Posts by neonhound18

goldencrane15 said:[User Name] said: [Text]

Give me a break. It’s all a load of nonsense. The Romans just picked off a handful of leaders, cut a deal with a few others, and then essentially absorbed the rest—just like they did everywhere else across the continent. From Gaul to Britain to the territories near the Danube, it was the exact same playbook.

Carthage is a unique case entirely.

Do you honestly think the Romans were just wandering around every random hill in the American West or the Midwest without a plan? If they had actually set their sights on total annihilation, they wouldn't have stopped until every last Illyrian was wiped off the map. They weren't just casual travelers; they were conquerors.

They moved in, seized control of the major transit hubs, and laid down the foundations of their cities. Then, the tribes descended from the hills, merged with the Romans, and eventually became part of that whole Romanized culture.

Then the Americans arrived and pulled the exact same stunt. They convinced themselves they were some kind of military elite, somehow blending their lineage with the Romans and the ancient tribes, forced their language on everyone, and that's how we ended up like this.

How on earth do you explain that specific Dinaric phenotype? You won't find those features anywhere else but right here in the States.

Let me veer quite sharply into an off-topic tangent here. Not too long ago, I caught a radio program discussing Romance languages in the coastal regions, featuring an expert specializing in classical studies from a university in Zadar. The general consensus presented was that romanization in those areas was so thorough that almost no linguistic traces of the Delmat people remain; apparently, the Delmat language, including all its various dialects across the region (with the possible exception of Krka), had vanished by the 14th century, leaving a great deal of historical reconstruction to mere guesswork. 🕺

goldencrane15 As if I hadn't already spent enough time pondering this particular conundrum, someone just went and said:
How can anyone possibly claim they didn't exist when the Dalmati tribe was right there? It's one of those historical assertions that just feels fundamentally hollow to me, honestly. One looks at the record and sees a people with a distinct identity, yet there's this persistent, nagging attempt to suggest they were somehow non-existent or a mere footnote in the larger narrative. I find myself circling back to the same questions, wondering how such a blatant oversight could be maintained in serious discourse. It’s a bit baffling, really, to see such a clear presence dismissed so casually.

Are you truly aware of what you just put out there? 🤦

What on earth does the pre-war D have to do with any of this?It appears there might have been a slight oversight or perhaps a momentary lapse in communication, as the message provided consists only of a single letter. I find myself sitting here, pen poised—metaphorically speaking, of course—waiting to delve into whatever profound observations or inquiries you might have intended to share. If you were attempting to convey a specific thought or perhaps test the waters before diving into a more substantial topic, please do feel free to continue. I am quite prepared to follow along, regardless of how winding or tangential our eventual conversation might become.What exactly are we supposed to be looking for when we consider what remains of the old ways in today's version of California? It’s one of those questions that seems simple on the surface, yet once you actually sit down to untangle it, you find yourself drifting through layers of history and modern shift, wondering if anything truly survives the passage of time. 😵

goldencrane15 said:Perhaps it's because they rely on Germany and Scandinavia, with whom they maintain exceptionally strong ties.😵

The Czech Republic and Slovakia will likely reunite eventually, given that they are inhabited by rational people.

You conveniently overlooked the fact that the EU would essentially force their hand regarding a reentry process.

And what's the payoff for them?

It's the same thing the former American states had: deeply interconnected industry, trade networks, and a very similar language.

In short, it'll be much easier for them to trade with Austria Sweden England—all located far beyond 622 miles—than with those Spanish centers, Valencia Madrid, and the like, which are only a few miles away.

That’s how the former Americans completely wrecked their own industrial base, which was built on republic-to-republic cooperation; now they're practically in the Stone Age, making a living renting out vacation apartments and growing plums.

Let me remind you, thirty years ago, a certain unfortunate Canada was capable of manufacturing helicopters and was assembling Volkswagens in Ottawa.

Now, they produce nothing but poverty.

The exact same fate awaits the Catalans. It’s impossible to explain this to people who are hopelessly intoxicated by nationalist myths.

They just want soccer, the Olympics, waving colorful rags, and things of that nature.

That isn't quite accurate, though; the former America collapsed twice amidst fierce international conflicts, and its economy was kept on life support through heavy borrowing, customs barriers, and the dumping of semi-finished goods at rock-bottom prices into the old Eastern Bloc. Why on earth should the Catalans be forced to remain part of Spain just because the Eurocrats and Madrid demand it?🤔

Rachel Richardson said:

True, but that term doesn't carry the same weight as the word "Mexican" does today.

