Gasoline will go up. Rents will become more expensive, salaries will stagnate. You will have everything much more complicated, my son: I didn't expect it either. Sometimes it's hard for me to talk to you about the possibilities that opened up for us before, when the social elevator worked, when having a degree and a master's degree seemed like a guarantee of everything. Current volatility has its advantages, for sure: you are less tied down, you learn more things, you get by and you depend more on your own adaptability. I mean, let salaries stagnate, man: they are not you. Don't you stagnate, nor let yourself stagnate. I know we all need a ground that doesn't move much, to dare to change when we feel like it and not because the flames catch us. But the ground is not you. Decadence is not you, minimum wage is not you. You'll have to work hard and not trust anything, that's for sure. When did things go wrong? I suppose with the 2008 crisis and with the coronavirus, and in our country with the Process, but they are not you either. They are facts, data, circumstances, the weatherman. The rawness with which democracy cracks will force you to have little faith in your rights (which you will have to defend more than would be normal) and to concentrate more on your duties (surviving without harming, basically). But the system is not you, bankruptcy is not you, fragility and mediocrity are not you. And as for the social elevator, my son, don't think so either: everyone knows that in reality it was always stairs.

Following the announcement about the future Thyssen Museum in Barcelona, ​​and the understandable concern many of us expressed (and still do) about the impact on the heritage of the Palau Marcet façade and the Passeig de Gràcia itself, the debate also arose regarding its content: as is well known, a collection primarily of Catalan Modernist works (Casas, Rusiñol, Mellon, etc.). We then wondered if Barcelona needed even more Modernism, even if only in painting: the MNAC (National Art Museum of Catalonia) clearly fills this void, and moreover, could fill it. This is without mentioning (of course) the architectural aspect of the movement, scattered throughout the city. We wondered, then, if a different, or complementary, approach wouldn't be more appropriate. Not only because we already have more than enough Modernism, but also because of the following question: would the Modernists of that era have been content to always exhibit works from a glorious past? Or would they have sought out the latest trends from abroad and positioned themselves at the forefront? Are we lacking this modernist attitude today? Perhaps from our excessive desire to preserve? Modernism as heritage, have we ended up losing it as a virtue?

Since 1992, Barcelona's leaders have presented the city as a vast Olympic village buried beneath the magma of some kind of volcano (with a crater in Montjuïc, I suppose), paralyzed and petrified by the success of Games held decades ago—excesses year after year, all under the banner of "managing success." Since then, the attempts to find an equivalent event or distraction for the city's residents have been varied: from the Forum of Cultures to the grandiose Winter Olympics, not to mention the extreme frivolity of the America's Cup or the Formula 1 exhibitions on Passeig de Gràcia. They've tried every possible approach, and none have succeeded: there's no way to deny that the biggest popular, massive, inspiring, civic, and unanimous event in Barcelona since 1992 was the referendum of October 1, 2017, and all the demonstrations that followed. This year, if they also intend to conceal this fact under the veil of a contrived and superficial Gaudí Year, it will backfire on them as well.

This slogan alone would suffice to respond to the constant (and well-intentioned) suggestions that Catalan should try to become a more "friendly" language. The argument, as is well known, stems from the unease of some sectors (almost always Spanish-speaking) regarding the existence of coercive or punitive measures to protect the use of their own language. They say this, of course, for our own good and for the good of the language. We have no doubt about that. But since it is fitting to respond with the same empathy and the same selfless good faith, here comes yet another attempt. This time, it's not to justify the coercion or sanctions, but also to justify the desire for primacy: Catalan is not just any language. It is not only official. It is not even merely "our own." It also possesses a universal value, inherent in itself, which is the fact that it can be identified as the language of freedom.

What is the identity of New York? Because its connection to the country is relative, like letting the air flow, a kind of living apart together that binds and liberates her at the same time; her identity is not based on a tradition exactly shared with the rest. It does not come from the past but from the future, not from the backcountry but from frontierMore than a distinct culture, it's based on a shared energy, a temperament: speed, ambition, diversity, and practical tolerance. The city offers opportunities, not roots. That's why the streets and avenues have no names, but they do have a soul. That's why it aims so high and looks so little at the ground. The idea is that it's a place where everyone can be themselves without having to participate in a... us Previously. And this, which may seem like a lack of identity, is paradoxically its hallmark.

From the pacified Consell de Cent street, Jordi Amat explains in his new book The Battles of Barcelona: Cultural Imaginaries of a City in Dispute There is a difficult-to-resolve relationship between the Catalan nation and its capital. In these debates, many pro-independence commentators have participated, and consistently so, although Amat seems to have ignored us (or so he pretends). I would say that, among all of Amat's accurate assertions (Barcelona is indeed a "political body without a head"), the most unfortunate misstep is his obsession with sparing the independence movement. This is a constant in Barcelona's friendly and smiling "social democracy" when faced with the evidence that the Process was the most popular, daring, progressive, participatory, electrifying, creative, and internationalizing event (and even the one with the greatest social consensus) that Barcelona has seen since the Olympic Games. The difference is that no decent pro-independence supporter would ever underestimate the importance of the Olympic Games. They may criticize aspects and consequences, but never treat it condescendingly. As we know, even within the establishment, there are still stratified classes.

