"The Catalan regional parliament has voted to declare independence from Spain, just as the Spanish government appears set to impose direct rule. The move was backed 70-10 in a ballot boycotted by opposition MPs...."
BBC.
२७ ऑक्टोबर, २०१७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
A friend living in there has insisted that there's nothing to worry about and no one thinks that it will turn violent. I told her, "It only takes a couple of nutjobs with commitment."
I know that the State Dept. has opposed this. But I would love it if Trump would express his support. Liberty.
I wonder about the Catalan region of France.
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
I read a short piece the other day arguing that the EU is the author of this kind of fission. Nation-states worked by providing a service to their citizens (security, currency, post/telegraph, other infrastructure). In return they demanded loyalty, taxes, obedience to "laws." When the EU created the superstate, it eroded or diffused the services that the nation-states had provided, and it imposed its own demands --all those laws passed by unelected princelings in Brussels. So guess what, citizens of nation-states no longer feel the same kind of connection as before. Thus, Brexit. Thus, Catalonia.
We may see more of this.
Globalists jimmies have once again been rustled.
The EU itself has obviated the need for any government at the level of Britain, France et al. A direct governance of smaller ethnic regions by the EU is entirely possible, and maybe desirable. No current state border in Europe is stable. Every European country has large, ethnically uniform regions with grievances. France itself has at least four: Brittany, Corsica, Basque and Provence. Italy has another three: Lombardy, the south, Sicily. The Italian subregions don’t even speak Italian.
sykes.1: What you said.
My wife and I were in Barcelona from September 29 through October 8, 2017, and we saw massive numbers of police and demonstrations. It was reported that about 300 people were injured, and we heard shootings while out to dinner one night in the Gothic section. We stayed in a suburban hotel and on October 1 there was a huge line of people voting right behind the hotel and across the street from a mall. The vote was reported as 90% in favor of separation and 2.7% against, with 42% of the people voting. The hotel staff told us that there were substantial numbers of people opposing separation and they boycotted the vote.
Every European country has large, ethnically uniform regions with grievances. France itself has at least four: Brittany, Corsica, Basque and Provence"
Dont' forget certain suburbs outside of Paris where the police fear to tread.
Those areas are becoming quite ethnically uniform and the residents have their grievances too.
Archbishop Joan-Enric Vives is from Barcelona. He is co-prince of Andorra with the French president. He's been around the block, as he has served with the last four French presidents.
Best thing would be to make Catalonia part of Andorra. Make the small large, rather than absorb Andorra.
It would be a big boon to Andorra and all of us Catholics who want to Crusade against the Moslems :-)
sykes.1 said...
The EU itself has obviated the need for any government at the level of Britain,
Free Scotland.
Hotel Catalonia
If, as Owen points out, the EU has replaced the central government, why should this be a big deal? I understand that Belgium hasn't had a central government in years, but they keep on keeping on......I just hope no one on either side thinks this is a sacred cause worth dying for. Also, if Catalonia gets its way, can Andulasia be far behind?
AReasonableMan said...
sykes.1 said...
The EU itself has obviated the need for any government at the level of Britain,
Free Scotland.
10/27/17, 9:29 AM
Many conservatives in England would be more than happy to do so.
Catalonian succession is not even supported by a majority of Catalonians, let alone more than a small fraction of all Spaniards. Besides, Catalonia voting to succeed from Spain is as illegal under the Spanish constitution (ratified by 80% of Catalonians,) which is why the Spanish government stopped the vote. It's like a minority of the citizens of Madison voting for Wisconsin to succeed from the Union in direct violation of the US Constitution. Ain't going to happen without a war.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Stephen Maturin would be proud!
I know that the State Dept. has opposed this. But I would love it if Trump would express his support. Liberty.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I hope we stay the hell out of it. I need a break from getting into entanglements involving causes we knew nothing about five minutes ago.
Naturally the Eurocrats will now impose fascism to a new prevent fascism. That is the German leader's order and it must be followed or else. All that Democratic voting BS was a cover.
If Madison and Milwaukee succeeded from Wisconsin, nobody where I live would care. We'd just make Green Bay the capitol, then demand Michigan give us Upper Michigan. I think the UP would go along with it.
People only care about their nationality when they are impoverished by the ruling class.
Idle Hands Are The Devil's Workshop...
It's like a minority of the citizens of Madison voting for Wisconsin to succeed from the Union in direct violation of the US Constitution.
