" Guest
<<You are assuming a lot of things about what I think or not and that's not good in a conversation>>
You're right. My apologies. I should have afforded you the benefit of the doubt and not lumped you into the larger generic group, or made you as representative of any group or body of opinion. You are, after all, an individual.
<<Did I say you are a Catalan?>> Again, apologies. But can you see why I understood you to be presuming me as Catalan? It's because I understood your comment <<Catalan nationalists are specially annoying>> to be a response to the message posted just before yours by Harkan: <<I think this topic was started by a catalionan who wants to get Rosellon back to catalonia>> and since Harkan was clearly referring to me (the poster who started this topic) I took your comment in that light.
<<I don't know where are you from...>> Again, let me be categorical: I am from Ireland.
<<The Bourbon dinasty was a step forward from the Habsburg Dinasty (which had strong germanic and federalist mentality)>>
<<...A Southern French maybe?>> No. Southern Irish.
<<...Southern French ,like the Catalans, tend to be disgusting people...>> Have you told this to Le Toulousain? Or do I seem so repulsive to you that I automatically remind you of a Southern Frenchman or a Catalan? No assumptions here, I would just like some clarification.
By the way, you do know that the word 'disgusting' tends to be a false friend between the Spanish-to-English translation, right? In English, 'disgusting' does not mean 'unpleasant' or 'desagradable'; it means 'repellent', 'odious', 'filthy'. A very hateful term. Especially one to be using about ethnic groups.....I'm sorry, there I go again 'assuming' what you meant!
<<The Parisians, contrarily to what many people tend to believe, are not that cold... >>
Are you assuming that I hold a particular view about Parisians? That's hardly fair, is it? No where did I make any assumption of the like, any comment whatsoever about the Parisian people, their characteristics, their hospitality etc. As it happens, I too have been to Paris; twice. My experience of Parisians? Quite similar to yours. The ones whom I met? Mostly nice individuals, polite, hospitable and helpful as well as a few unpleasant people and then still some others who didn't provoke any strong feelings in me either way, good or bad. That is, like any other people anywhere.
<<Maybe despite they no longer speak their vernacular languages and speak only French, Southern French people still have big resentment deep in their soul inherited from generations ... >>
Le Toulaisain seems to have gotten over his.
<<The Bourbon dinasty was a step forward from the Habsburg Dinasty (which had strong germanic and federalist mentality)... >>
A step forward? The Hapsburgs attained a level of commercial and international expansion uprecedented by any Spanish dynasty before or since. The diffusion of the Castillian language (which I love by the way) overseas is due in large part to their administration. What was wrong with a federalist mentality? They succeeded in securing the allegiance to Spain of the various crowns and principalities who became active participants in the Spanish Empire (I don't know a single Catalan nationalist who would take pride in this) and all this without trampling their local customs. Again what is wrong with federalism? The most successful liberal democracy in the world today (the United States) is defined by its federalism. I happen to think Europe could have avoided a lot of turmoil and bloodshed had it been more respectful of local autonomies. It's a two-way thing, Guest; the centrifugalists may be a modern day irritant and, true enough, nationalists tend to be foolish (what grounds are there for advancing politics through sentiment?) but believe me, they weren't always this way. Treated well, they can be willing partners. Or maybe that ship has sailed....
<<After the last Habsburg king died, Spain was no more than a conglomerate of different kingdoms, each one with their own language, laws, coin, and so on. The Bourbons contributed a lot to create the Spanish nation and imposed the Spanish language in the administration>>
-Britain was also a conglomerate of different kingdoms at that time; didn't stop them from rising throughout the 18th century to become the dominant world power, did it? The Scots were happy to tag along as long as the Empire was benefiting them too as equal partners! Scotland also preserved its own legal system (Roman Law) as opposed to the English norms and its education system was also free of control from London. By 1900 Scotland was one of the wealthiest regions in the world per capita. Poland-Lithuania also become the largest kingdom of contiguous territory in Eastern Europe despite being practically a federative and elective monarchy. Why should diversity have been a threat to peace, partnership and prosperity in the case of Spain?
<<The Bourbons contributed a lot to create the Spanish nation and imposed the Spanish language in the administration>>
-'Create' a nation? How? A nation is the sentiment of a people. How does an administration create sentiment? Even Josep Pique uses this argument AGAINST Catalan nationalists whenever they get a bit too excitable.
-imposed the Spanish language? The Spanish language had already prospered and spread rapidly in the preceding centuries without any need for legislative 'imposition'. Ever heard of the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" It was hardly conducive to harmonious relations a century later.
<<Also the Bourbons banned Catalan in Spain>>
-Well, I would find something discomforting about this, wouldn't I? Banning languages. What next?
<< I prefer to call the French simply as "franceses", not "gabachos" >>
- I'm glad to hear that. Like you, I can't stand when people use derogatory terms to classify ethnic or national groups. Again, I didn't intend to imply that you yourself would ever use this term to describe French people, but rather was attributing it to a view commonly held amongst many, though not most, Spaniards. My mistake for lumping you in with the collective and not respecting your individuality again. I should have been more precise in my language. Apologies once again.
