The Director General of Linguistic Equality of the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa, Mikel Irizar, took advantage of this page which has been writing his opinion for more than 20 years, to repeat in the article Elkarrekin bide the message that the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa launched at the event held on 18 May in the Orona Ideo building in Hernani: “To carry out the process of revitalizing the Basque Country from the crossroads, we are looking for the way between different organizations and agents; in fruitful collaboration and in a spirit of innovation.”

He took enough confidence to appreciate the owner of this independent media, and said that the owner of the chronicle I made about Orona’s presentation on the blog Gaitzerdi was “curious,” the headline did not seem to understand: Cooperation between the Basque cultural activity and the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa. With this article I would like to explain what the headline said without a second round: that Euskalgintza is not one and only, that since feminisms are in the plural Euskalgintza is very varied and that what politicians want to reflect in the photos is not real, that is, that some agents do not represent Euskalgintza in its entirety. Beyond the headline, I would add that the fact that the representatives of the macro associations that we create by grouping different agents of Basque cultural activity take the floor in the report of a public institution does not express a deep collaboration and union with the foundation of Basque cultural activity.

After stating that he did not understand the headline, Irizar said that this headline had reminded him “of the famous title of that English newspaper”: “The stain closed down to the low tide of the strait has isolated the continent. The message of the metaphor is well understood, but what I do not understand is the objective that that message has sent us. I do not know if the objective mentioned is very well combined with Irizar’s much-loved discourse “the bridge between Basque culture and public institutions”, so I think it is a naive joke among the Basque brothers, abstracted from each one’s position, abstracted from their Basque institutional scope, abstracted from the processes and decision-making spaces that we share.

Regarding the content of the metaphor of the Strait of the Mancha, the knowledge of when Irizar made the following statements gives a hint: The act of Orona was carried out to recognize the strategies established by the Provincial Council of Gipuzkoa in the Basque Country during the two years, in this framework of self-evaluation during the middle of the legislature. Although it was presented publicly and before the media, the “participatory process” carried out by the Provincial Council through the invitation to different agents of Basque cultural activity had not ended. The situation was the same when Irizar wrote the ARGIA article. The evaluation session of this process has subsequently been held, in which it has been shown that the collaboration referred to in the article of Irizar has not been as “productive” as she has pointed out. That this union between Basque cultural activity and the institutions they have imagined before they begin to speak is not so great in terms of content and approaches, at least in the case of the Basque culture as a whole. Fortunately, more than Euskalgintza, everyone will know where in the Strait of the Mancha they are.

In ARGIA, we have our legs on the ground, and we know where we are. We remain open to sincere relations with those on all sides of the Channel. Of course, respecting everyone as they are and the work they do. From these relationships will emerge the projects and objectives that we share, but in many moments we should take the natural decision not to share objectives and projects, and continue to feed the relationships at that time.