If it's only a minority in Catalonia, then why does secession keep winning by large margins at the ballot box? And where in the Constitution does it prohibit secession? Wasn't that a major bone of contention in 1861?
I found this very brief historical explanation also very interesting and helpful when trying to understand the current situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpoA23fn71o
I think they are lying when they say all the people opposed to succession are boycotting the vote. Those people would know the best way to stop succession is to win those votes. I think people are afraid of the state crackdowns.
"If, as Owen points out, the EU has replaced the central government, why should this be a big deal? I understand that Belgium hasn't had a central government in years, but they keep on keeping on......I just hope no one on either side thinks this is a sacred cause worth dying for. Also, if Catalonia gets its way, can Andulasia be far behind?"
a) The EU has not replaced the central governments of Europe, the central governments essentially authorize the actions of the EU parliament. There are direct elections of the EU parliament, but on a country by country basis. Your saying the EU government has replaced the central governments is like saying the US federal government has replaced the respective state governments. Would you want Washington to directly govern your state?
b) Belgium does have a central government and a prime minister as well as a king. The government is not a strong central government, but it's still there and it has the same functioning ministries as most countries.
c) Most Spaniard think this is a cause worth dying for, just as most Americans thought the Union was a sacred cause worth dying for in the US Civil War. Aren't you glad they did?
d) I live in Andalusia. Andalusians are proud Spaniards and I have never once heard any one of them say anything about splitting from Spain.
Where do you people get your information?
This is not good. I have friends and colleagues in Spain who are very concerned that the government is being so ham-handed, refusing to talk things through with the Catalonians. This escalation bodes ill for a country that has only been a democracy since 1977.
I just watched the video from John Tuffnell and a related one from The Economist. Very helpful. Funny that The Economist, on Sept. 28, said polls who only 43% of Catalans support independence. The actual vote a few days later was, what, 90% in favor?
"Most Spaniard think this is a cause worth dying for, just as most Americans thought the Union was a sacred cause worth dying for in the US Civil War. Aren't you glad they did?"
:O The US Civil War was a sacred cause worth dying for _because it freed the slaves_, which for some reason the South thought ought to have to come with them in their independence.
Otherwise, no, I would have supported the South.
Therefore I should be glad that the rest of Spain thinks that they have the right to _keep their slaves_ in Catalonia?
For the record: (1) I didn't say that the EU had replaced nation-states. Arguably its overlay of compacts, laws, regulations, harmonizations, etc. has the effect to eroding or diffusing the authority and sovereignty formerly exercised at the national level. Yes, very like the Federal/State/County/Municipal system in the US. Concurrent/overlapping jurisdictions are common.
(2) Khesanh 0802: "Stephen Maturin would be proud." Great reference and, yes, I had been thinking of him ever since this began to brew.
(3) CJinPA: "...said polls who only [sic] 43% of Catalans support independence. The actual vote a few days later was, what, 90% in favor?" Bryan at 9:13 said "The vote was reported as 90% in favor of separation and 2.7% against, with 42% of the people voting." I construe that to mean that 90% of 42% is not far from the 43% that CJinPA cites. No real inconsistency if you look at the total electorate; most of whom may have stayed home.
A fine kettle of fish. I do hope it doesn't get uglier.
James K; "If it's only a minority in Catalonia, then why does secession keep winning by large margins at the ballot box? And where in the Constitution does it prohibit secession? Wasn't that a major bone of contention in 1861?"
It doesn't "keep winning." This was the first such vote. Before the vote the polls had the separatists losing. The Spanish supreme court ruled the voted was unconstitutional and illegal. Few Catalonians who were opposed to separation actually voted because a) it was illegal to do so, and b) it was an exercise in futility. This is not a burning issue in Catalonia except among the socialists because they already had a significant degree of independence. So, why do you care?
Some questions for you: What about the 50% or more of Catalonian citizens who don't support separation? Should they form their own country? What currency are the Catalonians going to use? Not euros because those are issued by a Spanish national bank. What passports are they going to travel on? What do they do for a military? What happens when Spain sets up border crossings on every road leading into Catalonia? Most importantly, where is the Barcelona football team going to play? Not in La Liga, which alone should be enough to kill the deal.
Let a 1000 flowers bloom. They're all ruled by the EU, so what does it matter?
