|
Post by Educate Me on Feb 3, 2006 21:41:14 GMT -5
Eufrenio, why isnt Cantabria with Castilla?
|
|
|
Post by fm0210 on Feb 4, 2006 4:56:23 GMT -5
Cantabria pide su propia autonomía. Después de haber estado vinculada a Castilla durante el último siglo, los ciudadanos cántabros quieren pertenecer al Estado Español, pero recuperando su tradición, costumbres y nombre propio. Un pueblo propio y diferente que ha colaborado en la construcción del Estado Español. En el año 83 se aprueba el estatuto de autonomía de Cantabria. La región se desvincula definitivamente de Castilla y empieza su andadura con su propio nombre: el que perdio en la noche de los tiempos del Medievo. www.euskalnet.net/trosich/page25.html
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Feb 4, 2006 8:18:22 GMT -5
Eufrenio, why isnt Cantabria with Castilla? The 1978 constitution broke up castille in 5 pieces: La Rioja, Cantabria, Madrid, Castilla La mancha, Castilla León. Formerly there were Castilla la Nueva and Castilla la Vieja. The name "cantabria" was resurrected from Antiquity, as that province as been named Santander or "La Montaña" for centuries. It used to be part of Castilla La Vieja. The idea was to castrate Castille, which would have been huge and prosperous with Madrid at its head compared to a decadent and industrially out-dated Catalonia.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Feb 5, 2006 12:14:57 GMT -5
In the interview Aznar was speaking of a risk of 'Balkanization' of Spain
maybe he was being a bit to apocaliptical and negative, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by fm0210 on Feb 5, 2006 15:32:04 GMT -5
In the interview Aznar was speaking of a risk of 'Balkanization' of Spain maybe he was being a bit to apocaliptical and negative, what do you think? Yes, apocalyptical and negative, Aznar uses Bush's method, making people be scared, and also lying to achieve their goals.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Feb 6, 2006 15:34:25 GMT -5
Aznar´s opinion is meaningless. He could have prevented the present situation and he did nothing out of fear and miscalculation.
|
|