Welcome to the fray, Asterault...this is what I posted earlier on the U.S., knowing full well that someone would misinterpret it (like all my opinions on ETA): «The main difference, for example, between a midwestern American and a southern American is nothing more than whether or not one chooses to say "y'all". Sure those in Arkansas may prefer rocky mountain oysters and okra to lutefisk and lefse...» It was the "main" not the "only" difference.

By the way, it's interesting that you once denounced the pledge of allegiance as "fascist crap" and now live in a country ruled by the vestiges of the old Falange...

As for Fernando, I won't insult you again by suggesting that you can't look up the information I've referenced on the physiological Basque differences yourself on the internet. I suggest a search engine not sponsored by El País :p

Asterault: I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that this is, and always will be a "you're wrong..." "no, you're wrong" issue. That's the most sensible thing I've read on this thread (outside of my comments, of course... :D)

I've decided to go ahead and insult Fernando's intelligence by actually posting some sources. By the way, these are not the book sources that I have in my personal library, but they are internet sources you can look up now. The first one, which I'm almost 100% sure is NOT funded by ETA or its propoganda machine, as it is from the Voice of India website (is there some sort of Indo-ETA pact that I'm unaware of?) is at this link: http://voi.org/books/ait/ch49.htm Check section 4.9.5, paragraph 2. As for the rest, I did Google, and typed in "physical characteristics" +Basque. Happy hunting...

As for me, I'm taking Asterault's comment to heart, and no longer feel the need to justify the facts, for, as he so eloquently stated, I'm still "wrong" and so are you. Thanks Asterault. Me voy...

By the way, Fernando, most of the "myths" on your NBC site are not in dispute...The one that sticks out, though is the "Spanish Dictator Francisco Franco specifically oppressed the Basque people" vs. "Spanish Dictator Francisco Franco oppressed the entire nation" Remind me why the "great oppressor of all Spain" bombed the spiritual heart of the Basque Country on market day, when everyone would be out in the streets? Why? What does NBCi have to say about this? Was this just a part of his plan to "oppress all Spain"? NBC doesn't know the first thing about reporting US news, so I hardly place stock in their ability to see both sides of any foreign issue.

CaliBasco [who is no Stephen Douglas, but loves the Basques more than he did...]

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: CaliBasco ]

Ah, yes, the Partido Popular... you might guess (correctly) that they don't have my vote.

FYI: (stating the obvious) This thread has been moved from the "General Chatter" forum to the "About Spain" forum.

You may find many many other ETA-related threads in the "Safety & Security" forum.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: MadridMan ]

Gentlemen,

There's an old saying that has carried down through history. It goes like this;

"One man's terrorist is another man's patriot."

In British history, the "Sons of Liberty" are shown as terrorists, while in American history, they are spoke of as patriots for the acts they committed prior to the American Revolution.

It doesn't matter. Both sides of the issue are correct, since they come from oppositive points of view.

But, rest assured, as long as there are people that are willing to sacrifice their own lives for a cause... terrorism or whatever... there will not be peace, unless both partys agree to discuss the issues openly.

A member of the U.S. State Department reported to his superiors, in 1957, that the Cubans would overthrow the government, despite the fact they had very little foothold in the country, outside of a couple of small jungle areas. When asked why, he indicated that some followers of Fidel Castro, when about to be arrested, would blow themselves up, along with one or two Cuban soldiers if possible, to avoid capture. The reasoning, he said, was because they did not want to give up information on their comrades in arms, and if they could kill one or two Cuban soldiers, their death was worthwhile.

In a little over a year, Castro rode a jeep into Havana with his rebel forces.

History does repeat itself, and for some reason, governments and nations are too blind to see what's coming, until after it happens. I think it's time for the Spanish government to quit scoffing at the Basque question. ETA will not go away, until there is a resolve.

El Gato (A Wolf in a cat skin coat...)

