Talk:Catalan negationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Historical revisionism

Hola! Viva Catalunya! but... there is no doubt that Franco tried to rewrite history, as such you can talk of historical revisionism (the distinction between historical revisionism and historical revisionism (political) is, to my knowledge, of no scientific value...). But, negationism? See the talk page of negationism: this is originally a french term reserved to Holocaust denial. I fully agreed that they are more than one genocide, but think that negationism, for the time being, is primarily associated to the Holocaust. Why not change the page name on "Historical revisionism (Catalunya)"? As such, it would go in neatly with Historical revisionism (Japan)... Kaliz 13:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


I agree with Kaliz remarks. --Joan sense nick 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of changing this into Historical revisionism. Also, this article doesn't meet the standards of quality needed and has a partial POV. Thus said, I don't really think Franco time-travelled to 2001 to hit the Twin Towers, as user 80.39.73.159 suggests, so I'm going to modify the article.--Ankalagon 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

I have been working on the article historical revisionism (political) and looking for examples of negationism, so far I have found only two clear examples via Google which are not directly related to Holocaust denial:

Currently a Google on ["Catalan negationism"] returns about 25 English pages for "Catalan negationism" all of the AFAICT this article. Unless there is a verifiable reliable source which uses the term "Catalan negationism" it should be renamed as Wikipedia should not create neologisms, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms --Philip Baird Shearer 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual errors and outlandish claims

Boys, i don't understand how you didn't caught them. Proceding line by line

Catalan negationism or Catalan negationism refers to the negationism intents

Kaliz saw it, negationism is a Holocaust Denier synonym. It was no slip. Look at the original catalan article.

of the Spanish dictatorship of Franco to deny the history of Catalunya as an independent nation

Call it ironical. Basically the view that any part of the Crown of Aragon was independent is relatively new in historiography. and was fundamentally developed by the school of Jaume Vicens Vives, created while he was full tenured professor at the University of Barcelona, during Franco's time. IIRC, Ferran Soldevilla and others held this view prior, but they were considered somewhat out of the mainstream in their times. Castilian-centric view of the history of Spain had been a watermark of liberal historians of the XIX, and was pretty much mainstream when the war started (so Franco's regime didn't invent anything).

The crux of all of this, is what independence means in a time where souveranity was vested ONLY in the head of state, -everywhere before the French Revolution.

recognised by the Corbeil Treaty (1245) ([1] [2] [3] and many others)

See above. The date is wrong (is 1258) and came from the wikipedia article (i've already corrected this). Anyway, the feudal rights the french king had over the county of Barcelona, were already wet paper a couple of centuries ago.

and its Catalan constitutions,

No idea what this has to do with independence. Never heard that the Furs said anything along the lines of Catalonia is an independent nation. Basically because the term nation, in our modern political sense, wasn't invented when they were abolished.

denies or trivialisates the crimes against humanity of the genocide in the Spanish Civil War, to the point that it is often referred as the Glorious Salvation of Spain.

Who on the hell is doing it now ? There is a lot of discussion of how many deads where in each side, and how the killing operated, but i see no trivializing. It's true sometimes things that sound like my deads where victims, yours collateral damage slip. But both parties do, and i'd rather say more often on the left side.

And, most curious but revealing, genocide is a term only used in, this context, just prior to bashing the other party. By both sides, again. Anyone 'in the know' should have noticed

Franco abolished the old institutions of the old Crown of Aragon,

No comment. Off by 225 years !!! Thanks god, Kaliz got it.

shooted the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya on 1945, Lluis Companys

Joan, how could you pass on this ? You know it was 1940. And does it have any sense in this context?

and was condemned on 1946 by the UN [4]

At least a true statement. But what it means here ?

He also rewrote the History of Spain

Franco was even a script writer but I didn't knew he was an historian. It's the biggest discovery of the article ;-) Seriously, no attempt to rewrite history was officialy made, 1984 style. Even more, the most impressing work on history during Franco's period ( Ramón Menendez Pidal's history, partly under official auspices) included volumes from noted republicans like Claudio Sanchez Albornoz, later president of the Republic in the exile, and contemporaneus history was put under the surveillance of noted liberal Miguel Artola.

starting on the Castillian and Aragonese dinastic union from 1475, after which the Kingdom of Aragon and the Counts of Barcelona still had their won laws, constitutions, taxes, tribunals, economy and traditions, for at least another three hundred years.

Hard to understand what's meant here. I guess it should read along the lines History of Spain as a country started at the dinastic union in 1474 (once again a wrong date)... instead of 1714 when ... were abolished. I wonder how many serious historians in the 30's and 40's would agree with the author (nor even now), that it is heresy or historical revisionism. A difference in approach might be ...

It is still actually argued by some members of the People's Party (Spain) and Federico Jiménez Losantos.

And that's the masterpiece. What is argued? History no (at least I don't know the PP has a sanctioned history book) FJL is a thorn in the side of many politician and frecuently mocks their historical views, but i don't get the relationship. Methinks it's an attempt to link both with Holocaust Deniers. I'd say just Political Propaganda, and one of the worst written besides

