🚀 go-pugleaf

Jose Mallea Olaetxe wrote:
>
> After reading the discussions presented by the three participants,
> one conclusion, it seems to me, would be that nowadays it is becoming
> harder and harder to be Basque.
** Indeed, it is becoming harder and harder to be anything.


Somehow you have to proof you are one,
> while othe larger cultures don't have to pass the same test.
** It depends on the larger culture. I don't think people from
Tartarstan or Dagestan will ever be considered Russian by anyone,
especially by Russians, even they are, for now, a part of Russian.

The larger cultures you have in mind are the new world cultures in which
American, Mexican, Canadian, Ecuadorean, Peruvian, etc. "cultures" are
either non-existent or simply commerical labels. (Peruvian culture a la
Fujimori or Vargas Llosa should not be confused with the age-old Quechua
culture which they ignore and/or despise)


> For example, few people dispute today the reality of "American"
> culture, though the U.S. is one of the least homogeneous countries in
> the world.
** Look, the only requirement for a foreigner to become an American is
to have a U.S. passport (or at least the right to have one) and often
declare "I just love America" all misty-eyed and cheer on the U.S. teams
in the Olympics. That's how shallow being an American is. What does
unite the U.S. of A is the almighty dollar, the education system, such
as it is, and television, and English (for now until the Mexican and
Chinese take over :-) . Take away these factors and the U.S. is nothing
but a bunch of suburbs, housing developments (and nasty ghettos), fast
food joints, and shopping centers held together by the economy and the
likes of Oprah Winfrey. That is very shallow identity to my way of
seeing things.

(in passing, I also think that the equally tenuous Canadian identity is
based primarily on the dubious premise of not being American, and quite
understandably so, the Canadians at least have a health care system for
all)

> For years I have been documenting the tree carvings left by Basque
> artzainak in the mountains. Few people would question the Basqueness of
> these artzainak, most of whom were baserritarrak. Yet, the other day, one
> scholar, looked at the data, and said: "What is so Basque about it"?
>
> Basque writers have drummed up the Basque "difference" and
> their "uniqueness" so much, that now it seems, people are not impressed
> unless they see the word EUSKALDUNA tattooed all over their foot-long
> noses.
** In a country where their very nationality has been denied, is being
denied, and undoubtedly will be denied until something like
self-determination is achieved, that is not very surprising.

> Euskaldunak euskaraz mintzatuko balire, elegoke honelako eztabaidarik.

** Egia da. Baina, espainiarrak al dira erdaraz ez dakiten euskaldunak,
katulniarrak, eta galiziarra? Aznarren ustez, baietz. Haientzat,
espainiarra izatea status quo onartezina onartzea da, beraz, Espainaren
mugen artean dagoen guzti-guztia, espainiarra da. Gezur beltz hori
zuritzeko, espainiar nazionalismoa "inclusivo" dela diote, ez
"exclusivo" , beste nazionalismoak bezala (irakur bitez euskal
nazionlismo eta Kataluniakoa). Halako batean, ikusiko dugu nola
borrokatuko duten Europako nortasuna. Alegia, aurki, hemendik zenbait
urtetara, euro-euskaldunak izango gara eta ez derrigorrez
hispano-euskaldunak (nahi ez badugu bederen). Horrek sekulako arazoak
sortuko dizkie espainolistei. zeren eta askoz irekiagoa, modernoagoa,
"inclusivoagoa" izango baita euro-euskalduna izatea, hispano-euskalduna
izatea baino.
     Hala eta guztiz ere, arrazoi osoa dauka Mallea jaunak. Euskalduna
izateko, behar-beharrezkoa da, besteak beste -- edo ezinbestean --
euskaraz jakitea. Euskal Herritarra edo vascoa izateko, nahikoa da
hementxe bertan bizitzea. Zoritxarrez, soilik euskaldunok dakigu zer
alde den euskaldunen eta euskalherritarren artean.


Mikel Morris, eurorik gabeko euro-euskalduna (baina ez vascoa)