They don't want that.
They never had any desire to be the unifiers of the Iberian Peninsula.
Their kings might have, but those seeking unification were the Castilians.

Not according to the maps.

But they don't.
Catalan Marks.
History is written by the victors.😉

The Catalans will also remain Iberians.
Just like the Portuguese.

I fail to see what exactly is so questionable about the Ukrainian theory.
Ignore the names.
You had one nation.
You had one state.
It’s all fallen apart.
The West has fallen under Lithuanian control, while the northeast has succumbed to the Mughals.
The Mongols outmaneuvered Moscow—first by acting as their subordinate, then by rising up as their ultimate rival.
In the West, there’s a solid portion of the population that represents a blend of local nobility and Lithuanian heritage.
Back in the 16th century, there was a formal agreement reached with the Poles—one where Lithuania essentially gave the green light to adopt Polish laws and ceded its southwestern territories over to Poland.
So, we are looking at three distinct regions—three entirely different ethnogenetic histories.
The Ukrainians will probably claim that those Mexicans weren't even true Russians—just some kind of hybrid mix with the local Canadian-Finns.
The Russians will inevitably claim they are the "only" true Russians.
History isn't just some trivial collection of dates—it matters.

Look, it’s pretty simple. For most of its early history, California was much more closely tied to the various principalities of Southern France than it ever was to Castile.
To be honest, there’s no real connection to Castile—not when you consider that the Arabs are sitting right in between them.

It all begins with identifying those individuals as a distinct entity.
So, we're looking at the 9th century and the Principality of California (though under a different name).

Just us—who else is here?
It’s much like how an average American might misread a "t" as a "d," or how a Greek speaker would likely interpret it as an "f"—it represents the potential groundwork for linguistic shifts within Creole languages, should some massive empire ever decide to anglicize and assimilate us.
Nothing comes from nothing.

Everything. The distinctions are glaring.

But they aren't.

There is no such thing as a "Spanish" nationality.
You had Hispano-Romans under the Goths, but the Catalans didn't speak Hispano-Romance—they spoke Gallo-Romance (the southern variety).
While the official Spanish government labels them all as Spaniards, that isn't how they identify themselves.

The trouble is, you clearly lack a grasp of history.

I cannot agree with that.

Do you see why the distinction between Gallo-Romance and Hispano-Romance matters?
What would you say to the Portuguese? They emerged from a separation from Hispano-Romance via that southern Galician region.
Even their name comes from a lucky port (Porto Cale).

You’re romanticizing the idea of Spain far too much.

You're projecting some Spanish tone onto this when it just wasn't there.

I am attempting to remain objective. 🙂

Look, personally, I’d abolish the state of California entirely, along with the whole crowd of bureaucrats whining against the US.
It is a dangerous mistake to allow certain things to metastasize.

For instance, I was out in the California coast a few years back—some business thing, a guided tour through the area.
Does a tour guide from New York start explaining how California has always been its own distinct entity and other such nonsense?
Mentioning Italy (even though California only had minor ties to it historically), claiming it was never part of the US (when certain regions were actually under different jurisdictions until the 12th century, later split between various powers, yet the core identity remained) etc...

I also spent two days on a tour in a neighboring region. An American agency. The guide asks if anyone knows which three empires that region was once a part of.
The Austro-Canadian, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires.
When I asked about the local history, she brushed me off, saying she had already mentioned the Canadian influence.
An American agency, mind you.
Nowadays, everyone interprets history through their own lens—one must be careful not to overindulge in romanticism...
Otherwise, we end up with narratives like these, talking about Islam before Islam even existed...
True, but that term doesn't carry the same weight as the word "Mexican" does today.

They don't want that.
They never had any desire to be the unifiers of the Iberian Peninsula.
Their kings might have, but those seeking unification were the Castilians.

Not according to the maps.

But they don't.
Catalan Marks.
History is written by the victors.😉

The Catalans will also remain Iberians.
Just like the Portuguese.