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: ElGato ]

Guys, guys, you're missing the point here, discussing whether the Basques are or not a separate race.
Who cares?
The notion that every race should have its own nation stems from 19th century nationalist ideologies, when modern Basque nationalism was created by Arana et al.
This has all been superseded by the social and cultural realities of many modern countries. Can the States, Britain or France still be considered as home to a single race ? Were they ever ? How many different races gave rise over the centuries to modern Britons or French, Americans and indeed Spaniards? Lots. How many others will do so in the future? Even more. Mono-racial and mono-cultural countries are doomed to disappear. You should know it if you live in California !!!
Finally, CaliBasco, you don't need to ask the few surviving Cherokees about the principles of tolerance and inclusion that supposedly inspired the birth of the USA. Just pop down the street and ask any black or hispanic citizen ! It's a bit rich for you to say that unlike the States, Spain's birth as a nation was based on intolerance. I think both countries have a lot to be ashamed of in that department.
Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is: I don't care whether the Basques are a different race or not (whatever that means); even if it could be scientifically proved (as a Biologist I don't think it can), that would still not entitle them to exist as a separate country and even less, to kill indiscriminately for that purpose.

Marco,

I guess that would mean Germany is not for Germans. They should be merged in with the French, as part of France? How about Wales? Should that be forced into England? Maybe Denmark should be done away with, and merged into a state with Sweden and Norway? If they object, just send in troops, and run it as a military state. I realize you didn't mean it that way, but in reality, that's what happens.

I think you're looking at existing boundaries physically drawn and relating it to what should and shouldn't be, forgetting the past. These lines of what country a person lives in have been drawn up by the victors in wars in most cases. Basque Country is not a part of Spain anymore than Andorra would fall into Spain or France.

Although I agree that violence isn't the best thing to have happen, I also realize that peaceful settlements are rarely reached when someone forces their will on others, and refuses to budge from their point of view.

The simple fact is, few governments listen until people start dying. It's sad that it happens that way, but it does. You need look no further than the history of South Africa to see what was happening there. How about Northern Ireland as another example? Until people are willing to die for what they believe, there aren't going to be negotiations, because world opinion isn't strong enough to get others to review the facts of what is happening. One trip to Israel, and Palestine, would show you that people will fight for what they believe, unto the death.

Wolf

Very interesting point of view Wolf but I have got this impression of what you have sayed:

1st) The Basque Country was forced somewhen and is forced now to be a part of Spain.

2nd) The way basques have chosen to reach independency is the violent one, and that the only way to reach it is that one.

If this is not what you mean correct me, but if it is, let me say a couple of things.

The Basque Country has never been conquered, investigate it and you will find that it was a part of the castilian kingdom from the very beginning.

The Basque Country is not forced to be a part of Spain by now. There are only a 10-15% of the basques who want to be a separate country. ETA doesn't represent the majority of the basque society.

Also, let me remember you that some countries have find their independentism by peaceful ways (let's see for example the Czeck Republic and Slovaquia). And think that there are political basque parties that pursue independentism and are against ETA.

I really don't care if the Basque Country is a separate nation or country. What I care of is that a group of criminals kill people in the name of independentism. It is annoying to have bomb blasts near your house as I have had.

Actually Basque Country was an autonomous state in Navarre. The three present day states that comprise what is known as Basque Country now broke away and became a part of Castille, with the written agreement that they would have total autonomy forever. The Spanish government as it exists came after that, and the Basques have never agreed to join with the rest of the Iberian peninsula to become part of Spain.

The Basque region, which includes the provinces in France that are Basque, was a loosely knit self governing entity long before the kingdoms that now are France and Spain existed. The only reason this is overlooked is because it was more of a rural enclave than one that was based around cities and forts.

