From what I’m seeing, Christians ruler did control the peninsula but in the “loosely-aligned polity” sense that was the style of the time. Perhaps joined together by local Iberian culture under the Visigothic Kingdom, rather than Spanish “nationality”. But I don’t think that’s subverting or undercutting any truth to a rulership that cranked the “default” back to “Christianity” by re-conquering the Iberian peninsula from Berber Muslim ownership, like an angry dad with the thermostat. I do see how fascist would love to use the term to further other-ize people but I don’t like ceding anything to fascist especially not language.
I’m also not a historian despite what my access to Wikipedia might fool me into believing. I guess if the shift is just dropping “Re” from the term, then that’s reasonable. I just am sleep-deprived and leery of (not saying this is you) self-identified “scholars” who want to claim discourse space by misinterpreting the past under the guise of “recontextualization”. To be clear, I’m specifically not saying that is what you are or was your intent, but that sort of miscourse is insidious. I’m being more literal because I’m tired and won’t really double-check what I wrote to ensure my writing was well-crafted to properly impart “intention”.
From what I’m seeing, Christians ruler did control the peninsula but in the “loosely-aligned polity” sense that was the style of the time. Perhaps joined together by local Iberian culture under the Visigothic Kingdom, rather than Spanish “nationality”. But I don’t think that’s subverting or undercutting any truth to a rulership that cranked the “default” back to “Christianity” by re-conquering the Iberian peninsula from Berber Muslim ownership, like an angry dad with the thermostat. I do see how fascist would love to use the term to further other-ize people but I don’t like ceding anything to fascist especially not language.
I’m also not a historian despite what my access to Wikipedia might fool me into believing. I guess if the shift is just dropping “Re” from the term, then that’s reasonable. I just am sleep-deprived and leery of (not saying this is you) self-identified “scholars” who want to claim discourse space by misinterpreting the past under the guise of “recontextualization”. To be clear, I’m specifically not saying that is what you are or was your intent, but that sort of miscourse is insidious. I’m being more literal because I’m tired and won’t really double-check what I wrote to ensure my writing was well-crafted to properly impart “intention”.