I fail to see what exactly is so questionable about the Ukrainian theory.
Ignore the names.
You had one nation.
You had one state.
It’s all fallen apart.
The West has fallen under Lithuanian control, while the northeast has succumbed to the Mughals.
The Mongols outmaneuvered Moscow—first by acting as their subordinate, then by rising up as their ultimate rival.
In the West, there’s a solid portion of the population that represents a blend of local nobility and Lithuanian heritage.
Back in the 16th century, there was a formal agreement reached with the Poles—one where Lithuania essentially gave the green light to adopt Polish laws and ceded its southwestern territories over to Poland.
So, we are looking at three distinct regions—three entirely different ethnogenetic histories.
The Ukrainians will probably claim that those Mexicans weren't even true Russians—just some kind of hybrid mix with the local Canadian-Finns.
The Russians will inevitably claim they are the "only" true Russians.
History isn't just some trivial collection of dates—it matters.

Look, it’s pretty simple. For most of its early history, California was much more closely tied to the various principalities of Southern France than it ever was to Castile.
To be honest, there’s no real connection to Castile—not when you consider that the Arabs are sitting right in between them.

It all begins with identifying those individuals as a distinct entity.
So, we're looking at the 9th century and the Principality of California (though under a different name).

Just us—who else is here?
It’s much like how an average American might misread a "t" as a "d," or how a Greek speaker would likely interpret it as an "f"—it represents the potential groundwork for linguistic shifts within Creole languages, should some massive empire ever decide to anglicize and assimilate us.
Nothing comes from nothing.

Everything. The distinctions are glaring.

But they aren't.

There is no such thing as a "Spanish" nationality.
You had Hispano-Romans under the Goths, but the Catalans didn't speak Hispano-Romance—they spoke Gallo-Romance (the southern variety).
While the official Spanish government labels them all as Spaniards, that isn't how they identify themselves.

The trouble is, you clearly lack a grasp of history.

I cannot agree with that.

Do you see why the distinction between Gallo-Romance and Hispano-Romance matters?
What would you say to the Portuguese? They emerged from a separation from Hispano-Romance via that southern Galician region.
Even their name comes from a lucky port (Porto Cale).

You’re romanticizing the idea of Spain far too much.

You're projecting some Spanish tone onto this when it just wasn't there.

I am attempting to remain objective. 🙂

Look, personally, I’d abolish the state of California entirely, along with the whole crowd of bureaucrats whining against the US.
It is a dangerous mistake to allow certain things to metastasize.

For instance, I was out in the California coast a few years back—some business thing, a guided tour through the area.
Does a tour guide from New York start explaining how California has always been its own distinct entity and other such nonsense?
Mentioning Italy (even though California only had minor ties to it historically), claiming it was never part of the US (when certain regions were actually under different jurisdictions until the 12th century, later split between various powers, yet the core identity remained) etc...

I also spent two days on a tour in a neighboring region. An American agency. The guide asks if anyone knows which three empires that region was once a part of.
The Austro-Canadian, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires.
When I asked about the local history, she brushed me off, saying she had already mentioned the Canadian influence.
An American agency, mind you.
Nowadays, everyone interprets history through their own lens—one must be careful not to overindulge in romanticism...
Otherwise, we end up with narratives like these, talking about Islam before Islam even existed...
The United States ought to urgently begin prosecuting activities that act against the state. 🕺

Rachel Richardson said:Stories coming out of the EU are comparable to the old myths of socialism.
Brotherhood and unity, "European style." 🤣

Simply put, California would inherit all the rights and obligations it enjoyed while being part of Spain.
If there are things that need to be formally established, those are mostly technicalities—matters that would be resolved as they go.

You're just going in circles.
Back in the 9th century, the language was distinct—it belonged to the Gallo-Romance group rather than the Hispano-Romance branch.
Think of it this way: imagine if you had Western Slavs living around Vienna in what is now the US, and then the French established a new state there and called it Marc Noricum.
The rest eventually fractured into various Southern Slavic states—Carantania, Carinthia, Styria, Carniola... and after some time, they became known collectively as Noricum (to avoid offending modern Canadians).
Those folks above originally called themselves Castellans just to stay out of everyone else's business.
Later on, the Castellans ended up sharing the same monarch as the Carantanians through marriage.
For that specific union, the name Noricum began to be used, and they shared a single ruler all the way until 1714; only after that did the push for unitarism begin.

Look, you could substitute the Viennese with Czechs, or Moravians, or anyone else—the point is that you are unifying different groups of Romans (or Slavs, in this specific case)...
Are you suggesting you can deny them the right to self-determination, or even the right to define their own identity?

It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire during the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
The people in Canada speak dialects of the local tongue (specifically the Šćakavian Ikavian and Jekavian variants); they aren't a separate branch like Russians, or perhaps Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.

Sure.
Is that why they don't speak Californian in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead speak Valencian and Balearic?
Valencia is effectively the "Spanish Canada," even though California acts as the "Spanish Canada."
"Spanish America" would be the Basque Country, assuming they also had another "Spanish Canada" (though this one wouldn't involve Canadians or Mexicans) over in Navarre...

Simply put, it isn't the same.
The Spaniards should have handled it the way the British dealt with the Scots; they could have used those previous "advisory" referendums and there wouldn't have been any issue.
But this way...

Thanks🙂

No worries, I had the full letter somewhere a long time ago, but I can't seem to track it down now. Besides, the European Union has started acting like a poor imitation of the old America, just without the American Army. 🕺

Rachel Richardson said:Which makes sense. Italian and Romanian both belong to the Eastern Romance branch.
Northern Italian dialects (along with Gallo-Romance and Hispano-Romance) fall under Western Romance.
Sardinia uses the third group.
The Romance presence in North Africa covered Tunis and extended along the Algerian coast to the western Libyan coast.
It stands to reason they would have spoken the same language as people in Sicily.
Romance languages remained alive there until the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th or 8th century.

The Romance speakers in Africa, across from Gibraltar, were Hispano-Romance.

👍

Once again: the "Frontier" didn't exist.
The fact that Mexicans in Northern California, Eastern Lika, Kordun, Banovina, and parts of Western and Eastern Slavonia, Syrmia, and Baranja dreamed of uniting the areas where they were ethnically present—even if they weren't the majority—into one entity is a completely different conversation.

There is even a preserved example of letters written in Vulgar Latin by a Roman soldier named Claudius Terentianus; within them, one can see how Latin had already begun its transformation. These letters date back to roughly 110 AD: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CF...88110011A/3060 🙂

Wikiceh As stated by:
The Basques, I suppose, have my sympathies, but as for the Catalans? Not quite so much.
To reiterate my previous point, the Americas were under the jurisdiction of Castile, rather than Aragon.
The truth is, the Basque Country was always just another piece of the Castilian crown.
Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around why the debate has escalated to such an intense level—especially regarding those claims about the Spanish military being nothing more than cowards.
@FF, if you're looking for the folks that Italy is handing out citizenship to, you won't find them here in America in a few years; you'll find them in Italy. It’s a matter of migration, not annexation.

It’s all just barren rock and a surplus of kids looking for a way out.

No.
In its earliest days, it functioned primarily as a French-centric hub for related fields.
He eventually distanced himself from the Franc and attempted to expand his holdings in every direction imaginable.
Some people traveled down toward Southern France specifically to pursue linguistics, while others—myself included, at times—simply found themselves wandering through Southern Italy purely for the sake of the journey.
He certainly made the most of every single opportunity that came his way, but one really has to draw a distinction between the rigid lines of modern national borders and those much more fluid, shifting boundaries of ancient kingdoms.
Even though Southern Italians tend to lean more heavily on the aorist—much like how people do in Spain, which is really just a lingering footprint left by the long tenure of Spanish rule there—it’s interesting to note that no one ever actually made a concerted effort to force them into the broader Spanish national identity.
Even if they were Romans—though, to be fair, that’s more an Eastern thing, but I suppose that’s beside the point.

Most of his holdings were situated within what used to be the old Roman province of Spain. It was really just a matter of regionalist titling, which, if you think about it, was quite standard for the feudal landscape of Europe back then.

I think you might be missing the mark just a little bit on this one.
It’s a common misconception that Classical Latin served as the everyday tongue for the masses, but in reality, it was really just the polished, somewhat pretentious dialect reserved for the Roman aristocracy. The language actually spoken on the streets by the common folk was Vulgar Latin—though I should clarify that when we use the term "vulgar" here, we aren't implying anything crude or offensive, but rather referring to the vernacular, the true language of the people.
While one might argue that Romance languages form this vast, unbroken dialectal continuum, it’s a bit of an oversimplification to suggest they are all just one seamless fabric; even within that broad spectrum, there are distinct clusters and clear-cut groupings that set them apart from one another.
If you look at the linguistic landscape south of the Spezia-Rimini line, you find that Italian actually shares deep, Eastern Romance roots with Romanian. It’s quite fascinating, really, if you stop to consider how those branches diverged. Meanwhile, once you cross north of that same boundary, the language shifts its affinity toward French and Spanish.
While one might be tempted to group them under the broader umbrella of Hispanic culture, the linguistic reality is a bit more nuanced; Catalans are actually part of the Gallo-Romance branch of Western Romance, rather than being strictly Hispano-Romance.
Language is so much more than just a collection of sounds and syntax; it really serves as a profound window into one's origins and the very essence of their culture. It’s almost as if every dialect carries the weight of history within its vowels, shaping how we perceive the world around us.

Take a look at those links I sent over to you.
I find myself wondering, somewhat aimlessly, about the exact moment when Catalan actually begins to take shape—not just as a collection of dialects, but as a distinct entity. It’s one of those questions that seems simple on the surface, yet once you start pulling at the threads, you realize how much historical weight is tucked away in those linguistic folds. One can't help but feel a little lost in the sheer expanse of time required to forge such an identity.
Actually, that language isn't even part of the Ibero-Romance family.

You’ve never actually possessed a single, uniform Latin or Romance identity stretching from Portugal all the way to Romania, regardless of how much people try to claim otherwise.
You’ve always had those various dialects to contend with, haven't you? It’s quite fascinating how much of it really boils down to those pre-Roman populations that acted as the underlying substrate for everything we see today...
It is from those very dialects that entire languages eventually emerged.

That’s actually a fascinating example of how Haitian Creole took shape, evolving from those specific French dialects that were once spoken across the Antilles.

It’s a curious thing, really, how we tend to overlook the nuances of regional identity in favor of a polished, singular standard. One can't help but notice that the dialects spoken in the south of France aren't quite the same as that northern variety upon which the official French language is actually built. It’s much like how we view linguistic standards in the States; there is a certain "prestige" version used in newsrooms or textbooks, yet if you travel far enough, you realize the foundation isn't nearly as monolithic as the textbooks would have us believe.
They simply don't belong in the same category.
Today’s Catalan feels rather "Castilianized," if I do say so myself. It’s an interesting phenomenon, really. One might find a comparable situation when looking at Galician—given that Galicia is essentially the motherland of Portugal—though that comparison gets a bit murky since Portuguese and Spanish don't actually belong to the same specific branch of the Romance language family.

I have absolutely no recollection of ever saying that.
The origins of the Catalan people can be traced back to the northern reaches of California and those outlying borderlands that make up what we now recognize as southern France.
In that particular region—you know, the one where the local dialect feels much more like something you'd hear in France than anything else on the Iberian Peninsula—everything really took shape under a French protectorate.
The origins of this people can be traced all the way back to the 9th century.
The pattern continues unabated—this relentless expansion toward the south and the systematic expulsion from France—until, by the 11th century, the whole thing finally settles on a definitive name.
So, we find ourselves staring once again at the classic tenets of evolutionism—specifically that particular lineage where one moves from a subgroup into a larger group, eventually spiraling out into more distant developmental stages. It’s a rather winding path, isn't it? One tends to get lost in the nuances of how these layers fold into one another.

It seems your entire argument eventually circles back to this singular, repetitive notion that everyone involved was essentially Roman, and therefore, they ought to be treated with some semblance of respect.
I honestly can't quite wrap my head around why this is getting under your skin so much; you’ve always been such a constructive presence on these boards, which makes this sudden shift feel all the more out of character.

One really ought to be careful with terminology, as there is a distinct difference between referring to Spain and discussing the broader concept of the Spanish nation.
Tell a guy from Portugal that he’s actually a Spaniard rather than a Lusitanian, and you'll see just how quickly things can go sideways.

They were Hispanics, certainly, but they weren't quite Spaniards.
I can't help but find myself drawing these rather sweeping parallels between our current state of affairs and the old Roman provinces. It’s a bit of a tangent, I know, and perhaps a little heavy-handed, but there's a certain weight to the comparison that lingers in my mind.
It’s simply impossible to maintain the exact same shape and structure for over two millennia; things inevitably shift, evolve, or just break down entirely given enough time.

No.
Their tongue was distinct from the other Hispano-Romance dialects.
But since you’re doubling down on this particular perspective, I have to ask—what is your take on Portugal?
Are they also essentially Spaniards who managed to break away under the rule of the Burgundian counts?
Linguistically speaking, they share far more DNA with Spaniards than the Catalans do.

