisionist history is the latest move by those with black blood in them to try and write the blackness out of their bloodline. You cannot because it is already there.

Also, Bebers were NOT white, the white ones are a results of European invaders, many who mixed with Berbers. Berbers are black and many can best be described as people who look like Nelson Mandela's people.--71.235.81.39 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on these facts, I call for an editing on that particular part of this article. In my opinion "Arab" should be simply changed to Moor or Muslim.


 * We are not concerned with realityn here, but what Modern Spaniards thought. They considered the descendants of Muslims and Jews as foreigners, even if they were actually Muladis.
 * --Error 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I am not entirely (although somewhat) acquainted with the work of Sabino Arrana and the Basque Nationalist movement. However, I doubt very highly that "racial impurity" (in a non-European sense) was/is a common theme. The Basques view themselves as being unique to that of all of Europe. Highlighting their own ethnic/culture uniqueness and "purity" rather than really spewing rhetoric of the possibility of "mixed lineages" of the rest of Iberians and the French. They tend to focus on the impacts the Celts, Romans, Visigoths, etc. had on the ethnic construct of Iberia and France. For example, Arrana commonly referred to Spaniards as the "Sons Of Romans" not the Moors. To make a long story short, the case they make more so is that the Basques, unlike the vast majority of Europeans, are (in their opinion) only Basque; Not a variety of different European Nationalities.


 * I found a quote by Arana that I have not incorporated into the article because it is in a very non-neutral page and I have no means to check it against the original source:
 * “La pureza de la raza, más comúnmente conocida con el nombre de «limpieza de sangre» (...) es uno de nuestros fundamentos políticos”
 * Sabino Arana. (Bizkaitarra. 3 de Marzo de 1895)
 * --Error 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, The Moors, militarily, did reach various areas of what are considered to be areas of Basque territory (although not successfully occupying these areas). So, there is an argument that can be made that there are areas of Spain that were even further secluded from the Moors more so than the Basque country. The regions of Galicia/Asturias (Asturies), for example, can be argued to have had less Moorish presence as compared to particular areas the Basque territory. Thus, this poorly articulated argument and unproven theory that all Iberians other than the Basques are "mixed" with the ancient Moors is rather flawed and I think unnecessary in an article that is supposed to be focused on a totally different historic issue.
 * No matter the flaws, there were people like Larramendi who believed in it. --Error 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-modern Catholic Racial Views
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1

“Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II

St. Jerome: “Chus in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body.” (The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, Homily 3, 28). St. Ennodius (474-521): “Keep your chastity constant. Don’t let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face.” Epistulae 7.21

John Philoponus, Greek Christian philosopher (6th century): “The Scythians and Ethiopians are distinguished from each other by black and white color, or by long and snubbed nose, or by slave and master, by ruler and ruled,” and again, “The Ethiopian and Scythian. . .one is black, the other white; similarly slave and master.” A. Sanda, Oposcula Monophysitica Johannes Philoponi (Beirut, 1930), pp. 66,96 (Sanda’s Latin translation).

Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139.

Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” Patrologiae cursus completes…series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43)

Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22.

Gomes Eannes de Zurara (official royal chronicler of Portugal, 1453): “These blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the Deluge, Noah laid upon his son Cain [read: Cham], cursing him in this way: that his race should be subject to all the other races of the world.” C.R. Beazley and E. Prestage, The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea in the Hakluyt 1st series, no. 95 (London, 1896), 1:54.

