Ludger Mees  1 |  

Book Review 

Note on the book review published in SNM 5 (2020): 

Barbara Loyer on Ludger Mees, The Basque Contention. 

Ethnicity, Politics, Violence, Routledge, London / New 

York, 2020, p. 232-240.* 

 

This is not a reply to the arguments expressed by Barbara Loyer in her 

review. Though not sharing many of them, I accept them as academically 

legitimate points of view. However, for reasons only the author knows, 

the review contains some errors and statements that do not correspond 

to reality. In order to prevent readers who have not read the book from 

being misguided, here are some clarifying remarks: 

1. According to Loyer, on p. 4 of the book ‘Mees states “I have myself been 

traumatized by ETA’s cruelty and by the cynicism of some its defenders, 

and I have grown admirative of the force of a number of its opponents –

some of which have become my friends”’ (p. 233). The reality is that this 

statement does not appear on p. 4 of the book, nor on any other of the 

following or previous pages. Apparently, it has been invented. 

2. According to Loyer, Mees is ‘subliminally’ setting ‘nationalism as a 

natural evidence that simply emerges from this territory, and not the 

product of a very efficient politics’ (p. 238). The reality is that, besides 

highlighting the crucial importance of the ‘invention and popularization 

of national apparatus (…) and different festivities’, the analysis of early 

Basque nationalism concludes placing emphasis precisely on the 

constructive elements of nationalist politics: ‘The mobilization of Basque 



Studies on National Movements 6 (2020) | Book Review 

| 2                        Ludger Mees 

nationalists required their prior emotionalization, which was facilitated 

through the movement’s organizational design as a community of 

believers, the symbolic transmission of political messages and the 

celebration of the nation through festivities and monuments’ (p. 59). 

3. According to Loyer, ‘the books that bring a contradictory perspective 

on his implicit thesis, that the nationalist ideology is in essence 

democratic, are not mentioned’. Besides the fact that no such 

generalizing statement about the ‘democratic essence’ of nationalism 

can be found on any of the pages of the book, a second observation must 

be made. Juan Pablo Fusi and Antonio Rivera, listed by Loyer as among 

the authors who have been alleged victims of such a selective and 

partisan bibliographical approach (p. 237), are in fact cited throughout 

the book on several occasions. Indeed, Fusi’s pioneering study on labor 

politics in the Basque Country is quoted on p. 49, endnote 44 and on p. 
82, note 3. Different publications by Rivera are quoted on p. 26, notes 25, 

26 and 28; on p. 85, note 37; on p. 141, note 6, and on p. 265, note 12 and 

15.  

Ludger Mees  

Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea 

 
* SNM is a platform that facilitates open debate on scientific content linked to 
the history of national movements. This also might include rectifications and 
amendments that relate to the accuracy of authors and contributors. It is 
however the journal's policy to refrain from prolonged debate on such matters.