Señor_Contador said:
WHAT?!
First of all, there wasn't a Basque language per se, there were and are 8 Basque dialects (euskera batua, which is now the unified standard Basque language, was not introduced until 1968). Secondly, 4 of those dialects were spoken in Iparralde, so Franco could not ban those dialects, for obvious reasons. Thirdly, the Basque dialects on the Spanish side were not "banned" from public use, Franco DID prioritize castellano (Spanish) onto people and institutions (schools, government paperwork, et cetera), but NEVER forbade people from speaking in the language they always spoke, be it Galician, Catalan or any Basque dialect. My grandmother, God rest her soul, was a Galician falangista (Franco sympathiser) and she was never able to speak Spanish. Moreover, she used to say that more people spoke Galician during Franco's "reign of terror" than during the transición (transition to democracy).
There has always been a Basque language. It just wasn't unified. It is a completely different language family to those surrounding it. The modern 'unified' Basque is a recent development. Languages is my area, and to say that something is not a language because of not being fully codified is not entirely accurate. You could argue that dialects OF AN EXISTING LANGUAGE are not fully codified thus not independent languages (eg Schwyzertüütsch, Lëtzebuergesch, Scots - not Scots Gaelic which is an independent language but the Germanic tongue Scots). But Basque was always a language entirely independent of any language surrounding it and as far as specialist linguists can tell, any extant language on Earth. I mean, if it was a bunch of dialects, a dialect of WHAT, exactly? You can argue that Asturianu is a dialect, you can even argue that Galego is a dialect if you wanted to (though most linguists are happy to accept it as a language in its own right).
But Basque? Not if you're not prepared to say that there was no such thing as the German language until the 16th century.
Language has always played a part in the nation question. In China, they believe that they speak one language, and all of the different languages like Mandarin and Cantonese are dialects of it. From a linguistic point of view, however, these are far, far more different than, say, Czech and Slovak, Hindi and Urdu, or Serbian and Croatian, which have grown apart because of political or religious differences.
Señor_Contador said:
No, I noted different beliefs and different languages as being things that make a nation state great.
When many nation states were created it was along the idea of unifying those who speak the same language and share the same cultural values and histories into a self-determining state. Because of the presence of the Catalans, the Basques, the Galicians, Spain is not by any means a typical nation state, because different people in different parts of Spain have different views on what constitutes a nation. The Basques, Catalans etc. consider themselves a nation (or at least those nationally inclined do), and do not have a nation state of their own, hence the independence drive. But then there are others who are fully au fait with identifying themselves as Volksangehörigkeit Baskisch, Staatsangehörigkeit Spanisch. To many, Spain is a nation state, and Basques, Catalans and so on are Spaniards with their own regional identities. To others, Spain is a nation state, and Basques, Catalans and so on are minority nations within that, like the Sorbs in Germany, the Südtirolers in Italy, the Bürgenland Croats in Austria and the Bréton in France. To others still, Euskadi, Catalunya and so on are nations with their own proud histories and want the right to self-determination along the same lines as other nation states.
Everybody else in the world. Catalan is an independent language, a separate branch on the Romance family tree. Basque is a language independent of all others on earth. Come on, if you're going to try to make out that I'm stupid and ignorant, don't play the "how is the Basque language different?" card. That just makes you look facetious and determined to belittle the Basques and their identity at every turn at best, and ignorant at worst. The Basque language is different from Spanish, from French from every other language in Iberia, in Western Europe, in Europe, Eurasia and the World.
No, Basque and Catalonian nationalism might have been stronger. You're confusing that which is purely Basque and Catalonian with what is merely nationalist in nature.
Pardon me for looking at the Basque case in a thread about the Basques.
I am a Spanish nationalist???? Really???? Since when?
You could've fooled me. And hrotha. And others.
Look I'm not going to oppose the fact that Euskal Herria is a real cultural nation/state, what I am opposing is the cultural state -> political state leap of faith many make. Politically speaking Euskal Herria, as we know it today, does not exist and has never existed.
No arguments here. After all, at the time of the greatest extent of Basque cultural influence, there was no Basque political entity in the way País Vasco exists today. But there is no uniform line that delineates Basque territory from Spanish territory, and the two are not mutually exclusive as you've pointed out before. The definition of Basque territory as covered by Basque national organs such as Euskaltel and ETB includes all of Iparralde and all of Navarre, as there are people identifying themselves as Basques in all of this territory, but there are people identifying themselves as Spaniards in all of this territory too.
I don't really see how we've got out of this the whole who supports whose nationalist cause just by saying that Unai Etxebarría is Basque, simply because he has dual nationality because Spain accepts jus sanguinis, and both his parents were from País Vasco. It's not a nationalist argument that needed to be making.
But... who's "threatening" Basque identity (and how)????
That's why I used the phrase "real or perceived". Often the biggest threat is actually LACK OF suppression and oppression, because those both strengthen the bond of community and the people's self-identification with it (thinking of the Jews in Ashkenaz II or the Sorbs in Germany as examples). When that bond of community is broken, you get intermarriage, moving away, and so on; and those that move away no longer have reason to use the minority language outside of their own home, and those that intermarry will usually raise children who speak the dominant language as a first choice.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the more nationally minded, or those who are proud of their minority tongue and tradition will perceive this as a threat, not of repression but of assimilation. And in general, this is actually the bigger threat to that identity because it fosters an environment where people willingly give it up. And it's not anybody's fault because nobody's done anything wrong per se, and there's not a lot you can do about it without one or both sides resorting to the kind of nationalist, isolationist policies that we sometimes see espoused by the nationalist groups.
So... populations being "mixed" in many "locations" is... a bad thing? I mean, do you understand how absurd you sound? You're sort of insinuating that history did not come to be soon enough for your particular view of Euskadi to make any sense right now. The fact of the matter is that you see a nation as location X, where people Y live, speak language P and believe in God M. It's as nazi as it gets. The nation state solves all these problems precisely by saying that you can live anywhere within the nation state, speak whatever language you choose to speak and believe in whatever God you want to believe in, SO LONG as you respect the laws of the land. And this bothers you. Admit it!
No, mixed populations is not a bad thing, but it's something that makes the establishment of a nation state a difficult thing because of various territorial claims and the need to establish minority rights. The nation state in the 19th century was a left wing idea, weirdly enough, because much of Europe was involved with various kingdoms, duchies and feudal monarchies, and it was an ideal to combine all of the people of one nationality under one state. But just as liberal democracy is not perfect, neither is the nation state. Differing interpretations of what constitutes a nation make it difficult to apply. In its purest sense, a nation state IS what you imply is Nazistic. However, a pure nation state in that sense is practically impossible to apply except in the most isolated of island nations, unless you rule it with an iron fist and conduct population exchanges like the Greeks and Turks did in the 1920s to establish a monocultural, monolingual entity.
Like I said, I am NOT a Spanish nationalist so please drop the name calling, ok? I don't oppose Basques. I oppose Basque nationalism. Two different things.
In which case, why did you need to bring nationalism into it by saying Unai Etxebarría wasn't Basque and criticising Euskaltel's selection policy on the basis that as far as they were concerned Etxebarría and the Basque-Navarrese were Basques, but they didn't meet your more stringent criteria?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram