Dear Editor,
During President Ciampi’s recent visit to Naples "Il Mattino" saw fit to dedicate several pages to each of the days that the President spent in Naples. To this end, leaving aside several notes (from September 12) on Mrs. Ciampi’s personal preferences in the artistic field (Giordano or Caravaggio) that are probably not exactly of general interest (obviously I am not criticizing Mrs. Ciampi’s tastes, which she has every right to express, it is the fact that these must be reported and commented on in three columns plus a «speech», in a newspaper such as "Il Mattino" that seems to me less dignified, obviously toward the readers), it seems to me that Ciampi’s visit has been an occasion – despite repeated assertions to the contrary – to display the usual rhetoric about the South, its unemployment, and 1799. The President cites Cuoco, meets Marotta, listens to Cimarosa’s 1799 anthem of the Neapolitan Republic, meets the 1799 Committee, the same old story about the Risorgimento. Can we really pretend to have gone beyond the usual rhetoric? The pretext seems to me to be unfounded; this is the usual rhetoric. In the history of our South, unfortunately, we have participated in and we continue to take part in a somewhat unique phenomenon that is at the origin of many of our problems, namely, the fact that a part of the population, the so-called "elite", in reality looks down its nose on the majority of the population. This was so in the time of the Bourbons, during the six months of the Neapolitan Republic of 1799, during the period of the Risorgimento, and unfortunately is still so today.
Manlio Rossi-Doria writes (among other things) that from the time of the ascension of Charles III of Bourbon to the throne (1734), and in the one hundred and twenty-five years that preceded unity, one can affirm that the South has had an institutional, economic and political evolution similar to that of the other regions of Italy. In fact, says Rossi-Doria, its problem has always been the elites: "The southern middle class assumed since that time – despite the internal division of Bourbons and Liberals, between moderates and democrats – a relatively homogeneous structure and a predominantly conservative political and social orientation. Interested above all in collecting income from the land, it was forced in fact to take a very hard line with farmers and workers in general. These, in turn, deprived of civil rights and any contractual rights, oppressed by poverty and debt, showed themselves to be inevitably prone toward class hatred and revolt."
Although Rossi-Doria is referring in particular to the forty year period preceding the Piedmontese conquest, the phenomenon is not exclusive to that period but rather is a constant characteristic of the South’s middle class (and of the aristocracy before it). We cannot fail to ask ourselves then: why all the emphasis on 1799, what difference was there between those who favored the King and those who supported the French? Apart from the rhetoric, of course. By so saying we are certainly not criticizing values of equality, liberty, civil rights, etc., but only pointing out that probably these republican bourgeoisie were not very different (in actual fact they were little different) from those who had remained faithful to the King. The Neapolitan Republic was unfortunately a republic of rhetoric, that not only continued the exploitation of the southern peoples (the Neapolitan Republicans’ concept of "peoples" excluded in fact the majority of the southern population, though generally is not said) but also added to this the exploitation (and repression) on the part of the French occupational troops. In addition, I feel that it is not very honest (intellectually) to lament so greatly the death of the Parthenopian republican "patriots" (a term which is in quotes because at the time it had a different meaning than it has today) and so little those who instead were true patriots (without quotation marks, in today’s sense of the term). Wouldn’t it be appropriate perhaps, after two hundred years, to lament all those Neapolitans (meaning southerners) who died on that occasion? We get the impression that the celebration of the bicentennial of the Neapolitan Republic of 1799 is a pretext to advance an elitist vision (historically shown to be deleterious) of Italy’s South, a vision which once again seems to censure the greater part of our national history (of the southern nation, that is) in order to emphasize the action of alleged enlightened elites (often only apparently so) to the detriment of the southern population as a whole. I think this is a further demonstration of the provincialism of our (often self-proclaimed) elites, subsequently proven by the fact that in Spain and in the Tyrol those who fought against the invading French are considered heroes, and not criminals as in our country. It is displeasing to see individuals who in other instances give glory to Naples (one example is Marotta, to whose Institute of Philosophical Studies we give our unconditional admiration) advance a policy which is so provincial and so (uselessly) theatrically "against" a part of our city and its history, so uncritically bound by the values of a Risorgimento which is the prime cause of the underdevelopment of the South. This uncritical enslavement to logic and official history is the "true evil" of our southern nation. The "work issue" has been talked about, a euphemism to conceal the failure of "national" politics in southern Italy . If we go on reading Rossi-Doria we realize that the failure of southern politics is not so unexplainable, but that doesn't stop the rhetoric from continuing as always. And emigration continues. Certainly those who emigrate today frequently have a degree. However, dear Editor, contrary to what was written not long ago in your newspaper, I don't think we should be so proud of this. The emigrants are human resources that are leaving us. After having contributed to the development of the United States and various South America countries at the beginning of the century which is almost at an end, and then to the development of the economies of the North (Northern Italy and Northern Europe) in the period following the Second World War, isn't it time that these resources remained here to contribute to "our" development? "Our" former president (before Ciampi) did not hesitate to say that southerners must be ready to move (read "emigrate") to where the work is, thus rendering explicit 130 plus years of "united" Italy's "national" politics, but must "Il Mattino" and our elites always be in agreement? Or indeed when we speak of development are we only being rhetorical?
Carmine Colacino, Potenza / English translation by Anna Milano Appel
back to index