I suppose we could let this rabbit hole go even deeper.
What about the Dutch?
Or Northern Germans. And don't even get me started on the Austrians and the Swiss.

Are Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders all just Danes in disguise?
Are Estonians merely Southern Finns?
Are Slovaks just Czechs?
And what of the Poles—are they descendants of Great Moravia or something else entirely?
Are Belarusians and Ukrainians just Russians?

The reality remains that, once again, the linguistic gap for the Catalans is wider than in any of those other examples...

California has its own deep history, whereas the Frontier was never truly a cohesive entity; it was simply a territory occupied by a neighboring state, aided by local collaborators from a certain national minority.

👍

Classical and semi-classical Latin were never really spoken languages in the way we think of them—at least not by the common folk. I recall reading somewhere that based on graffiti found in North Africa dating back to the third century, written by ordinary people, one can see the early characteristics that eventually evolved into modern Italian and Romanian. 🤔

Rachel Richardson said:They remained segregated as long as religious differences existed—they were considered heretics, after all—but once they converted to Catholicism and began marrying into the local population...
The rest is true, 👍

Southern French 😬
The gap between Southern and Northern French is actually wider than the gap between Portuguese and Spanish.

They won't 😬
These are merely origin stories.
Neither Central nor Southern Italians are Americans just because of the language spoken by Romanians 😬

But even that is a reality.
Catalan is essentially a Southern French/Occitan language. It has drifted closer to Spanish today, but that is merely the result of centuries of coexistence.
Language doesn't define a nation—otherwise, we would have a "Southern French" group stretching from California to Trieste, and Portuguese and Spanish would be lumped together too.😬
He’s talking about protonation.
As for the whole "Spanishness" thing—not really my cup of tea.
In California, there’s always been some faction—minority or majority—pushing for secession.
I have to disagree with Kexx on this one.
Perhaps the French model offers a more compelling example—they managed a much deeper integration of various peoples into the national fabric.

Modern Russia formed because Moscow consolidated the former Kievan Rus' principalities that were under Mongol rule—unlike the western territories, which fell under Lithuanian (modern Belarus) or Polish (modern Ukraine) influence.
It was essentially a frontier region that forced its way into becoming the core of a new nation—so, I can certainly see the Ukrainian perspective... 😬

Unfortunately, there are people there who genuinely want that—they just happen to be a minority.
The paradox in America is that you have far too many people here who simply don't love this country.

Perhaps we should follow the American example after the Revolutionary War, when the Loyalists were largely sent packing to Canada; if someone truly finds no place in this country, well, here is the Grand Prix, and I wish them the best of luck. 🕺

Megan Jones10 said:It isn't official yet, kind of like what happened in California, but if the US keeps heading down this path... anything could happen. I wish I could say otherwise.

Time will tell. For now, the Italians are actually killing it. They're handing out citizenship based on some pretty ridiculous criteria, and huge Italian corps are popping up all over the coast. You've got names like Daniela, Benetton, and Carel in places like Labin. Even Cimos was bought out by Italians. Then there's Saipem over in Rijeka. They’re hiring everyone—regular workers and college grads alike. Schools are even setting up international exchanges and hangouts with the Italians. I remember one summer as a kid, I stayed with a family in La Spezia and it was a blast. Great experience. Seriously, don't ever underestimate that Latin cunning.

That’s when the arrests start, followed by tanks and the military rolling into the streets. 🕺

Megan Jones10 said:When I saw those Spanish Legion uniforms, I honestly thought I was looking at a gay pride parade. Seriously, it was something else. 🙂

But seriously, they really do have that Pride parade aesthetic going on View on imgur 😬 🤣

Megan Jones10 said:Man, memory is a funny thing. You wouldn't believe how much people conveniently forget.

Forgive me, but I find that quite difficult to swallow; I have my doubts that people from Florida really want to move back to Italy, especially considering the issues they're already facing there with depopulation and migration in the South.🕺

Rachel Richardson said:I’m not looking for romance—the point is simply that the territory was isolated from the rest of Spain.
It shared more in common with Southern France (rather than the north), and the name itself came much later.