Francisco de la Cruz (Dominican, 1575): “The blacks are justly captives by just sentence of God for the sins of their fathers, and that in sign thereof God gave them that color.” Bartolomé de Las Casas in History (DeKalb, Ill., 1971), p. 417. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change
This is going too far. Limpieza de sangre is used in English literature on the subject and I recognize it. I would not recognize cleanliness of blood without context. --JWB 01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should have been discussed here or more formally by WP:RM. WP:UE isn't a licence for Wikipedians to promote relatively uncommon translations of terms which are widely used in the English literature. GBooks search for "limpieza de sangre" (793 hits ), "cleanliness of blood" (33 hits ), "blood cleanliness" (21 hits ), "cleanliness of the blood" (15 hits ). "Purity of blood" and "clean blood" are also commonly used translations, but they're harder to search for as they're more ambiguous and used in contexts besides limpieza de sangre. cab 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also agree. I came across this concept just a few days ago when translating Camilo Henríquez from Spanish, and the English-language reference I used, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States (the history section of the article), uses this term, not the English . The English term is an imperfect translation of the words, not the name of the concept. Dmcdevit·t 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a request at User_talk:Dark_Tea for the editor who made the change to discuss it. --JWB 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard the term "limpieza de sangre" in an English-language conversation, but I have heard "racial purity" and "pure blood" before. WP:BETTER says to use the phrase common to English speakers.Dark Tea 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about "racial purity," it's about, well, limpieza de sangre, the concept of pure Iberian Christian blood common in the premodern era. This is the common term in English scholarship for that concept. Dmcdevit·t 08:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you change Apartheid to 'apartness' or some other English word? No, because the term refers to a racist ideology of a specific place and era, not racism in general. Limpieza de sangre is the technical term for a particular practice several centuries ago in Spain. Other technical terms from this era like converso and morisco are also used in their Spanish forms in English discussion, and would become too nonspecific if translated into English.
 * This is very similar to perestroika, which WP:BETTER specifically cites as justified use. --JWB 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this issue of the title, it should be noted that Cleanliness of blood was also a concet and reality in Portugal - spelled Limpeza de Sangue - during the period of the Portuguese Inquisition. One had to prove one's cleanliness of blood in order to aply for public, military or church positions. Many were the Familiares do Santo Ofício, lay members of the Inquisition, that had to prove cleanliness of blood to the 5th generation. The Ogre 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMING says to use the English language version unless the foreign language version is better recognized by English speakers. I have never heard of "limpieza de sangre" in an English conversation but I have heard of "cleanliness of blood" in an English conversation.  "Perestroika" and "aparthied" I have heard in English conversation, so they would be the exception to the rule.Dark Tea  20:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the subject itself that is not as well known, not the term. If you read about the subject, you encounter the term. In fact I did a report in high school on limpieza de sangre, and following the literature, I used the term throughout the report.
 * I would be curious what "cleanliness of blood" referred to in English conversations you have heard. Did it specifically refer to the Spanish policy during the period referenced? And as cab Google tested above, the phrase is much less common. --JWB 22:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the problem simply that you are not familiar with the topic? Please provide sources of other English speakers using this term to refer to the specific Iberian concept discussed here? Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Cleanliness of blood → Limpieza de sangre — Revert undiscussed move from Spanish term widely used in academic literature in English to an uncommon English translation. WP:UE should not have been applied here. Discussion above indicates a strong consensus for the move, I am looking to get wider community opinion here, so I've listed this on WP:RM. —cab 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why this is necessary. The only one that contests the name limpieza de sangre is the same user that made the unilateral move. I think we should just revert it if no convincing reasoning is given for the move. Dmcdevit·t 01:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, since the move was a contested one, it was the user's responsibility to poll before doing it in the first place. --JWB 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

''I have reverted the bold page move because it does not appear to enjoy much support. If Dark Tea or anyone else feels strongly about the English title, we can deal with a move request in the other direction. Dekimasu よ! 06:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) ''

Blood percentages
It looks like there is a problem in the calculation of percentages given. If an Albino is 87.5% European/12.5% Africa, and a Torna atrás is the product of an Albino and a European, then the Torna atrás can't be less European (75%) and more African (25%) than his/her mother. This would affect the percentages in the rest of the table. 134.121.46.205 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing/Restructuring Article
The paragraphs on Limpieza de Sangre as it relates to Basque heritage ("The claim to universal hidalguía (lowest nobility) of the Basques...The discrimination was still present into the twentieth century in some places like Majorca. No Xueta (descendants of the Majorcan Conversos) priests were allowed to say Mass in a cathedral until the 1960s.") is under the article's primary subheading, "After the Reconquista." While the information provided references a phenomenon chiefly associated with a time period that is, in fact, after the Reconquista, I think taking this section all the way up to the 1960s is a bit much. If this article is to include information on Basque identity and Limpieza de Sangre at all, it should be in its own section nearer the end of the article, as Wikipedia articles on historical periods or events tend to be organized by sections, chronologically. "After the Reconquista" should be limited to the events immediately following the Reconquista and only in those regions under Spanish and Portuguese rule which existed during the Reconquista. Therefore, any territories which were not under Spanish or Portuguese rule by 1492 do not belong in this section.

The section on the origin of "blue blood" is probably more appropriate as a "See also."

Additionally, the section on the Spanish Colonies does not ever mention the Castas system, nor does it mention Castas paintings, both of which I think are quite relevant. Can someone correct me on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPet (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