Same with the UK. Let Scotland go its own way. Let Northern Ireland be a free state. Wales? Who needs 'em. Smartest thing they ever need was getting rid of the Irish in 1921.
And Kick out New England. The other 44 states would be better off.
Only the nation states have armies; only the EU has welfare? Which do we need most?
Is that it?
I have English friends who'd just as soon rid the UK of the People's Democratic Socialist Parasitic Republic of Scotland. Can't say as I blame them. You know those Scottish junkies in "Trainspotting"? Not a few English regard them as a metaphor for Scotland.
There are 135 members. that's actually 52% voting yes. Many opposition parties boycotted the vote.
The other interesting thing we noticed while in Spain, this time in Granada, was the celebration of Christopher Columbus. We were in Granada on October 12, and it was listed as a Spanish national holiday. There were parades, bands, and much celebration. Also, there were contingents from Mexico and South America there celebrating as well. Ferdinand and Isabella gave Christopher Columbus the money to seek India in the Alhambra in Granada in 1492. Also the tombs of Ferdinand and Isabella are in a crypt below the Cathedral of Granada.
Quite different from what is happening here re: Columbus...
The EU is not the cause of this, not directly.
Spain is a conglomerate, like all large European countries, and some small ones too.
The Spanish national idea was founded, effectively, on two principles, of Catholic primacy and the empire. In its own way Spain was a "proposition nation". Spain stayed together without true separatist problems (as opposed to constant trouble with the royal succession and central government expansion vs local rights, troubles which were not unique to these regions), because there were mutual interests abroad and important parts of a shared culture at home.
These failed by 1898, which, along with the general European intellectual zeitgeist, created separatist ethno-politics which had not existed before - i.e., Basques and Catalans realized that they were nations, where before they were just the Spanish population of these places, with their usual peculiarities. Every part of Spain is weird in its own way, even to having or having had its own local language.
In many ways this explains Spanish history of the 20th century, along with the consequences and stress of a belated industrial revolution.
The EU forced a liberal democratic regime on Spain, which led to the minority peoples aquiring great leeway in local governance, which led to intense cultural engineering for decades, especially on the matter of language.
I know the Basque situation much better, but the Catalonian one is analogous - the Basque language was revived by making it official and mandatory in schools, signage, etc., somewhat like French in Quebec, along with explicitly nationalist curriculum and official media - the tele was always state-owned in Spain and much programming is regional.
This brings us to this point. The Basques got here first, and it remains to be seen what they will do.
Its interesting to think about how things have changed. The Basques and Catalans have been integral parts of Spanish culture for a thousand years, this could be a much more significant event than it appears.
MikeR, the civil war in the US was fought over succession, not slavery. The South seceded because of slavery, but Emancipation Proclamation, which came after the rebellion, did not even free slaves in any states that were not already in rebellion.
From History.com: "Emancipation was a military policy. As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion."
jaydub is peddling twaddle. A good refutation is in the book Freedom National.
Well, there is this. The last time there was a civil war in Spain it presaged WW2 in Europe.
Oh, and while in Barcelona they prohibited attendance at a soccer game between Barcelona and Las Palmas because of the demonstrations. I actually bought two tickets for my daughter and son-in-law and they went there and were told the game would be played but no spectators would be allowed in the arena. So I was refunded the money.
Maturin (Patrick O'Brians character) is a bit anachronistic.
Catalans fought the central Spanish government before, but the cause was not separatism. Once during the Bourbon-Habsburg struggle (the whole point of the War of the Spanish Succession), and again intermittently during the various Carlist wars, where the cause was again the succession, plus local rights (fueros) vs a centralizing government, plus Catholic reaction vs liberalism.
It is quite forgotten these days that the Catalans who have historically rebelled were the most conservative, reactionary Catholic and royalist elements.
Pace jaydub, the Republican party started dismantling slavery as much as they felt they could constitutionally from the outbreak of the war. Military emancipation was seen as a constitutionally permitted tool.
Kick Scotland out.
It's just removing a superfluous, but not inexpensive, layer of government.
So jaydub, where were there slaves inside the US after the Civil War?
@brylun, Columbus (or part of him) is entombed in the Cathedral of Seville, and his tomb is one of the main attractions there.
Professor A: you need to sign buwaya to an exclusive commenter deal. X/he nails it. Thanks, buwaya, for contributing so much historical and otherwise valuable info.
