What The New York Times Published When Secessionism Wanted to Cut Up the USA

@ElentirENG ES 6·25·2017 · 7:32 0

On Friday the influential American newspaper The New York Times published an editorial supporting the separarist illegal referendum that the Government of Catalonia intends to do.

The NYT calls 'intransigent' to Spain for asking respect for the Constitution

The editorial of the New York newspaper can be summarized in its last paragraph: "The best outcome for Spain would be to permit the referendum, and for Catalan voters to reject independence — as voters in Quebec and Scotland have done. Otherwise, Madrid’s intransigence will only inflame Catalan frustrations." In short, for the NYT to respect the Constitution and enforce the law is "intransigence" and it is advisable that the Spaniards let us steal our national sovereignty, which According to Art. 1 of our Constitution "resides in the Spanish people", and not in its parts (be it Catalonia, Barcelona, the neighborhood of Gracia or Encarnación Street).

The teasing of the separatists of Quebec and Scotland

On the other hand, the examples cited by the NYT are unlucky. Quebec made a referendum on its sovereignty in 1980: separatism lost. They did another in 1995: separatism again lost. But they still does not give up doing another one, and if they do not ask for a third one right now it's because separatism is going through low hours. The same happened in the UK. A referendum was held in Scotland in 2014: separatism lost. And they're asking for another one. Separatism is interested in these consultations from time to time, even if they are lost, because it gives wings to the idea that the unity of a nation may be reviewed every few years, contributing to its discredit, generating an instability that harms the whole and poisons the coexistence in the territory in question. On the other hand, what separatists call the "right to decide" is unidirectional: if separatism gets away with it, Scots and Quebecers must forget that a single consultation will be convened to rejoin the United Kingdom or Canada.

We have no right to destroy a unit forged for centuries

The separatists are cynically invoking a right in which they do not believe to definitively break the unity of a nation, and that there is no option to recompose it. This risk will be allowed in Canada (which was a British colony: even today its Head of State is the Queen of England) or in the United Kingdom (Scotland was an independent kingdom and its union with England dates from the early seventeenth century). Spain is a Nation since the late fifteenth century. Catalonia has never been a nation, and it is neither nor has never been a colony, but part of Spain on an equal footing with the rest of the country. There was never a war between Catalonia and the rest of Spain. This is because the Catalans, for centuries, have felt Spanish as the most, and many today still feel Spanish, although separatism insists on being attributed, without any right, the exclusive representation of the Catalan people. We do not have the right to destroy a unid that have forged centuries of common history and so many generations of Spaniards, and if we allow it we would be committing a betrayal, not before a disputed and debatable concept of the Homeland - as some pretend - elaborated by some philosopher or Some politician, but before our parents, before our grandparents and before all our ancestors, who worked hard to build this great Nation that we call Spain.

Declaring war on separatism in the US, a "great moral victory"

This sense of the Nation, this heritage that has placed history in our hands and which we are obliged to preserve for future generations, has been understood even in a Nation created around the idea of ​​Freedom: the United States of America. This is demonstrated by the texts that yesterday collected the excellent Catalan blog Dolça Catalunya. But as they focused in their entry to what judges and politicians said, I will look at what the journalists wrote. Specifically I will go back to April 13, 1861, the day after the outbreak of the American Civil War. A Northern newspaper published an enthusiastic three-paragraph text. In it, the newspaper affirmed that the day of the beginning of the contest "was a day of excitements". Mindful of what he said at the end of the first paragraph, about the reaction of the federal government to deciding to ban the division of the country: "the feeling was almost universal that a great moral victory had been achieved by the United States Government".

The "honor of the country" and the price that is worth paying for it

The newspaper in question thus gathered the clamor of the streets when the declaration of the state of war was known: "«Good, good», exclaimed many a one, as he read the statement, or as it was repeated to him by a friend, «at last we have reached a crisis; something must be done.» The feeling of rejoicing was everywhere to be met, that Major Anderson had not lowered his flag, and that President Lincoln had determined to sustain, even at so fearful a cost, the honor of the country. Of the very many with whom we conversed, and from whom we heard the freeset expression of opinions, we did not find a single individual who did not respond heartily to the sentiment, «Thank Heaven we have a Government.»" The paragraph ended in this way: "the entire moral support of the North stands about the President in this trying moment, as «will» the entire physical force stand at his side if a more trying hour should come." Guess what newspaper published this text of support for the war against South separatism? Well ... The New York Times!

What kind of people would we be if we allowed to destroy our Nation?

The same newspaper which he described as a "moral victory" for Lincoln to remain faithful to the Constitution and firm in the face of separatism, the same newspaper that applauded the government of the Union should fulfill its duty, the same newspaper that appealed to the "honor of the country" to reject the United States being divided, today asks Spain to turn its Constitution into a wet paper and to commit the dishonor of being allowed to usurp its sovereignty, allowing an illegal referendum in which the Spaniards would be silent spectators of the splitting of our Nation by who for decades have sowed hatred and division and denied the Catalans even the right to have their children study in Spanish in a part of Spain. What kind of people would we be if we openly allowed the separatists to destroy our Nation? Who would trust the Spaniards any more if we crossed our arms in the face of the destruction of the legacy of our ancestors and the flagrant violation of our laws? And what would they say in the US if the NYT encouraged them to betray their country as it now encourages the Spaniards to betray ours?