Barcelona V. Madrid

Barcelona’s waterfront and bohemian neighborhoods are juxtaposed with run-down areas filled with petty crime and the kind of basketball courts that don’t have hoops. San Francisco meets Tehran. Its homeless population is nothing surprising, though the line between street performer and beggar is unclear and the city seems to be a mecca for vagabond amputees.

Barcelona is the capital city of Catalonia, which has historically fought for its independence, both politically and culturally, from Spain. Under the dictatorship of General Franco, the Catalan national identity was violently oppressed: the Catalan language was banned in public institutions and the region’s economy suffered as it was denied access to new industries. Today, Catalonia is an Autonomous Community within Spain with its own semi-autonomous government.

However, its rancor towards Spain is still palpable, most noticeably when FC Barcelona plays Real Madrid in football. During the Franco era, FC Barcelona was an emblem of national independence and pride for the Catalans, though a Madrid victory was prearranged. The football fervor remains strong today as the Catalans fiercely hold on to their national identity, which is now utterly tied to their sense of themselves as the underdogs, as the repressed, and as victims.

In his new book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank considers how the idea of victimhood has been seemingly co-opted by conservative middle America. The same "average" Americans who claim to despise "whining" liberals for their attention to minority rights and grievances, are now taking this stance themselves. In this past election, conservatives, though holding most of the government power, have still been able to sell the idea that extreme liberal policies are threatening to tear the fabric of American society, specifically by citing the rulings of "activist judges." Frank examines how the threat of rampant liberalism convinced middle America to vote against its own economic interests. The left is of course guilty of trumpeting their abuse at the hands of George W. Bush, though they managed it with less hypocrisy.

It seems to me that both sides of the political spectrum rally their base around the clarion call of victimization. Perhaps both sides of any major conflict need to claim the role of victim- it affords a self-righteousness that is indispensable for the endurance of a unified populace. The War on Terror and the Israel-Palestine conflict are apt examples. So is victimhood something that is earned or claimed? Are the lines of victim and aggressor clearly demarcated like sides on a football field, or are they just national songs chanted by a drunken mob filtering out of the stadium, sung regardless of who won or lost?