ETA is not the first entity within Basque Country that has defied Spanish rule. This has been going on since before the middle of the 1800s, the origination of the Carlist wars. It's just one name exchanged for another, as the statements of independence basically remain the same. If you look at the history of the Basque region, including France, they even had an independent government in exile, during what they considered the occupation by Franco's Spain, following the revolution. Making matters worse, the Spanish government (Elected; the one that Franco overthrew) had granted Basque Country autonomy.

I could cite instances that would show that the Basque entity existed since the third or fourth century, but what difference would that make? The history, as taught in Spain does not include this as a matter of fact. This is natural. Why would you teach a history that is a contradiction to what you say is fact?

To directly answer your questions.

Yes, Basque Country has been forced to be a part of Spain. Their charter for autonomy was broken when the Castillian government became part of what is Spain today. At that point, Basque Country should have become an independent nation.

The vote is 15% for independence? Not the case. Any vote against the existing government of Spain is a voice for independence. If you come right down to it, the vast majority of Basques would accept nothing less than the same charter that was broken by the government of Castille. As for the numbers, millions of Basques have abandoned their homeland. If you look at the exile records in most of Europe, and the Americas, you'll find it's enormous. People who abandoned their country to avoid reprisals from the Franco regime.

As for the population in Basque Country, the Franco regime made it a point to move non-Basques into the three provinces with the intent of diluting their ability to vote for independence. It worked. From what I gather, less than half the people now living in Basque Country are Basques. Technically, they don't belong there. They are the ones that load the ballot boxes with votes that go against Basque autonomy.

There is one question that I haven't had answered by anyone. Why in the world would anyone be a terrorist unless they have a cause? They don't just come into being, they become terrorists for a reason. I have yet to see any terrorist organization that doesn't have a cause, right or wrong. The simple fact is, it's the cause that they are supporting. You have to recognize the cause that ETA serves before you can find a way to have them lay down their arms. The problem is, the government of Spain refuses to address the cause they stand for, and that, unto itself, is the biggest reason that ETA continues doing what they do.

Adding fuel to the fire, when ETA indicated they were no longer going to stand by the truce, because no progress was being made in negotiations, the Spanish government told the world that they would never, under any circumstances, discuss autonomy for the Basque States. If the problem wasn't bad enough, the government itself gave them license to begin terrorist activities again. You do not slap someone in the face and expect them to back off from their conviction.

It makes me wonder if the government wasn't seeing a weakening in their own strength because of the growing strength the Basques had within the government. Just a point that I wonder about. I wish I did know the answer.

Wolf (Who hates violence, but understands what the underlying causes are that make it happen.)

Hi Wolf.

So your point is that the violence is justified? Let me tell you that whatever the reasons are (and I would answer you when I had the time) they are killing people like you and me.

Of all the things that you have sayed there is one I can answer without consulting anywhere: the "truce" of ETA was false.

There is something people doesn't realise, but I have a good memory.

Before the ETA truce 3 terrorist groups were dismmanteled: Vizcaya, Madrid and Araba. That is the half of the groups ETA had.

Also, and more important, the financial complex ETA had was dismounted. Then it comes the brutal killing of Miguel Angel Blanco. Riots of 2 million people in Madrid, 1 and a half in Barcelona and half a million in Bilbao (I guess those could be the trasplanted Franco inmigrants...). ETA lost a lot of supporters after that.

So we have a weakened band, without half its commandos, without financial support and in their worst popularity times.

The PNV party makes its line more radical, and ETA decides to declare a "truce" (which better time?). A truce in which it has been demonstrated that ETA rearmed its commandos, its financial branch and in which they prepared more killings and in which it gathered information about its victims. Moreover, they cleaned their face in the eyes of some of their supporters by telling the lie that "see, we declare a truce and the spanish government does nothing" (the government tried to negotiate during the truce indeed).

There is no single idea worth of a life Wolf.

I told you: I don't mind if they get a separate country, but I will always be against terrorism.

Fernando,

Please read what I said again. I never said I supported ETA, or violence in any way or form.

Do I consider it an option when all else fails? I don't know. I've never been in that position.

Wolf