I'm Spanish, as Indurain

By

Melchor Monferrer Resina

Some years ago, I was really proud to be Spanish because then I could go around Europe saying: "I'm Spanish, as Indurain". It is now, that I realise that Indurain and me never had anything really in common. The language? Well, in Colombia they also speak Spanish and I was not proud when a Colombian won the Vuelta a Espaņa. And we can say even that is sure that Indurain and me have another way of speaking, another dialect, another words and expressions, another accent, etc. So, the only thing we have in common is the nationality (and only in the passport, not in our mind). Maybe we have the same likes on politics or music or books, but I cannot know it because I never have spoken with him.

And, in this way, if Indurain and me have only in common the nationality, I ask: why only this factor made me so proud? What did it rapport to me? Benefits or disadvantages? The first question is easy to be answered, on all newspapers, all magazines, all televisions, all radio stations, and also bars, and markets, and streets and hospitals and... In all this places Indurain was in the mouth of everybody, the proud of the country. He represented "us" on the rest of the world but: does it means that if you are Spanish you are better cyclist that if you are French? No, of course not. Does it means that if Indurain had been French he would never win the tour five followed times? No, it does not. Nationality spirit leads people to think that whatever they do for the nation sake is good and to accept someone's non-very democratic ways to get a best, bigger, and powerful nation. There is nothing best for some governments than an enemy of the nation (internal or external) to create a control system to "protect our people" (Cuba? Yugoslavia?). Most of the times this enemy is the minorities.

So, it's clear that this background in "common" that all the Spanish have, is not so "common". The same kings? We didn't choose them. The same television? Good cultural homogenisator. The same government? Not everyone likes the same, not everyone vote, but everyone has the same party on the power which only represents, really, about 35% of voters, so about 25% of the global population.

The second question goes inside of human feelings, so it's more difficult to treat. Beside that, this feeling could be seen as superiority happiness. A French can't enjoy Indurain because is Spanish and his wishes are against him. And only for the reason of the nationality the French and me are forgetting that Indurain is a human who has to be admired as a cyclist who can make faster five followed tours in very bad conditions. Nothing else. And we cannot enjoy looking at him because we put first the nationality. And maybe the French wants that Indurain falls down of the bicycle to make win the runner from his country. And all this just to say: "I'm from X, as Y".

The third question tries to make balance of the consequences of our feeling. The first I get is that this feeling puts me in a superior attitude against the other countries because they don't have this "super winner". It's the same if France has a very good Welfare State, great cultural production, good image around the world, etc. In Spain we can say: "Doesn't matter, we have Indurain who won five followed tours to the fucking Frenchmen!!". Very intelligent.

The invention of the nationality, the States, the institutions, even the welfare system (all of them with good expectations at its beginning as a new way. Today has become the only way) just try to keep the people under an allowed control. When in a State there are different languages and cultures it's more difficult to keep the control and, to make it easy, it's necessary to homogenise the maximum as possible the population. The other solution is to make a division and to create different States, so each State control his people easier.

So, we positive know that the State, the institutions, will continue taking the most benefits as possible trying to convince the population of there good intentions (and maybe they really believe it). This doesn't means that they will not try to make the life the most comfortable they can. They will do it, homogenising and trying to make a Huxleyrian "Brave new World". And maybe without know it, because I'm not speaking about a Masonic sect who tries to get the world. It's just a wheel that started when a man got the power for first time in his tribe.