Día de la Fiesta Nacional

The National Day of Spain (Spanish: Fiesta Nacional de España) is a national holiday held annually on October 12. It is also traditionally and commonly referred to as the Día de la Hispanidad (Hispanicity, Spanishness), commemorating Spanish legacy worldwide, especially in Hispanic America.

The National Day of Spain is the day of celebration on which the Spanish people commemorate the country’s history, recognize and appreciate achievements, reconfirm their commitment to the nation’s future. The day celebrates unity and fraternity, and also shows Spain’s ties with the international community.

Spanish law declares, ” The date chosen, October 12, symbolizes the historical anniversary on which Spain, about to conclude a process of State construction based on our cultural and political diversity, and the integration of the kingdoms of Spain into the same monarchy, begins a period of linguistic and cultural projection beyond the boundaries of Europe. “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Spain

Oddly, this is also the Feast Day of Our Lady of the Pillar in Spain. I will not tell you the story, but the 12th of October was observed as a feast day throughout the Spanish Empire from before the founding of the USA. In 1892, Spain declared that day to be a national feast day commemorating the 4th centenary of the discovery of America. That same year, 1892, President Harrison declared October 12 to be Columbus Day. It was in response to the lynching of 11 Italian Americans in New Orleans in 1891.¹

Not surprisingly, the holiday brings mixed reactions in Spain as in various parts of the former Spanish Empire. Some Central and South American countries have renamed it the “Day of the Race” or the “Day of the Indegene,” etc. But what strikes one is that Spain has tried to take some responsibility for its actions in former colonies. It has done this by making immigration easier for those coming from former colonies. It has tried to have reasonable trade treaties with its former colonies.

I found it interesting to read an article in Él País, the largest newspaper in Spain. It has a periodic column called Filosofía Inútil (Useless Philosophy). I like the column because it both makes fun of itself and yet quotes various philosophers while discussing a vast multitude of subjects. In the latest issue, speaking of Spain, the author makes the point that many of the arguments against our having any responsibility for past acts come from a moral individualism that developed from the morality of Kant. According to Kant, we are the only ones responsible for our moral decisions based on our internal code. He claims that we make our moral decisions freely and as free individuals. Even as you read that line, I could see you nodding your head. That is the overwhelming belief in much of the modern First World.

But, as the writer points out, there is a problem with that way of thinking. He cites a philosopher called Michael Sandel. I would prefer to cite the Bible, but that will be in a bit. The writer gives the example of murder. Only the perpetrator is guilty of the murder. However, does the community not have a responsibility to provide reasonable police protection? Should the streets on which people walk be lighted? Should there not be educational systems that help train people so that they might be productive and perhaps commit less crime? He gave a couple more examples to show that the community creates the world within which the murderer walks. That created world makes it more or less possible for murder to happen. The writer is not an airhead who believes that all crime can be eliminated. He uses this example to speak of how we live in a community that shapes us as individuals.

In the same way, he says, Spain helped form the communities within which Latin Americans (and Philippinos) live. Spain is not responsible for the immoral actions committed in Latin America. Yet, Spain, he claims, bears some responsibility in the sense that it helped form the communities and the laws within which the people now live. That formation has had a long effect on those countries. In that sense, there remains a communal responsibility for Spain. The writer attempts to navigate a center path between paying endless and unceasing reparations and the Kantian approach of no personal responsibility for anything I did not do. He does a reasonable job. I would point to the Parable of the Good Samaritan as calling us to go even farther. The Good Samaritan technically had no personal responsibility. Yet, simply by being a human being created in the Image of God, he bore enough responsibility to call him to action. He did not take care of the wounded traveler for life. But, neither did he ignore him as did the priest and the Levite.

It is worth remembering that God consistently treats people as members of a group. When he punished Israel, everyone was punished, not simply the personally guilty. When Israel was exiled, and the Ten Tribes were broken apart, everyone suffered. When Judah was exiled, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednigo, Ezra, and Nehemiah, all suffered the repercussions despite being saintly people. We are part of the Body of Christ. The idea that one can be a lone Christian praying at home is anathema both to the New Testament and to the Church Fathers.

In the USA, when we discuss subjects such as slavery and indigenous peoples, it would behoove us to remember that God sent into exile people who were not personally guilty of the sins committed by Israel. Yet, God thought of them as part of the community and did not exclude them from the discipline. But, it would behoove us to remember that simply being born in the USA does not imply personal guilt. It only implies a certain level of responsibility as part of the community. We already agree that we are jointly responsible for schools, even if we no longer have or never had children. We already agree that we are jointly responsible for a law enforcement agency, even if we have never had a crime committed against us. We already agree that we are jointly responsible for fire companies, even if our house or place of work has never burnt down.

Perhaps we can reach a moderate solution that agrees that we are jointly responsible for some of the lingering after-effects of slavery and the destruction of the indigenous communities and much of their family and group structures. We can also agree that this need not imply ceaseless apologies and ceaseless payouts. But, it probably does include some level of involvement with the damaged communities that is well-defined. That is what Spain is trying to figure out how to do.