To be clear, the true effect of the EU is that in order to join it the Spanish government was obliged to become much too nice (there was always a degree of brutality required to keep order in Spain), permitting ethno-separatists the power to create a separatist culture.
Ken B said...
jaydub is peddling twaddle. A good refutation is in the book Freedom National.
No, Jaydub is quoting history.com, which must be peddling twaddle.
"This escalation bodes ill for a country that has only been a democracy since 1977. "
.....and Frascisco Franco is still dead.
"MikeR, the civil war in the US was fought over succession, not slavery."
(a) you're wrong. That was the issue, regardless of the details of how it was handled during wartime.
(b) even if you're right, I don't care. I'm telling you my moral perspective and the perspective (I think) of the median American today. The reason that the Civil War was moral was that the South tried to leave with their slaves, not because they tried to leave. Decent government requires the consent of the governed.
If California eventually tries to secede I would not expect the United States to fight them. I would vehemently oppose doing that.
Pull our troops out of Niger and send them to Barcelona.
Quebec threatens periodically to secede from Canada. The rest of Canada only hopes.
I would encourage Californians to seek independence from the US. [Whatever happened to those hopeful threats?!] The rest of the nation would cheer.
Yes, Scotland should be strongly encouraged--even bribed--to seek independence from the UK.
tim in vermont said...
So jaydub, where were there slaves inside the US after the Civil War?
There were none. There were no slave states that had not been in rebellion at the end of the war, but there were during the war. This concept is not hard. The Constitution permitted slavery, so Lincoln could not just of his own accord free slaves in the US, and he didn't. In fact, he wanted a gradual end to slavery, not a sudden break. He freed slaves in the CSA, not the USA, because he wanted to make it difficult on the rebelling states and he needed to deal with the former slaves who were fleeing northward. Remember, the Civil War started in April 1861 and the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until January, 1863. Also note that West Virginia, admitted to the Union in 1863 some two years after the start of the Civil War, was admitted as a slave state. The war was started over secession, not slavery, but the the war did end slavery in the US.
--It doesn't "keep winning." This was the first such vote. Before the vote the polls had the separatists losing.--
There was the referendum and the parliamentary vote, both lopsided. Granted some loyalists may have stayed home, but secession won 90-10, and got something like 40% of *registered* voters. But keep flogging polls, since polls have such a great track record lately.
And where was that clause in the Constitution that prohibits secession, as you claimed?
I'm in Andalusia and no one I've talked to seems very alarmed about this. I doubt there will be another
Spanish Civil war but then the Catalonians lost the last one and they are still unhappy about it. It seems to be rabble rousing but the goal is unfocused The EU will not back them so not clear what they could gain from this.
The development of this situation has interesting parallels to the US, but not in the way most would think.
One ha s to go back to the 19th century. There was a great project to modernize Spain after the Napoleonic wars, introducing democracy,cetc. (an ancestor of mine was a Philippine delegate to the Cortez at Cadiz). This broke down into a bitter liberal vs conservative struggle in Madrid that has been going on ever since. The old joke is that a Spanish liberal is one who hates Spanish conservatives, and vice versa. At various times one side or the other was ascendant, and both sides took on the characteristics if the other.
Part of the liberal project was an insistence on a centralized government, uniform laws and taxation, and suppression of the privileges of the Church.
The very traditional peoples of many Spanish regions rebelled. This brought on the Carlist wars, of which the royal succession struggle was in many ways just a handy pretext. The defeat of the Carlists was the proximate cause of the development of ethno-nationalism. Regional autonomy to a degree was seen as the restoration of the fueros (local rights and laws). But now the well was poisoned by ethnic issues.
The same impulse of an overbearing, overcentralizing state is also a feature of American political conflict, as is the growing significance of ethnicity. The way it has played out is different, but many of the drivers are quite similar. The US has its liberals and conservatives, Isabelinos and Carlists.
To be clear, the true effect of the EU is that in order to join it the Spanish government was obliged to become much too nice (there was always a degree of brutality required to keep order in Spain), permitting ethno-separatists the power to create a separatist culture.
Good point, buwaya! In many ways, the EU has, like Haman, built its own gallows.
MikeR: "a) you're wrong. That was the issue, regardless of the details of how it was handled during wartime.
(b) even if you're right, I don't care."
Tough to argue with that so I'll drop it.
I've been in Barcelona but only briefly. My daughter lived in Grenada for a year and was struck at how primitive it is.