A general consensus is emerging that genocide is being committed in Gaza. Okay. And a month ago, what was it? Because we've been denouncing the atrocities and excesses committed by Israel in this conflict for months. What happens when the classification of the thing is elevated to a new terminology? Well, the effect is twofold: on the one hand, it automatically garners more sympathy from international public opinion (the famous battle of the story), and, on the other, it enters a different legal classification that has aggravated penal effects. If Russia were committing genocide in Ukraine, the demonstrations against Putin would undoubtedly have rekindled throughout Europe (instead of this shameful paralysis). At first, Hitler also limited himself to invasions, when the Holocaust was not yet known (or reported): you start by invading territories, or in other words, not respecting the rights of peoples, and you end up not respecting life. Genocide is a change of screen. A change of size. What's more, if you say it is, you automatically seem pro-Palestinian; if you say it isn't, you're pro-Zionist. Labels label us.

In June and July 2018, the festival was held on the National Mall in Washington DC, between the Capitol and the monument dedicated to the first American president. Catalonia: tradition and creativity from the Mediterranean, promoted and produced by the Ministry of Culture but also by the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. A year ago, preparations were underway just months before the October 1 referendum, and the nervousness of the Spanish embassy in the U.S. was evident: explanatory letters, demands for justification of budgets, interventions at every public event... These were extremely tense times, as the Smithsonian Foundation's own curator, Michael Att, knows.they are building human towers for democracy", he wrote), but the festival's celebration was impeccable. An exhibition of castles, sardanas, giants and big-heads, cultural enterprises, musical performances, and a long etcetera. But along the route of stops on the grass were the buildings of the National Museum of History and Culture, Air and Space, and the National Museum of the American Indian, all of them (and others) promoted by the Smithsonian Foundation, and all of them now the subject of discursive revision by Donald Trump.

Catalan nationalism cannot afford to be unsympathetic. State nationalism, even a certain left, can afford it, but not Catalan nationalism, independence, or Catalan nationalism. This is because their approaches do not refer to an abstract ideal, but to a concrete proposal on a concrete terrain and with a concrete society: the Catalan one, which, if it is to be independent, must do so based on a minimally solid social agreement. Proof of this is Spain: Spain has been artificially created for centuries, and if until recently one could counter me with the agreed-upon Constitution of 1978, which we can accept as more or less true, since 2006 (and especially in 2017) this is no longer the case: Spain is no longer a pact, and even owes itself to force. Therefore, the independence movement (Catalanism/sovereignty/etc.) must ask itself the following question: how can it make an offer for a country that is not too artificial, too indigestible, too unacceptable for too many of its inhabitants, and even for the international community?

First: give a name to the obelisk in the Plaza del Cinc d'Oros. Barcelona is the only city with an obelisk dedicated to nothing and no one, orphaned, impersonal, extraterrestrial. I don't think the current mayor would mind dedicating it to Liberty, for example, but I'll question it given his phobia of what he calls "conflictive chimeras." I'm urging the issue simply because names do things (they themselves did the same with El Prat Airport). We should also address the names of General Mitre, Juan de Borbón, Isabels and Cristinas, and various Bourbon-style names, the foreign Dos de Mayo or Bailén, and the unbearable absence of a street or square for Salvador Dalí.

Allow me the verbal trap, but I think it can serve to open our eyes even further in the current debate on the public use of the Islamic veil. Left-wing parties believe that a secular state should give everyone the freedom to dress as they wish, whether with religious connotations or not, while the other parties argue that secularism should precisely free women (and especially girls) from wearing the veil, or protect them from a patriarchal tradition. Both positions cite secularism as the basis of their arguments, although the far right emphasizes the protection of Christian or Catholic tradition. But what we often miss is that we do live in a secular society. Much more than we think. It's not exactly a religion, but it is a dogma. A series of undeniable principles. Almost a faith.

We think that with Trump's antics we're rediscovering America, the one hidden behind the illusions of the Democratic Party and Hollywood, but perhaps we're discovering our own limits. What has shocked me most in recent months hasn't been the antics of the POTUS or his eccentric mentor, Elon Musk, but the general public's boycott of Disney's new film, Snow WhiteThe rerun no longer tells us how values have changed since 1937, but how many more changes in values we can tolerate. Because now it's not Trump who's proposing a regression: now it's the public itself. And what worries me most is that I, possibly, include myself.

We think that with Trump's antics we're rediscovering America, the one hidden behind the illusions of the Democratic Party and Hollywood, but perhaps we're discovering our own limits. What has shocked me most in recent months hasn't been the antics of the POTUS or his eccentric mentor, Elon Musk, but the general public's boycott of Disney's new film, Snow WhiteThe rerun no longer tells us how values have changed since 1937, but how many more changes in values we can tolerate. Because now it's not Trump who's proposing a regression: now it's the public itself. And what worries me most is that I, possibly, include myself.

I am sorry, but there are only two paths. With all the nuances and intensities that one may wish, there are mainly two. Let us set ourselves the goal of success: let us imagine that success is a Catalonia that is strong nationally, convivial and with a great social consensus on values, where the Catalan language and culture are in good health and can consider growth rather than survival. Let us imagine for a moment that we have arrived. In this hypothesis there are two options: turn back and say "we have arrived because we said enough, because we knew how to put up barriers, we identified what was indigenous and we saved it from excessive foreign contamination", or turn back and say "we have arrived because we opened up our culture and it has made us new Catalans". That is to say: continue being Catalan because we have raised walls high enough, or continue being Catalan because we have known how to manage the doors. I understand, respect and consider the first to be perfectly legitimate. And I am more of the second.