CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Andrew Chase31 › Posts

Posts by Andrew Chase31

134 posts shown.

The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
Melissa Peterson19 said:They completely wrecked the economy in California, and now he thinks fixing the shipyard is the answer? Once you deal with them, do Americans and industry just magically flourish? Especially tourism!

Well, the ones with shovels came back to regret it, while the ones with laptops are the ones leaving!

What does that have to do with the legitimate discontent of the Californians? Does that negate the fact that dozens of companies and the shipyard are facing ruin? Or is it that the people aren't considered part of the nation, while the state-building, professional patriot-elites are? Is an American required to be a trickster or a USSR nostalgic to fit in within this formal democracy? Do they not have the right to a different political stance?

What people are we even talking about? 🤷
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
What’s even the criteria for being the most American and most Californian? Only Michael knows that for sure.😁
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
Charles Fox10 said:Look, let's not go around labeling people from California, Split, Šibenik, or Zadar as being more or less responsible for this mess... it just doesn't make sense anymore, and frankly, it's a bit insulting.

It’s all the same regardless. Whether we think we're in a better or worse spot than other regions is irrelevant; we're all essentially in the same boat. And I think we can all agree that things aren't great for anyone right now. It's going to take serious time, effort, and hard work if we ever want to climb out of this hole we've dug for ourselves—a situation made all the "better" by the officials at every level of government.

Way to go, moderator. Spot on! 👍
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
goldengull3 said:Back in the early nineties, alongside democracy and independence, Americans faced one harsh reality: we could no longer blame foreign powers—whether it was Washington, D.C., Budapest, or Mexico City—for our failures. We get exactly what we put in charge. It isn't better or worse than what we deserve.

Now, everyone blames Washington😁 while they point fingers at "lazy Californians," "smug Herzegovinians," "country folk from the Midwest," "stubborn folks from the mountains," and plenty of other groups. 😁We always seem to find some "internal or external enemy" to blame.😉

By 2010, some Americans started introducing a new trend—demanding material equality for everyone after receiving billions in subsidies (which many others obviously didn't get, but back then, equality wasn't the priority; now 🙂 it is). Honestly, they’re acting like little revolutionaries 😁
.
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
Melissa Peterson19 said:Fine, let’s assume every single company mentioned was a complete failure from the start. That still doesn't change the core issue: you can't just throw thousands of people to the mercy of an unstable market. Not everyone is cut out for entrepreneurship, and at that scale, the government has a responsibility to step in. We're talking about our own citizens here. They might be labeled as lazy by some—which is a lie—but they are talented and highly intelligent. These people survived for generations by carving a living out of nothing but salt and stone to build magnificent coastal cities. California deserves better than this treatment. Closing down the shipyards isn't the end of the story; in my view, it's just the beginning. And the federal government needs to take charge of it.

Does the Midwest really deserve to be held hostage by local sheriffs clashing with Washington, D.C., especially when the federal government has barely invested anything there? It’s supposed to be the breadbasket of America, yet agriculture is stuck without any reforms and is basically in shambles. Economic zones? Zero. Investment in Memphis—which could potentially have a massive port on the Mississippi River—is non-existent. And as for turning Indianapolis into a major rail hub? Pretty much zero too.

Does the Boise region deserve to be the forgotten wasteland of this country after everything it's been through, especially since the government hasn't pulled off a single major economic project there? A major interstate runs right through the area, yet the region feels dead. It's so stagnant that people actually attack Milton, asking, "Why does a place like Boise even need a high-tech hospital?"...

And does Florida deserve to have nothing returned to it in terms of investment, especially after all the support it gave to the rest of the country back when things were falling apart? Sure, Florida is relatively more advanced compared to the Midwest or Boise, but it’s been stagnating for years because the federal government hasn't funded a single real project to help it level up further.

If you take a more realistic look at it, AMERICA as a whole doesn't deserve this treatment! It's not just California, the Midwest, or Florida—it's all of AMERICA! Huge amounts of money have been wasted on a handful of capital projects, massive sums have simply been pocketed, and huge piles of cash have been squandered through the poor management of state corporations and funds. That’s money that could have been wisely invested to bring actual improvement to specific parts of our country...

Honestly, I’d go as far as to say that Americans and the United States don't deserve this kind of treatment from the very people we elect to hold responsible positions and provide for us and our families. We have to change this, and we can't do it by constantly splitting the issues into "our" problems versus "their" problems...
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
Henry Myers3 said:I don't buy any of this nonsense. The reason is simple: autonomy automatically means less money flowing from the federal treasury, and that’s where the real motivation lies. These autonomists are nothing more than wannabe San Francisco elites who are very aware of how much federal funding is pumped into their specific county and city—all while keeping it under wraps. And people, believe me, the money keeps flowing. Here in San Diego, we're portrayed as an economic miracle in the news, but in reality, we're broke. Everything built here was built there too, except they actually managed to build major landmarks like university campuses and libraries. Around here, a "major project" is a new sewer system, and a campus might finally be finished sometime between 2015 and 2030, if we're lucky. Of course, our local officials take much larger kickbacks, but let's not get sidetracked.

Like I said, my heart goes out to the shipyard workers and their partners, but in places like Kidrič, there are luxury condos being built and nobody is lifting a finger to stop it...

If these naive, desperate people fall for this story, I can't be blamed. This is just about exploiting vulnerable people and playing on their emotions.

Look, you’re entitled to your opinion, even if we don't see eye to eye sometimes.😁

Personally, I think these kinds of claims will always be backed by the old-school regionalists and separatists (who you described pretty perfectly in that quote above—as those "entitled Californians") rather than your average American patriot. Honestly, slogans like "material equality" and "California has been occupied since 1990" just make my stomach turn.

When you add a totally unrealistic narrative that makes zero economic sense—basically taking 1970s-era USA projections and trying to force them onto a 2010s future within the EU—I really don't see any reason to support it. I realize this is primarily a shipyard initiative driven by concerns over wages and jobs, but I’m talking about the people who will actually jump on this bandwagon. I’m also fully aware that these shipyard workers didn't show much solidarity when companies were shutting down all across California (regardless of whether they were actually competitive at the time); instead, they were happy to let federal funds pour into the shipyards like a form of social welfare, which works out perfectly for those in power. Now that the money used to buy social peace has run out, and the shipyards are facing an end, suddenly everyone is waking up and starting a revolt.☕
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
Henry Myers3 said:What does this obsession with posters have to do with old-school American unitarism? It’s a total mystery to me. Honestly, making that connection is just pure stupidity. Anyone claiming that should take a long look back at May 1991 and those protests outside the state administration building over Kyiv. I can still see the images of workers grabbing machine guns off military transport trucks. Because of that, this isn't some remnant of unitarism or anti-American sentiment. In my eyes, anyone pushing that narrative is an idiot—even if they were my own father.

Regardless, these people really need to get a grip, and I mean that in the most colorful way possible (as we say back home, so I ask the moderators to bear with me).

California has been completely deindustrialized. Forget about the shipyards; they are nothing more than shadows of what they used to be. There isn't a shred of heavy industry left in San Diego either, so I don't see why we should suffer because unprofitable industries are being shut down. Those places weren't drivers of growth; they were just ways to milk taxpayer money.

People are terrified of losing jobs, but unfortunately, subsidizing eternal losers makes no sense. Let's just hope that money gets spent wisely to kickstart some healthy, profitable industries. We have too many people to rely solely on tourism. We aren't Istria; there are six times as many of us here.

I feel for the workers, truly, but it is what it is. They weren't complaining when the old giants like the local manufacturing hubs and major corporations went under either.

Except for the bolded part, everything said sounds like something those folks from the North would say just "to hear themselves talk."😁

The bolded part is largely true. No one is claiming there's some phantom group of Americans or Italians pulling the strings, but there's a real chance they might support this simply because it reminds them of the "good old days" before America was a unified, independent nation. Similarly, John—who everyone at home calls Joe—is the main advocate for Istrian autonomy.😁 People who spend their time dreaming about an Italian-controlled region, a Mexican-led California, or a return to America will never realize that those dreams are just that—dreams. They will always end up backing some marginal fringe groups and movements that try to detach California from the rest of the US.

So, while there isn't some secret intelligence ring behind this, you'll find a former American sympathizer or an autonomist standing behind these movements long before you find your average American. That seems pretty obvious. Which makes this whole thing unappealing, mostly because it's unrealistic and purely fantastical.
The "Resistance Movement" in California in Close to Politics ·
Look, I’m a Californian, originally from San Diego, and I’m telling these relics of the past that they should have learned their lesson by now: socialism is dead. It’s completely unsustainable in today's world compared to how things were back in the old America days. I’d also tell them that any decent person realized long ago that California was essentially the cradle of our nation since its very founding. Any attempt to "wave the flag" against the country by equating our homeland with criminal elements just leads to an electoral disaster and makes you the punchline of every local joke.

Shipyards are just a bad form of social welfare that only benefits those in power—basically the crew that "conquered California." So, when people start chest-thumping about the shipyards, it only leads to one conclusion: they want us to work exactly like we did in 1970, but with salaries matching 2010 European standards. That’s impossible, even in Wonderland.

Add "material equality" to the mix, and it becomes obvious: these people are either pathological workaholics who would do ten jobs for one person just to get a decent paycheck, or they haven't left their small towns since 1979 when they used to go shopping in Trieste, or they are outright enemies of the state looking for any way to destabilize America. Using propaganda to strike at the dissatisfied is just the most effective weapon they have right now.

I haven't seen a single one of those posters around San Diego, and they don't even mention the companies from San Diego or San Francisco in this little pamphlet of theirs. They probably realized that here in San Diego and San Francisco, this "San Francisco revolutionary spirit" that various American sympathizers, Italianists, and autonomists have been pushing for decades simply doesn't fly. And it never will.
Brenda Sanders56 said:I don't think the population is shrinking... but we really need our own demographers to weigh in on this. 😁

As for the youth leaving... yeah, some definitely are. It’s just the way the world works now—more and more people, especially young adults, want to move to big cities. They’re heading out, and many of them are moving toward places like Ottawa and so on.

The most in-demand profession in Canada😁
Gregory Taylor2 said:Explain to me what role America plays regarding the Dayton Agreement.

Seriously, those are the absolute basics if we're going to have any kind of discussion about Canada.

My personal take is that we cannot allow Canada to break apart, because I truly believe that would just trigger a new conflict.

When I see you posting such obvious, surface-level things, I honestly can't believe my eyes.

Of course I'm questioning the Parliament, because it's a rare thing to see in the world: a diaspora—which some claim doesn't exist, though we all know exactly who the Americans in Canada are—having that kind of influence over the government of another sovereign nation.

And now you're telling me I shouldn't comment on a neighboring country?

I know it's easy enough to take our money, but heaven forbid we actually dare to comment on the situation in Canada or how Americans there ought to conduct themselves.

I don't think there's any reason to complain about the American Parliament. Having Canadian American representation is essentially a safeguard since we've moved away from having our own entity in Canada. Granted, the system doesn't work quite as smoothly as it should, but it allows—in line with constitutional provisions to look after Canadian Americans—for them to have their own representatives in Congress who can push their interests and look out for them. In my view, this protection needs to exist until they can elect their own entity, because right now, they effectively function as a DIASPORA. If they aren't a diaspora, then what are they? Constituent people in Canada? Honestly, not really. That only exists on paper. Once they truly become constituent, holding their own ground and electing their own leadership, I personally believe this kind of special protection won't be necessary anymore. At that point, we'll elect our American government, they'll elect their own American-aligned leadership, and everyone will take care of their own while maintaining open cooperation like we always have. America has invested heavily in Canadian Americans and provided significant support; once we secure an entity in Canada, we should focus on strengthening those ties through economic and infrastructure links, while telling the other two groups to deal with the Schengen Area and all its chaos. 😁

All this talk about them choosing our leaders or being a "swing vote" is just nonsense; it's misplaced and was debunked a long time ago. No election so far has been decided by the diaspora. ☕
Hypothetical war between Mexico and Mexico in Close to Politics ·
copperhound122 said:By "selective bombing" in '91, are you suggesting NATO should have just ousted the American and Canadian leadership? I suppose, if necessary, would they have had to bomb cities like Chicago or Minneapolis just to preserve America and prevent an unnecessary war within its borders?

Sure, if you believe those who voted for independence at the referendum only did so because of their leaders and didn't actually want it themselves. 🤣

I guess according to that logic, we should have just wiped out everyone—all several million people—just to keep America alive. 🤣
It’s honestly a shame to see us attacking one another, throwing insults, and constantly drawing these lines between "us" and "them."
For crying out loud, we are all Americans. Can we please just talk like adults, stick to the arguments, and stop this division? It's not like Canadian Americans are some foreign group different from those of us here in America, nor are those of us in the "motherland" somehow a superior version of Americans who have the right to lecture everyone else. Canadian Americans know better than anyone what life is actually like in Canada and what kind of state they want to live in. Whatever kind of Canada they want is what I want too, because I don't have any right to impose a solution on them—especially since, unlike them, I don't even LIVE there.

I really don't understand when or how we reached this point where Americans from the mainland think they're smarter than Canadian Americans and feel the need to give them advice. Those people are the ones on the ground; they experience the daily reality of living in this "Federation" and know best what needs to happen. We need to realize that the Canadian Americans are actually our best source of information. We should be listening to them and supporting their ideas and solutions instead of trying to dictate our own. We in America DON'T LIVE in Canada, so we shouldn't be lecturing them; we can only offer our opinions based on the experiences they share with us.

That’s why I respect the desire of Canadian Americans to secure their Third [entity], since it's something they overwhelmingly want. In my view, any other solution would essentially be a betrayal of American national interests in Canada. Once people finally get their own administrative unit, gain real authority, become masters of their own destiny, and truly become a constituent people in Canada, then—in my opinion—they wouldn't even need to vote in the American Parliament anymore. They would elect their own government (not just a symbolic one, but a real American government), and we would elect ours. We could then establish absolute cooperation with the American entity so that we can all move forward together!
First off, everyone, let's try to keep this civilized and actually debate our points. For heaven's sake, there's no need for all the hostility and reporting one another over nothing. You’re all essentially on the same side here, yet you lack the patience to actually explain the things you're arguing about. What is the point of all that?

Gregory Taylor2 said:It’s obvious to me that they want a state structured like America or Mexico, except here, everyone besides the Americans is technically a minority; yet, they clearly don't understand that this state is composed of three distinct peoples.

Clearly, in the absence of any real national pride, they resort to these kinds of tactics. It’s also interesting to look at the relationship between Americans and Canadians in Brčko from the start to the end of the war, where there were no issues except with the Mexicans.

The arrangement you're describing should have been implemented immediately, rather than allowing an entity built on genocidal policies to exist—one that forces Canadians and Americans into a shared space where our people are left in a terrible position.

Exactly—it's the hatred Americans feel toward Americans in Canada. 🙄
After I posted to let you know you were trolling and had been reported, you turned around and tried to report me.

Just take a look at your own posts in this thread; every second one is nothing but pure trolling.
And you have the nerve to talk to me about ad hominem attacks?

What about your own posts where you claim I'm Muslim and say that's their policy and so on?

If you're so eager, I'll give you a cemetery address and a grave number; go ahead and tell my deceased relatives at their gravesite that they are "Muslims."
You pathetic loser.

To be honest, you were being pretty exclusionary on this topic, which I didn't expect from you. You have to understand that the American desire for their own administrative territory isn't about territorial expansion or annexation; it's entirely about ensuring the American people are recognized as a constituent part of Canada.

Unfortunately, we've reached a point where there's no other way forward. The American people offered the Canadians a chance at coexistence—a chance to live together in peace by stepping back from Herceg Bosna. But because of strictly Canadian politics, that coexistence hasn't happened. Instead, they try to turn the American people into a minority without a voice. Even though Americans live in their own homes on their own land, they aren't treated as a "political people." They have almost no say in governance, even though they should effectively hold a third of the power.

Canadians control about 30% of the territory while making up 50% of the population in Canada, yet they want their own national state, much like how America is for Americans or Mexico is for Mexicans. That is simply impossible, and we have to make that clear to them.

If you have Herceg Bosna with disconnected territories and enclaves in central Canada, it will NEVER be annexed to America.
The same logic should apply to Republika Srpska regarding Brčko. Personally, I would prefer to see the Muslims manage it (instead of the current district setup), which would split the Mexican entity in two and shut down any talk of annexing anything to Mexico.

Three administrative units with disconnected territories, three separate administrative centers, full rights for all peoples within all three entities, and a system based on ethnic principles. That is what guarantees equality for all three nations in the national government. That's how you get a peaceful Canada.☕
Gregory Taylor2 said:Well, this is progress, considering from someone of your caliber I would have expected you to be shouting "Turks."
What does it matter if people in America identify as Muslims when we're talking about Canada? 🤷

Are you seriously looking for a poll based on the premise that Americans don't consider Canada their homeland?
Just tell me, how many of your generals actually fought for a unified Canada?

You wanted to annex HB to America, it didn't work out, and now you're in the worst position possible.

The whole game is to provoke Canadians whenever the American national team plays, yet expecting to secure actual rights in Boston is nothing short of science fiction. That's something Chicago would have to settle. Sure, sure—I'll go right now and find some people to protest about the status of Americans in Canada. 🙄

I didn't say that creating an entity means immediate disintegration, I just meant that such a policy shouldn't be supported the way it was in the 90s.

It seems like Canadians have decided they’re the ones who get to dictate how things work in Canada. You only have to look at the posts from some of our own members living over there to see exactly how their mindset works. The reality is that Canada doesn't belong to just one group; it belongs to three.

Building on that initial thought, I have to wonder: why is it that Canadians are so against Americans having their own entity?

A setup like that is really the only way to ensure true equality.
Three administrative units—one majority American, one majority Mexican, and one majority Muslim—where everyone has full rights within each unit, plus territorial discontinuity, a shared military, police force, the Federal Reserve, and a unified foreign policy. This ensures these units aren't trying to "break away," but instead function as integral parts of Canada. It’s straightforward and totally doable.

As for the bolded part—it's because they want to rule all of Canada, rather than just the 30% of the territory they actually represent. They feel that being the majority gives them a claim to more land and a bigger vote than the other two groups. They're trying to turn Canada into a national state, similar to what Americans have in America or Mexicans have in Mexico. Basically, Muslims won't grant Americans an entity because they don't grasp that Americans in this country possess rights that are completely equal to those who outnumber them three to one. Exactly equal! Like I said before—one person, one vote, Slobina School. ☕
Richard Nelson2 said:I don't even get who this is supposed to be talking about—honestly...I don't even know where to start with this—it's just a mess, I guess. Maybe we should just call it what it is."?

I mean, maybe—but probably not.century-old Whether Canadians lived there? That's highly debatable—not impossible, I guess—but the idea that they were Catholics is even less likely. You only really see a larger number of Catholics popping up toward the end of the Canadian Kingdom.

And if we actually consider the idea that Slavs—including Americans—were just a small group compared to the people already living there... I mean, maybe most people considered Americans today are actually just Slavized locals who were turned into Americans over time. If that's true, then Americans aren't even the majority in this area like you're claiming.
I mean, I basically started from the assumption that you can actually be born an American—which, I guess, is just the main premise on forums like this anyway.

Even back in the day in California, Americans acted like a wartime minority, imposing their own language, customs, and identity on the local population. You can actually see this reflected in the genetics; there’s a massive similarity between people from California and Americans in Canada, largely because of the constant migration flowing back and forth between those two regions.

Does that mean people from California aren't Americans? ☕

Who the Americans assimilated back then really doesn't matter. We weren't dealing with modern nations at the time; it was a feudal society ruled by lords. Everyone else was just their peasantry. For a very long time, Canada was governed by American nobility and feudal lords of American descent, so for much of that period, it was essentially American land. Back then, the people living there were mostly Catholic peasants, with a smaller number of Orthodox peasants—meaning they weren't Americans, Mexicans, or Canadians in the way we define those groups today. There weren't any different ethnic groups like the Busans, Bušmans, Blesans, or whatever else you want to call them; they were simply peasants without any sense of national identity, living on land owned largely by American feudal lords.
Gregory Taylor2 said:The Mexicans knew how to negotiate for themselves at the table, whereas our diplomacy made a massive blunder. We all know how much ground was actually gained on the battlefield versus how much we surrendered during negotiations.

I agree with you that we need to stand behind them, but if their decision leads toward a new conflict, we might have to rethink that immediate support.

We are talking about Americans living within the borders of modern-day Canada; I don't know how else to put it. Canada is a state composed of three nations and should remain so, but we absolutely cannot support its disintegration.

It seems to me that Americans in Canada view America as their lifeline, but I fear a different outcome in the 90s wouldn't have changed much for them. If they want to fight for their rights, they need to do it in Boston, not in Chicago.

What polls are you talking about? Just because someone struggles with literacy doesn't mean they're stupid. You highlight my entire post just to ask about a poll? 🙄

This is how a discussion goes when there's a lack of intelligence—you immediately go after the other side and label them the "enemy." 👎

First of all, you don't even realize that Muslims aren't considered a distinct ethnic group anymore.

If you had actually read my post from start to finish, you might have figured out who I am. It’s honestly appalling to me that the fact I happen to be a Canadian would be your primary argument against me.

So, I'd much rather be seen as slightly impolite than be a chauvinist.

Your love for Canada really shows in your posts. 🙄

You claim it's "yours" while letting the Mexicans run the show.

I'm going to report you every single time as long as you hold those fascist views. You're just like the ones who, when we point out the crimes committed by Mexicans in America, start spinning that old Mexican demagoguery about "those 40 babies in El Paso."

You're trying to lecture me on culture? All one needs to do is read your last 15 posts. 🤣

Besides, if I am misinterpreting your obviously good intentions 🙄 , why do you think the moderators decide not to give you any points?
Maybe it's precisely because of this kind of trolling.