how much of the population was impure?
Was the average person pure or impure? Do people in Spain now, know if they are or not? Was there a permanent class of epople whoe were unpure blood and did it affect their Christian faith (that they were judged impure)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.150.236 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowadays people in Spain (and Portugal) don't know if they are pure or impure. It's not something that important in our culture or day to day life. However people are assumed to be pure because there was a caste of impures who were known as impures, cast away from society and then prosecuted and expelled. Basically, being pure means descending from the Old Christian population, with no muslim or jewish ancestry. Back in the day, people knew who the muslims and the jews were and both muslims and jews were kind of discriminated because they could only live in a given part of the town (mouraria / judiaria), they had their own communities as well as different rights and duties from those of the Christian population. After the forced conversions, the Iberian states and the Inquistion kept records of the newly converted peoples and it was very rare for interbreedings to happen (they were not supported by the church) and the Christian people did not see the muslims and Jews, even if converted, in a good light. Then the period of the Inquistion started and, although much has been said abouth the Spanish Inquistion, records show clearly that the main prosecutions were against muslims and especially, jews, for most muslims left willingly for Morocco. The muslims and Jews were ruthlessly persecuted and were EXPELLED from Spain and then Portugal. So yeah, the average person nowadays is undoubtedly pure, although people don't think about it much nowadays. Back in the days of the end of the Reconquista, most of the population was pure, even though most people did not have a certificate of cleaning of blood because it was mostly something needed for the nobility and those who held a place working for the state. Also, it costed money. The average person back in the day only needed the certification of cleanliness of blood to marry and join the royal army. In each case, it was the duty of the church to examine the ancestry of the person without giving them any certification. If they were of jewish or moorish ancestry or if they were born out of wedlock, they were denied a Catholic marriage. And jews and muslims couldn't fight in the Royal army for they were outside the feudal system and did not have a "Lord" of their own. (The infantry for the royal army was based on servants from other members of the Nobility who offered the service of their men to the King) To end, Yes, there was a caste of people who were impure. Those were the muslims and jews who converted. Some were true Christians but most probabily were not. However, all of them were discriminated and persecuted by the Inquistion, eventually they were all expelled from Spain and Portugal. Those who stayed behind, were persecuted by the Inquistion, with cases becoming very rare after the French Revolution. The system of purity of blood stood around up to the XIX century when it was considered obsolete: Not only was everybody pure as the nobility made up the vast majority of the high places who demanded a certificate. So it was always the same families rulling the show, kind of. In the XIX century the liberals started to gain power and shit on tradition, also, with the liberal revolutions and whatnot being against the Cleaningness of Blood.

Note also that all the muslim states in what is now Spain and Portugal, and I mean all of them, were through the ages comprised by a large majority of the population who would be considered as pure blooded by the Cleaningless of Blood system. In all of the muslims states the majority of the population were Christians who spoke latin and who had no muslim ancestry. They were called the mozarabs. Even in the muslims states in what is now Portugal and Spain the Catholic church kept functioning and the muslim and christian communities were seperated. Under moorish occupation the muslim law was that mixed marriages could not exist, so those who married muslims had to convert previously, and after conversion, those who became muslim were sentenced to death if they gave up the islamic faith. That is why under moorish occupation the majority of the muslims were muladis (converts of Christian religeon and Spanish race) rather than Arabs or Berberes. However, the last Kingdom of Granada has been considered by historians to have been the only one in which the Arabic language was as strong as the latin one and where muslims were a majority or close to it.

Hope I answered your questions, mate! Mr3

Article's Title
Why is the name of this article article in Spanish?? Why not, for instance, in Portuguese, since you seem to avoid English names?

Isn't the article in the English Wikipedia!? I assume it should be named "Cleanliness of Blood", in good old English, for the sake of encyclopedic impartiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.123.50 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Title should be "Purity of Blood" or something like that.
 * Besides, if you want to use the Spanish wording, then you should Old Castilian, which is the one used when this concept was in vogue.
 * --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has Anglo cultural bias.
This article of Limpieza de sangre has a strong Anglo-cultural bias, because it is associated with race, since race has played a major role in Anglo culture u til very recently. It is also contaminated by racialist and nationalist views from the XVIII and especially the XIX century, that were already forming the basis of more race oriented ideologies. The last Jim Crow Laws, that were a type of Apartheid laws, were still enforced in the US until 1965-7.

In fact, Limpieza de sangre had mainly a religious meaning. A black person could be considered to have Limpieza de sangre, if that person could prove that none of his-her ancestors were of the Jewish or Muslim religion. Later, Limpieza de sangre also took into account not having any Protestant ancestry. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No. A black person could not have Limpeza de Sangue. Protestantism was fought, but Protestants were mostly considered Christian brothers gone astray. It was completely different from non Europeans who were considered as recent Christians, barely civilsed, and usually savages just somewhat introduced to the faith. How on earth can you imagine that cleaness of blood was not racial? Was it because most of the cast outs were whites / ethically Iberians too? The idea was that whoever converted once to the enemy's religion was of no good blood. Period. Damn... I bet you are an american or something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.71.87.106 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Laws of the Indies
The article contains an unsupported claim in section Spanish colonies about the Laws of the Indies restricting emigration to the colonies. As the article on the Laws of the Indies itself says nothing whatsoever about any such restriction (and neither does the Spanish article), this claim needs to be sourced, or removed. See also Talk:Laws of the Indies. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limpieza de sangre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213222925/http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/conversi/ethnonat to http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/conversi/ethnonat

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnote 11
Footnote 11 appears to be an incomplete source. Therefore it is impossible to verify the source. ShinobiNoKami (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)