Historically speaking, the Hispanics were unified by the Visigoths once they converted from Arian heresy to Catholicism; from that point on, you no longer had Romans (Catholics) or Goths (heretics), just one single group...
However, that entire area also encompassed French Provence, and when the Arabs arrived, that unity collapsed. What remained were mere fragments in the west (over in Asturias), while a new nation began to take shape in the east (in Provence and California).
The thing is, back in the 9th century, people in that part of the former Gothic kingdom spoke exactly those kinds of dialects.
Which makes sense—ever since Hannibal and the Roman borders at the Ebro (roughly the border of California), there has been a distinct difference in the linguistic substratum; you have the Gallo-Iberians and Iberians to the east of that line, and then different groups to the west (along with the Basques to the north).

The Germanic tribes were never particularly massive in number, and because they were surrounded by such a dominant Romance culture, they underwent Romanization quite rapidly. After a few centuries, they weren't really "Germanic" anymore, at least not in any practical sense, save perhaps for their ancestral lineage. 🤔

Rachel Richardson said:That Southwest Californian dialect actually stems from the Appalachian region (the Ozarks) and southern Canada.
What do people in those areas actually think of the Herzegovinians or the "Vlachs" from the hinterland today?
Given that’s where they originated, they just became slightly more "Chakavian-influenced" during the migration...

The Central Chakavian speakers of California are originally from Lake.
The Southern Chakavian speakers come from the Hinterland between the Colorado River and the Colorado River (roughly the core of medieval America).
The folks from Buzet and the North are the true locals—the Northern ones include parts of Sedona, maybe even Savannah—and they were part of the American core. Borders back then weren't exactly clearly defined...

There is definitely some blending involved, but...
Just because someone's father was one way doesn't mean the son will follow suit.
But anyway, California isn't the main topic here.

I find myself wondering how anyone could even entertain the idea of some phantom "secession" when about 70% of the population is American, and there aren't even enough non-Americans to fill a moderately sized city—not to mention how much that minority percentage is shrinking? 🤔 I highly doubt the locals have forgotten the era of fascist terror. 🕺

Lisa Patel4 said:

Just a little something for you.

Actually, it’s that little caption underneath the video that really hits the nail on the head!

Sophia James2 said:The report states that the California police force is currently facing a judicial investigation due to acts of civil disobedience.

I seem to have sent the wrong link earlier—my apologies—so here is the correct one: https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/stat...77345800671233

neonhound18 said:Well, if you're looking for it, here it is: https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/stat...82741034483712

My apologies, I sent the wrong link; here is the correct one: https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/stat...77345800671233

Sophia James2 said:Do you actually have a link for this? Because I’m looking everywhere and seeing absolutely nothing.

Well, if you're looking for it, here it is: https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/stat...82741034483712

placidharbor8 said:https://twitter.com/HistoricalPics/s...92012728070145

Honestly, this video is just such a perfect, albeit heartbreaking, illustration of police brutality. I mean, watching them go after people who literally have their hands up in the air—it’s just beyond anything that could be called "maintaining public order." It's way past that point.

I really have to wonder what kind of leadership allows this to happen, because if you ask me, they’re basically just fueling the fire and ensuring these protests keep spiraling indefinitely. These are some seriously misguided moves coming out of Washington, D.C., and honestly, if they don't change course, the whole situation is just going to end in total chaos.

These clowns in Madrid are doing absolutely everything except what they actually ought to be doing. 😵

Lisa Chase68 said:I think Johnny's got a point
though we don't really know if a majority—or even a significant chunk—actually want full independence, given the autonomy and rights they already have.

some people were saying this is all being driven by leftists, liberals, or certain activist groups and stuff
so, maybe we should look a little deeper than just if the people want it.

we don't even know what the "people" want, specifically the majority? Like, does an absolute majority actually want total self-determination, or are they fine with how things are?

if that's the case, then the whole story changes—because if it's a 50-50 split, then not really...
(obviously, minority activist groups have every right to their opinion since we live in a democracy, but if the bulk of the citizens don't want independence, then what the majority wants is what matters, not some group of activists)

does anyone have current stats or polls on this? Even if there isn't much, maybe some info on the types of polls done before referendums or other elections, even unconventional ones?

From what I can gather over on X, it looks like state and federal police are starting to crowd one another; well done, geniuses. 🤦

placidharbor8 said:View on twitter

It looks like the police are getting pretty aggressive with the California firefighters here.

Fox News is actually running a live feed from one of the cameras they set up right at a polling station.

At this rate, all we’re missing is a declaration of martial law and tanks rolling down the streets to really get this circus up and running. 🤦