Spain has never recovered from the squandering of one of the world's richest countries on religious wars he could not win. France under Louis XIV did much the same, hence the 1789 revolution.
The Industrial Revolution was a Protestant thing and, although France finally caught up, Spain never did. Britain and Germany developed the economies that ruled Europe in spite of Napoleon who squandered what was left after the monarchy.
Germany ruined their economy with the European Civil War, also known as WWI and WWII. Russia was progressing pretty quickly until the Bolsheviks took over in 1917. Russia has been dying since and will not make it to the 22nd century.
The American Civil War was largely an economic struggle between the Industrial Revolution here and the attempt by the South to keep an agrarian society that depended on slavery to successfully grow cotton. Cotton required intense physical labor which was more than the white population could do alone and cotton ruins the soil in a era before chemical fertilization.
If the Civil War had not occurred, it is interesting to think about what the South would have done as the economic power disparity got worse and worse. The Confederates had designs on Cuba and Mexico if they had survived as a country.
Sherman made the difference with the fall of Atlanta that ensured Lincoln's 1864 win.
I don't know the answer for Catalonia but if they succeed, the Basques will go next. Both ethnic regions include parts of France,
As the Muslim invasion and corruption of France continues, I could see more French separatism. The Muslims do not significantly contribute to France. They are parasites, as they are in England.
@Jaydub and Tim To be precise, slavery in the US ended with the ratification of the 13th amendment: (it) declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865."
"On September 22 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, in which he declared that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in states in rebellion against the Union "shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."
Lincoln had originally been in favor of resettling all the slaves in Africa after compensation to their owners. He realized the impossibility of that scheme during the war and finally settled on emancipation.
The French Basques and Catalans are a dim shadow (as far as ethnic distinctiveness goes) of those of Spain. France was much more effective at centralizing and overwhelming local cultures with a uniform one designed in Paris. Spanish efforts in the same direction did not go as far (even under Franco), and were utterly reversed after the 1970s.
Spain did indeed achieve its industrial revolution. It was going hot and heavy already in the 1890s, and was a major reason why Spain recovered economically from the loss of its colonies in 1898.
Here's how the escaped/freed slave issue was dealt with prior to the emancipation declaration. Contraband.
Another American parallel is in the nature and power of schools.
The Basques and Catalans created their nationalism largely by controlling what was taught in school. They taught their kids that they were Basques/Catalans first, and Spaniards later, if at all. This took; they are in their second generation of this and it is thoroughly entrenched.
France and the US both were making Frenchmen and Americans out of something else, through the schools. This stopped in the US (in stages) beginning in the 1970s. You are just beginning to see some of the consequences.
"This stopped in the US (in stages) beginning in the 1970s. You are just beginning to see some of the consequences."
Not only the "Melting Pot" of the common schools but children are now being taught nonsense and basic skills, like math and geography, are ignored.
My grandkids are in a charter school which teachers will move to even for less money. The teachers who want to teach will go to the charters when able. I sent my kids to private schools but I can no longer afford to do so because my income is less and the private schools in California have gotten hideously expensive. Obviously, anyone with money flees the public schools.
This will have serious consequences for society. Public schools create ignoramuses. The hatred of Betsy DeVos is one manifestation of how important she is. The teachers unions would assassinate her if they could get to her. I hope she has good security.
All this arguing over the cause of the American Civil War...
Yes, Lincoln stood firm to defend the Union, but why were the 'Southroners' threatening secession? They claimed 'States Rights' to be their cause, but what rights were they trying to protect? The right to own others. You cannot separate the two. Lincoln was clear on this.
Delaware was a Northern slave state and was a slave state until the 13th Amendment. Kentucky as well.
Lincoln had no authority to free any of the slaves until the South entered into open rebellion. He used his emergency powers to free those 'people in service' who were living in areas under Confederate control. Slaves in Union-controlled areas were not freed until the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Not My Circus, Not My Monkeys.
That said, I sympathize with people seeking self-determination, especially those with a history of being oppressed. The Kurds, in particular. I think it's probably short-sighted for the Catalans to seek independence. Would they be better off under self-rule or as part of a larger, more powerful nation? I don't know enough about the situation to make a decision on it.
Lincoln said he would allow slavery to continue if the secession ended.
He knew, most likely, that slavery was dependent on a weak agrarian economy that would grow weaker.