<<Where did I say anything against the Napoleonic invasion?>>
- I never accused, implied or inferred that you supported the Napoleonic invasion. Again, read my paragraph concerning the ironies of France's interaction with Spain in this period.
Napoleon's brother had big plans to modernise Spain and centralise even more the administration, following the Republican French
- He intended to achieve all these big plans in his capacity...as a puppet ruler? What a stunning success that proved to be!
- Centralising the administration = An observation lacking any value judgement. But good or bad, and reasons why/why not?
- Just because Pepe's proposals were idealistic and well-intentioned did not make them automatically good ideas. Lenin made the trains run on time, Ireland's Prime Minister in the 1930s, De Valera, dreamt of incubating a romanticised pure agrarian society which had suffered a century of previous famines into a haven in which small agricultors would be the economic backbone of the nation. His practical measures to implement these sweeping reforms? Importation tariffs on agricultural produce and suicidal tit-for-tat trade war with neighbouring Britain leading to increased poverty, mass emigration and cultural insularity. Lesson learned? Intentions are not the same in practicality as they are when held in imagination. But a mature political culture is one which will accept responsibility and admit its accountability for the deeds it carries out, regardless of how things turn out and contingent factors.
<<Sadly the clerigy and the noblemen were able to cheat the Spanish people and disposed them against the French Republic>>
- I can't believe I am about to defend the Catholic Church here! But can you even understand their slight fear at the anti-clericalism (note, not the same thing as 'secularism') of the French troops considering what had happened over the previous two decades within France? You know, when churches and convents were shut down ( a disaster for the French urban poor, by the way, who missed out on charity works), priests, monks and nuns, beaten, harassed and even murdered. A foretelling of what was to come in Spain throughout the 1830s (Remember? The rumours about how the Jesuits were infiltrating other religious orders and poisoning the city of Madrid's drinking wells...well, it helped justify a few church burnings), the senseless violence. Why on earth should the clergy have expected to receive decent treatment by invading Napoleonic anti-clerical forces? Now, you could argue that they should have been a bit more 'politic' and tried to accomodate the French prescene there. But it's easy for you or I to summon the courage which they may or may not have lacked when faced with this situation two hundred years ago.
- Also, I love the tone of conspiracy theory here. The invisible hand selling out Spain, the dark hidden forces working from the shadows to manipulate the people. Generally not advisable to flaunt this in a History conversation, regardless of era and location.
<<Study history you ignorant >>
- I did. Formally. At University Level. B.A. And I continue to read it avariciously.
<<Napoleon did find more resistence precissely in Catalonia than in other parts of Spain>>
- A good point which only serves to reinforce my argument that Catalans and other regional entities did often prove incredibly loyal to the Spanish nation. And you would have these patriots annexed by France?
- And yet you say that they are like <<..a petite France inside Spain...>>? What did they have to do to prove to your satisfaction? You really set the bar high for peoples from peripheral regions regardless of their historical experiences!
<<,...the British, which in theory were allies of Spain, commited more crimes against the local population than the French invasors themselves>>
- Britain were in fact allies of Portugal, and felt obliged to intervene (as per terms of agreement since the 14th century- Western Europe's oldest military entente) in the event of Napoleon usurping Portugal's sovereignty. Britain could just have easily returned home after expelling French forces from Portugal. Luckily for Spain, she didn't. And so indeed the 'guerilleros' were able to count on an ally. And one which didn't occupy Spain after helping to liberate it. And without this intervention there would have been no Constitution at Cadiz in 1812.
- indeed the British soldiers did have a tendency to be rewarded by their officers for their bravery and discipline in the form of allowing them to get drunk and unruly, stealing, fighting, occasionally raping and quite conceivably murdering members of innocent local populations along their way. But did this ever amount to large-scale premeditated murder? Was it official regimental policy to target local populations for politically-motivated killings? And remarkably for a Protestant country, it didn't even bother go around burning and desecrating Spanish churches. French troops on the other hand...
<< Don't make assumptions about what I think, you fool..>>
- Another insult, but I won't return fire. Throughout this reply I have tried to maintain some civility and avoid resorting to insults or coarse language, clarifying where necessary and apologising where proper... and believe me I am trying; but seeing as how exerting this has been, I think I can at least indulge myself the following:
to continue to make assumptions about you, and about what you think, since I spot a continuous trend as I progress through your text. Namely, that you will continue to insult me. Not that I'm too offended- there have been worse displays of behaviour on this forum before and besides, you were probably in a bad mood due to some other preocupations (you see? I'm also willing to make charitable assumptions to your benefit!).
I will also assume that you don't like a certain people/peoples and ethnicities and freely insult them, something which I have not resorted to once throughout this topic. So, before we continue...
are there any more ethnic groups whom you consider to be 'hideous'?
What about Jews? Africans? Romani?
Should I assume the way you think about them?
PS - I'd love to know just how prosperous Madrid would be if it didn't have the cash injection that all national capital and administrative cities receive. And you speak for Madrid not needing Catalans' money, but I think the more prescient question is where and how the government (based in Madrid) decides to redistributes said money to which regions for those spending projects (he says nervously looking at administrative ethics in Andalucia and Extremadura) which Catalans may find to be wasteful, inefficient, or simply trousered by the local elites. It's a common gripe that happens in many large countries.
|