With articles like this, who'd trust Wikipedia? And poor old Catalonia if this article mirrors the cultural level nowadays --Wllacer 11:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be highly improved. I think that creating an article about Catalan repression under Francoism would be more interesting and suitable. This could also be a complement to current Spain under Franco. The different revisionist ideas could also be included in that article and also their legacy nowadays. There is much bibliography and info about that topic on Internet, but of course, it's also an amazing huge task. Toniher 13:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't recommend an specific article for Catalonia for three reasons:
  • Unless some specifity (there are cases) is needed it's a worthless and decremental effort trying to separate catalan and spanish entries. It's too late to elaborate today, and we both now where we stay, but this one is not the only catalan ... article whose quality is below standard (we've met already). And I'm afraid this is starting to become systemic. Perhaps less mirarse el melic is needed
  • I'm requesting for help on the case of repression during and after the civil war, from both parties (see talk:Francisco Franco#Request for Help) as only the global study of political violence during and after the war (and even before) makes sense. From the info I have now, the only thing "special" about Catalonia is that francoist repression seems to have been relatively mild.
  • A separate article would be in theory nice. But due to the lack of consensus (or better said the extreme polarization) of the sources, its objectivity value (we are working on an encyclopedia) would be nil, so a few well measured sentences and references to the main scholary contestants, would be of more educational caracter. That's what i intend to do in Franco's article, and propagate them later on other relevant places. I find the topic extremely disgusting, and much more how it is treated nowadays in Spain. Is not a good moment to try to write cooly --Wllacer
Hi Wllacer. I agree with contributing in a more "general" way, in this case, in a Spanish context, when possible. I have recently found Language politics in Francoist Spain and this would also be an interesting place to add Catalan-related info. However, if there is relevant and enough quality information to make a specific Catalan related article, I see no problem doing this. I know polarization makes things difficult (let's say, vandalism, it's tiresome, etc.) but it may also enrich the NPOV of the article if properly managed. If we avoided some subjects because of that, we would end up ignoring too many things.
Well, all this above has been a little off topic. I would simply urge those who may have enough background on these topics, to help in all this Franco-related articles, as Wllacer is asking for. Toniher 17:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, basically we agree
The Language politics in Francoist Spain, a User:Error's idea will be a good sample of how such things can be done with a global view. Perhaps then an specific catalan article may then prove interesting (or not)
In case we were dealing with repression, and we decide to go the hard way (an article) i'd make it fuller (including not only francoist but also republican repression) and longer in time (eg. 1931-1947)
I believe Franco's repression after the war can not be fully, -but not only- understood without reference to the same during the war, and in turn it's imposible to understand how we went blood-crazy, without showing how the action-reaction spiral grew. The upper limit would coincide with the end of the "maquis", the last offshot of the civil war. Also i'd make it rather more general (incluiding state violence, terrorism, street violence, uprisings, repression, religious persecution ...) and call it Political Violence in Spain (1931-1947).
The problem with it is that this plan fits the so-called revisionist agenda ... I need rather more thinking and discussion
As this article seems to be doomed, and i consider this thread most interesting, if you give me permision, I'll move it from your first entry downward, somewhere else, Spain under Franco suits you ? I'll also excise , if you don't mind, the "It's to late ..." paragraph.
--Wllacer 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, if you think this may be useful, go ahead. Toniher 00:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Wllacer on most of his interpretation. Catalan Negationism is not by any means the appropriate title for this issue. This article was obviously started as a propaganda effort in response to the political climate existing in Spain these days. Thus said, though, there are conflictive historiographycal interpretations regarding the Catalonia vs/inside Spain trouble. I've tried to sumarize this, while retaining part of its ties to contemporary controversy (but I'm not too happy with the results. I think the place for this article (corrected!), should be somewhere explained within Spain Under Franco, Spain after Franco articles or the like. It should be done under a specific place concerning Franco's dealing with the nationalist/federalist issue (as opposed to the political dissidents issue), which is already lacking in the Spain under Franco article. The trouble is we're parting from an article that was arguably propaganda and VERY bad written indeed. I disagree with Wllacer in his interpretation of the official history not being changed, though. While it's true that "Basically the view that any part of the Crown of Aragon was independent is relatively new in historiography. and was fundamentally developed by the school of Jaume Vicens Vives, created while he was full tenured professor at the University of Barcelona, during Franco's time. IIRC, Ferran Soldevilla and others held this view prior, but they were considered somewhat out of the mainstream in their times. Castilian-centric view of the history of Spain had been a watermark of liberal historians of the XIX, and was pretty much mainstream when the war started (so Franco's regime didn't invent anything)", this castilian-centric view was stretched during Franco's regime for propagandistical reasons and unscientific assumptions made in the production of new books in historiography & "schools of thought" at the universities. When I read "Call it ironical", "less mirar-se el melic is needed" and "poor old Catalonia" I tend to think that the trouble arises from him having studied in a different university than me. He holds the issue better than the absolute crap that it was, but fails to face it with a totally fresh point of view.