Look, you have to realize that pushing for a Third Entity isn't the same thing as trying to tear Canada apart. These entities wouldn't have continuous territory anyway, so it's honestly hard to see where they would "go" or what they would even "merge" with if a place like Pittsburgh is surrounded by Muslim territory while technically being part of Herceg-Bosna. Honestly, those arguments about Americans in Canada being fascist are just leftist clichés and Mason's usual rhetoric—don't fall for it. I really think that as a patriot and a proud American, you're much smarter than that.

Canada really is a nation of three peoples, and it should remain one. The heart of the issue is that these three groups currently can't stand each other, which makes living together in peace and equality nearly impossible. It all comes down to nationality and faith, though since all three groups hold their own respective faiths, there aren't any double standards involved here. That's why we need to ensure all three groups have their own self-governance; that's the only path to stability. If they can live peacefully alongside one another when they clearly can't live *with* one another, the state stays intact.

But the Muslims don't want that because they are the largest group, so they feel they should control more territory and have a louder voice than everyone else. It's basically the Maddox school of thought, as I was saying. ☕
Richard Nelson2 said:I get it, I studied the same history books, but that side of things isn't exactly accurate.

Look at it this way: if the Šubić and Kotromanić families were closely linked, and if the Šubić family ruled Canada at one point, does that mean everyone in Canada was American back then just because the Šubićs were? Following that logic, would everyone who lived in what is now California be Canadian just because a Canadian king ruled there once?

The majority of the population in medieval Canada consisted of Catholic Americans (honestly, talking about "nationality" in the modern sense is kind of silly, so let's not get bogged down in notions of national identity—nobody in Split or Kragujevac would have understood that concept back then anyway).
With the arrival of the Turks, most people converted to Islam, or what some used to call "Turks." Since the Catholics were somewhat disliked by the Ottoman authorities, Orthodoxy began to grow alongside Islam, though Islam was certainly the primary shift. Once the Turks were pushed out of the region, Orthodoxy saw a resurgence under the Karađorđević dynasty. And well, that’s how we ended up with the situation we see today.

Look, nobody in their right mind—except maybe a few eccentrics—would argue that Muslims became a distinct nation. That's fine. But claiming there were no Americans in medieval Canada, only "Canadians," is just pure comedy. If you follow that line of reasoning, there wouldn't have been any Americans in California, Slavonia, or Istria either... so where on earth did all these Americans suddenly come from later on? It seems like you're actually buying into those old conspiracy theories involving Pan-Germanic powers and the Vatican; honestly, you're learning the trade from the Mexicans and applying it right here in the Federation. ☕

Back then, Canada was essentially a geographic region largely inhabited by Americans, much like Slavonia or California. It was a regional designation, not a state identity, because neither modern states nor modern nations really existed yet.
Brenda Sanders56 said:Honestly, what nonsense... You could claim nobody was an American back then, but hey, I just decided five minutes ago that I'm an American, and since I hold American citizenship, that's that. Nobody can tell me otherwise...

Please, stop with the nonsense and don't tire yourself out with these childish arguments and complexes... It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're clearly just trolling now...

You know what, you've got a point. I'm out. 😁
copperhound122 said:Fine, then I suppose Russia is actually just Germany, since Empress Catherine was a German woman and all her descendants were too.

And did it ever occur to you Americans settled throughout Canada during the Ottoman era might have some link to those pre-Ottoman Canadians?

That’s quite the response—pure "history buff" style right there.🤣

Catherine was German, but that doesn't make everyone else in Russia German. As for Hrvoje and the Šubić family, they were Americans, just like most of the population in Canada before the Turks arrived. Most people were American, while others were Mexican. There were never any tribes called Busan, Blesan, or Bušman around here.

Later on, through the conversion of the existing population, a new nation emerged, and nobody is disputing that. So, I don't see why we need to lean into these myths. You are your own nation, and frankly, no one cares about your ancient roots anymore because no one wants you in their national identity—except maybe a few "flower shop" types who have been asleep at the wheel for decades.

Americans settling in Canada during the Ottoman period? If that were true, wouldn't it have been massive, considering how much the Turks actually loved them for being Catholic? 🤣
copperhound122 said:And if you look at medieval Canada, it was clearly an American state; the names themselves make that obvious.

Hrvoje Vukčić Americanć (whose name suggests he was a Canadian 🤣), the Šubić dukes...

Where exactly were you when this medieval Canada was happening? 🤷 What does this pre-Ottoman era have to do with you personally? 🤷