There had been an argument that slavery would have continued and was not as weak as assumed but the other side is that slavery was dependent on cotton and cotton was to ruin the soil of the Confederacy within 30 years, Chemical fertilizers were coming but not in time to save the cotton industry.
Sherman's famous letter to a secessionist friend told them what to expect,.
You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it …
Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
Well, the South was trying to change this equation by selling themselves to England, though officially anti-all forms of slavery, wanted our cotton for their international business in cloth and the like enabled by wonderful inventions that took their production capability up 10x. and was half of their international trade. 10x due to industrial revolution Inventions no one else had (yet to copy Though the U.S.would shortly. Andrew Jackson understood this, He was tired of fighting the British, really wanted, to be their allies, and he was morally exhausted by having to be so cruel in the war of 1812 that congress made it impossible for the South to complete the deal, opening the door to civil war, once congress couldn't paper over their differences any more to an outraged citizenry. For a fantasy, imagine they completed the sale, and how the world would have evolved including the grievance groups. Imagine America and England together fixing Europe before things went crazy. Compare and contrast with ehat happened to slavery in other British colonies.
Would they be better off under self-rule or as part of a larger, more powerful nation?
Catalans may see the Spanish government as unnecessary since Spain has overlords in Brussels that dictate what Madrid may do anyway.
We have a potential second civil war in Spain. The actions of Spain in the next few days will determine their fate.
It all depends on how Madrid will annul the parliament and run the elections at the end of December. The Catalan Independistas are banking on being able to portray Spain as fascist to world opinion, so Spain has the delicate challenge of how to administrate their monopoly on power. Is Spain capable of charm? Can they mix charm and power? The separatists are armed with shame, can Madrid disarm them?
Some Notes:
-How ironic it is that the Catalans are exhibiting such a quixotic dream! (Yes, I do mean Cervantes.)
-Doesn’t a globalist dream obviate the need for secession? Why create distinctions when distinctions are destined to be erased? Why reject Spain when you want to be subsumed within the EU?
-Kipling’s “…new caught, sullen people…” The mentality of the colonized. Spain will have to work overtime to overcome Catalan passive resistance.
-This is a stark failure of European socialist fraternity (the Catalan refusal of redistribution), of the idea of international socialism.
Jaydub asks: Would you want Washington to directly govern your state?
You mean they don't? Unfunded mandates? Supreme Court decisions?
Also, the headline at Drudge is "Freedom" with the Catalan Estellada flag. A lot of people think this is all you have to think about this issue, but there's a lot more to it.
The Catalans have freedom. It's identity that they want. They got their freedom when they voted overwhelmingly for their constitution within Spain after Franco died in '78.
Also, this issue was dormant in '78, and grew after the Jordi Pujol scandal*. Happenstance? Coincidence? Some don't think so.
*Revealing that their political opponents in Madrid aren't the only ones who are corrupt, the main Catalan Independista narrative until that moment.
Michael K: your quote from Sherman's letters is simply awesome. Many thanks.
I wonder if a similar letter could be addressed today to, say, the Islamists?
"I wonder if a similar letter could be addressed today to, say, the Islamists?"
I'm not sure enough of them can read.
The notion that slavery in the South would have withered away eventually, absent a Civil War to force its abolition, sounds a lot like a Marxist formulation and is equally as specious. Left to its own devices, the South would not have abolished slavery, no matter how bad the economy. The Southern economy underperformed for more than a century after the end of the Civil War and yet the South kept its system of racial apartheid regardless the negative economic consequences, and punished -- ruthlessly, violently, and viciously -- anyone, white or black, who defied it. Absent federal intervention in the 1950s and 1960s, the South would have perpetuated a South African-style apartheid social/cultural system. Remember (for example), it wasn't until 1971 that Alabama had its first (and, at the time, only) black player.
MikeR said...
"The reason that the Civil War was moral was that the South tried to leave with their slaves, not because they tried to leave. Decent government requires the consent of the governed."
You don't see anything contradictory in forcing people to remain under a government they don't consent to because decent government requires the consent of the governed?
clyde said: "That said, I sympathize with people seeking self-determination, especially those with a history of being oppressed."
