Some comments on the 23rd of February

It is known that on the 23rd of February of 1981 a group of Civil Guards (Spanish police) took the whole of the Spanish Parliament as hostages to provoke a Coup`d'Etat. It is known also that the coup was aborted solely because of the energic action of King Juan Carlos I. On the communiqué by the President of the Spanish Parliament, Mr. Marín, it is asserted that the coup was averted because of the firm action of the Mass Media, the trade unions and the Spanish institutions. I would like to remind Mr. Marin and friends, that I can still remember that day. I was 31 years old then, and I cannot recall any "firm action" by any newspaper or television channel, even radio programme. Everybody was in a state of stand by, wating for the results of the events. But I can remember the clear voice of the King, stating that he had ordered the secretaries of the ministers to form an emergency government, and to order the policemen to go back to their barracks. The King, in clear opposition to what many politicians, who were not in the Parliament at the moment, clearly defied the coup, and put himself in a position that if the coup had been successful, would have been very difficult for he and his family. As we say in Spain, the King got wet, meaning that he took a clear decision, a difficult decision. I, personally, believe that if we enjoy liberty in Spain today, it is due largely to the brave move of the King. Not of the political parties. Not of the mass media. Not of any trade unions. Not of any other single part of the Spanish Society. I am not an important politician or citizen in Spain. But I have memory. You, liars, can defeat me. But you cannot convince me.

Hablando se desentiende la gente.

Hoy he estado en una excursión por el campo. En Murcia hay un Grupo de Senderismo, que todos los domingos se reúne a las nueve y media de la mañana en la puerta principal del Corte Inglés, y de allí sale en autobuses a un lugar de las montañas de la región, donde nos paseamos por los campos, o por lo que queda de ellos, según dicen algunos ecologistas que vienen con nosotros. Lo bueno es que voy conociendo a mucha gente que, por mi profesión, no conocería nunca, pues lo habitual es salir con los de tu trabajo y poco más. Como somos muchos, pues solemos ir entre tres y siete autobuses llenos de gente (tal es el número de gente que se siente con el síndrome de la jaula en que se han convertido nuestros trabajos sedentarios), poco a poco voy conociendo a gente diferente, y si me caen mal, o yo les caigo mal a ellos, con darme la vuelta y alejarme un par de metros, ya estoy con gente totalmente diferente, y he creado un entorno de talante distinto. :-) Bueno, pues hoy he estado charlando con dos chicas extranjeras. Jóvenes y guapas, por cierto. Pero de vez en cuando hablaban entre ellas en su idioma, lo cual quizá no puedan remediar, o quizá sí. Yo he estado en el extranjero y es un palo estar todo el día hablando en el idioma de otro, sin poder disfrutar del propio ni un ratito. Pero, claro, yo no pillaba una. ¿Debería haberlas ignorado, irme con otra gente de mi lengua, y dejarles con su aparente falta de cortesía? Bueno, yo he intentado repetir algunas de las palabras que decían, en un hueco de su conversación. Casi siempre de forma defectuosa o torpe, y ellas se reían, pues las palabras que yo les decía no concordaban, o resultaban ser indecorosas. Y eso me lleva al hecho de hablar en un idioma que no todos los presentes comprenden. Es, objetivamente hablando, una descortesía. Pero dudo mucho que, en los casos más normales, deba ser tenido en cuenta. Poco a poco, demostrando que nos queremos acercar a ellos, esta gente de otras culturas que viven con nosotros, se irán dejando integrar. Poco a poco y sin aspavientos. Y si no, ellos se lo pierden. Podríamos decir, pues, que hablando se desentiende la gente, pero deberíamos intentar que así no fuera, y recuperar a esa gente. Otro día hablaremos del Gobierno. :-)

La maŭroj atakas

Timigas la novaĵoj pri tiom da atakoj de muslimanoj al okcidentaj konstruaĵoj kaj homoj, kaj Eŭropaj aŭtoritatoj ne reagas. Kiam oni komprenos, ke fanatikuloj komprenas nenian kialon ol perforto?

Se oni rigardas kritike al historio, oni trovas misiistojn de diversaj religioj, krom de muslima religio. Tiun ĉi religion disvastigis nur la glavo sangon soifanta. Kion fari por sin defendi pri tio? Ni vidu, ke liberpenso kaj liberesprimo estas la plej alta grado de atingo de homaro. Renonci al tio pro tio, ke alimaniere fanatikuloj perfortas, estas rezigni al si mem.

NI ne permesu tion.

Integration and respect for other cultures: where does Tolerance fit in?

We all know about the personal tragedies immigration causes. Some of us because we've suffered them, others because we've been told about them, or because we have seen others suffer them. Immigrant is he or she who must change his or her origin country in search for work or because the living conditions have become impossible to bear. It is this the case of the political refugees, but also that of people whose birth place does not give them a decent job. This happened in Spain in the sixties. It is said that two and a half million Spaniards wento into the labour markets in England, France, Switzerland, Italy, but above all in Germany. All of those who could, came back as soon as possible. Some others sought integration into their host countries and so they or their descendants are still in those countries. I can remember a story from an immigrant in Germany: once a friend of his shot a bird down, as he was a hunter by hobby. He was expelled from the country three days later, with no hesitation. I can't remember the legal support for that action very well, but I won't judge it: the immigrant was in another country where there was another culture, and if he could not respect it, he was expelled. As simple as that. When I, myself, was an immigrant in Britain, I heard more than once the sentence if you don't like it, go to your own country. It is true that if many Spaniards were in the same place, we talked Spanish, but I did not like that, since it was not nice to the English people who were there, who happened to be in their own country. Now we can see a lot of intolerance against the culture and law of the country which host immigrants. This morning I heard on the radio comment a murder by a person from a country from the East of Europe, who invaded a private home, murdered a whole family, and took away the savings of one of the little girls, as there was no other money in the house. This murderer, tried a few years ago, according to the old law, that made by the Popular Party, would be entitled to have the Spanish citizenship, because he can prove he has been in Spain for the necessary years. But according to the new law, he is already entitled to be Spanish, because he can prove by the jail sentence itself, that in the moment of the crime he was already in Spain. If he hadn't commited a murder, he would have probably expelled from the country months ago because he had not his papers in order... And this makes us think that our tolerance cannot take us to the point of giving our lives so that ousiders remain in our country. What would have happened to that other immigrant in Germany, if he had killed a whole family instead of a simple bird? Being civilised, to my knowledge, is not tolerate everything, since if the Spaniard of the bird could do everything the Germans do, but not what he would do at home, in a culture which is foreign to the Germans. This, the civilised thing is integrate in our own culture everybody who comes from abroad. Spaniards living in Germany never thought of organising bull fights in Kolhn or Bonn. Why that flowering of mosques in our country? Thus, the limit of tolernace, which in theory should go beyond that of the other people, cannot make an exagerated filoxeny take us to unbearable, absurd situations which can imply the resign of our culture, riches or lives.