Now, when he says "Franco was even a script writer but I didn't knew he was an historian. It's the biggest discovery of the article ;-) Seriously, no attempt to rewrite history was officialy made, 1984 style. Even more, the most impressing work on history during Franco's period ( Ramón Menendez Pidal's history, partly under official auspices) included volumes from noted republicans like Claudio Sanchez Albornoz, later president of the Republic in the exile, and contemporaneus history was put under the surveillance of noted liberal Miguel Artola", I need to explain something. There WERE people who kind of rewrote history. One of the famous cases being Ignacio Olagüe, supporter of a POV where Spain never was fully dominated by the Islam & came to a real islamic invasion only 2 centuries after the consensus date among historians. This is an example of a book liked by the Franco's counselors that had a favourable treatment in his diffusion. There was a whole corpus of books that modified the historical discurse, already castilian-centric, to a propagandistically stained panegirical interpretation; that was how much of the people learned history under the regime. In the francoist account of facts, Spain was a nearly holly Entity, coming from immemmorial times, and a real effort was done to associate disparate subjects to a distorted, sublimated concept of Spanish Nation (most well known, the use of the visigothic period of the peninsula and the Cid Campeador figure) existent from, virtually, EVER.
The sad part is that really this was not done in the simple, straight way suggested by the initial article. There was, in fact, NO real effort to rewrote a "official" history on behalf of Franco or his militars. But the reason is not that history not was somewhat altered. The fact is that kind of efforts usually don't become strong unless they're done in a totalitarian state (which Franco's regime was NOT). The sadness of the issue "grasped" intuitively by the first proposer of the article, something he probably has not realized, is that usually this effort is made by civil forces. In a dictatorial/populist state (which Franco's regime WAS), most of the effort is done by forces (ultimately, people) ADHERENT to the "Power" representatives. Thus, there was no Matvei Golovinski formed by some secret police of the regime to forge a new whole historiography. Instead, historians adherent to the point of view posed by the Franco's regime, proposed their books as a model for educational pedagogy. Even there probably where (although this would be a debatable subject) pseudohistorians who proposed a model knowing that it would be "kindly" seen by the regime's bureaucrats, searching plain profit for it (by seeing their work edited en masse. Society divided during the Civil War and thereafter amongst that who opposed the Dictator, that who joyfully enjoyed his rule and a vast majority who vaguely perceived that something was not really working SO well, but ultimately didn't care so much for it. The trouble is that the composition of those forces has not moved a lot (neither a bit, I think...), so spaniards have seen themselves centrifugued in a conflict ultimately not closed (& this is why this article appeared in the first time) accelerated by parts who do NO real effort to clarify the situation.
I should make note that a real source for the conflict is the way the State appears. In Modern Age, State appears as a novel concept, as a mean of governing through the society as a whole. Previously, the "grasp" around the subdit's day-by-day life (from ANY part of the peninsula) is NOT so strong as nowadays. Instead, what was strong was the economic tributation at the hands of some representative (a kinght, i.e. a militar) of the local power (a feudal lord) or the Church (and his ingerence in life by means of them controlling the justice administration), the two "seen" powers (seen by the common mass, that is). So, in fact, the efforts from the separatist/catalan revisionist proposers are exactly as absurd as the efforts from the centrist/castilian revisionists to judge the case with a monolithical definition. Truth is that the interrelation among people from different parts of the peninsula was scarce and that the local populations made few efforts to mix themselves or act with any sort of "national" spirit during centuries after the Catholic Monarch's union. This was a real trouble perceived by the succesive monarchs, who didn't deal with it in a swift way. This trouble grew in the mind of some catalan sectors, who perceived central power as disruptive and proposed independency then. But mixing and interdependency grew as movility and population grew, in a sort of pre-globalization experiment that is, in fact, what has happened in most of the countries during the liberal/burgeoisse revolutions due to various elements (i.e., intellectuals theorizing about the "Nation" as an absolute Good, but also a raw growth of population and the dinamization of society/economy during the acquisition of capitalism). Upon Franco's coup, a real effort on his part is made to identify the prime Enemies of the Nation as the "Red-Separatist forces who threaten Spain unity", somewhat bunching together his two most powerful opponent forces to discredit them in a more effective way using the "magickal" resounding reasoning that if one of them is evil, and the two share the same ideas and are in fact the same scumm, then THE TWO of them are Evil, Separatists and Reds. It is ultimately during this process that the parallel "catalan negationism" issue (re?)surfaces and the society is drawn, with the help of propaganda, into this unresolved conflict.
Who's to blame? I don't know, but I don't think the subject is completely unimportant. So I suggest placing this article or parts of it corrected, trimmed and the like somewhere in the wikipedia. And don't blame me too much for not having done a perfect article. I know it is still partial and subjective, but I need time to ellaborate a whole article and I have kind of made a stub that sumarizes the conflict retaining parts of the previous one for someone to correct it or for me to work on it when having more time. And yes, it's ugly and childish doing pseudofinished articles this way, but it's better this than having articles appearing/disappearing for the sake of propaganda and counterpropaganda.--Ankalagon 02:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New?

Wllacer pretends: Basically the view that any part of the Crown of Aragon was independent is relatively new in historiography. How is then than on the XIth century, the Crown of Aragon had already a Constitution? it's hilarius --Paco ✉ 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the article Constitucions de Catalunya on the catalan wikipedia. You will see there that
  • The first appearance of the term is in the XIII century
  • The term constitution has NOTHING to do with its actual meaning.
Besides it:
  • In the XIth century (1001-1100), Aragon and the County of Barcelona where still not unified, and probably (with some years more of the X and XIIth) the time when the Counts of Barcelona acted , in fact, if not the jure, as independent rulers
  • Try to define independence in a middle age century setting.
  • Anyway I was talking about the history of historiography
  • Hilarious no, your comment is depressing. It only shows the sad state of education in Spain
--Wllacer 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinionated, undercited, and neologistic

What else can I say? - Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)