The sheer ignorance of the commenters on this thread is mindboggling. The Catalonian region is the richest in Spain - specifically income is about 18% higher than the Spanish average. How are they oppressed? By not having income at least 28% higher than the rest of Spain? They already have essential autonomy - what do people in the US want for Spain and why should the Spanish care? You have been complaining about "foreign influence" in an American election for a year, and now you are demanding that Spanish voters kowtow to some random American's uniformed opinion? As an American citizen I'm appalled at the stupidity of many of my countrymen.
Calm down, jaydub. There are some issues about how popular secession is.
Spain in general is pretty poor and primitive. My daughter lived a year in Grenada and they heated and cooked with propane tanks. The vendor came around once a week and if you missed them, you were out of luck for a week.
Catalonia may resent paying high taxes to support an incompetent government,
I left California to avoid high taxes and incompetent government, but state government.
The Madrid government has been pretty ham handed about this.
The Southern economy underperformed for more than a century after the end of the Civil War
Had Lincoln lived, there might have been a period of reconciliation but Booth wiped out that chance and left vengeful Radicals to wreak havoc.
Sherman was attacked by Stanton in newspapers for trying to negotiate the surrender of Joe Johnston's army.
He hated Stanton ever after and refused to shake his hand at the Grand Review,
The carpetbaggers and scalawags were real and created a 100 years of hostility to all things northern.
Was segregation inevitable ? Probably but the KKK was largely a reaction to the hostile north.
The soil was largely destroyed by cotton. That is why Georgia and Alabama are mostly pine forests. It was all that would grow there.
I don;t know the solution to Reconstruction but what happened wasn't it.
"The sheer ignorance of the commenters on this thread is mindboggling."
I'll repeat what I've said. The EU really rules Spain. Why shouldn't "Spain" break apart - if that's what they want?
All you can do is just screech and emote.
Yeah, its amazing how "Funny" nationalism is, to the outsider. But don't tell a Jew like David Brooks that his Israeli Nationalism is "funny" or a Spaniard his nationalism is "Funny".
But the USA is a "propositional nation"
The Catalan complaint is complex, but there have indeed been constant complaints about subsidizing the rest of Spain, etc.
Other stuff is very much along the lines of TN Coates, about old oppressions from Franco's day and earlier, back to the War of the Spanish Succession and the siege of Barcelona.
One reason I find TNC so familiar. This is nationalist SOP.
Of course, segregation was inevitable.
Show me one nation on earth that believed in racial equality until WW2.
Waiting...waiting...
Its absurd to think you could free the slaves over -literally - the dead bodies of southern slave holders & think they would turn around and treat their ex-slaves as political equals.
These things take time. Of course, we all know if we could transport your ass back to 1880 you'd would've founded the NAACP and devoted your life to racial justice. Yeah.
Of course, dumbasses can never get that "Understanding" history doesn't mean "approving" of it.
Their little brains can't make the distinction.
Jaydub: "You have been complaining about "foreign influence" in an American election for a year, and now you are demanding that Spanish voters kowtow to some random American's uniformed opinion?"
"you"
Who precisely is this "you" you speak of?
The Pope should step in and support the Catalonians. These are his people. The rest of Spain is going Moslem.
The issue for me is viability? Will the new nation be able to protect and provide for their citizens? Will their freedom weaken their former nation enough to make it no longer viable?
If the answers are yes and no then I say set them free. The most brutal wars are "civil" wars. (How did they get that name, since they are the most uncivil wars of all?)
Let's play "Who said it and When?"
Our first quote is:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
No fair googling!
It was Lincoln, of course.
Don't know exactly when, though, w/o looking it up.
Was segregation inevitable ? Probably but the KKK was largely a reaction to the hostile north.
Segregation was a continuation of and substitute for slavery. The KKK was an expression of Southern white attitudes toward blacks by other means. No longer able to enslave blacks, Southerners could certainly terrorize and oppress them, and they did. The hostility that bears mentioning in this discussion is white hostility toward blacks. That hostility was relentless and hateful. Hostility by Northerners toward the former Confederacy pales in comparison and in the circumstances was well justified. The South started the Civil War with an act of armed aggression against a federal military installation and in doing so plunged the nation into the bloodiest war in its history. Then, when it ended, a Southerner killed Lincoln. The South was not chastened by defeat and did not change its attitudes toward blacks; it continued in terrorizing and oppressing blacks well into the twentieth century.
The KKK was an expression of Southern white attitudes toward blacks by other means
You mean beliefs like:
Never bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races?
Not making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people?
That there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality?
That if they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and that the superior position should be assigned to the white race?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा