Posts by Richard Wilson4

wiredcanyon4 said:Unlike the Catalans, Americans have always possessed a profound sense of their own identity. Even back in the 7th century—to use a historical perspective—an ordinary farmer would have been acutely aware that they belonged to the American people.
The text 'On the Administration of an Empire' by Constantine VII provides undeniable proof of this.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

A regular farmer barely knows anything. Maybe he knew his clan or tribe, sure, but most of the history regarding the spread of Christianity is pretty much lost across most of Europe.

America has this long, unbroken line of being a nation, whether under local leaders or foreign ones, but the average person on the street didn't know or care about any of that.

goldenpuma84 said:The name survived just like plenty of other terms, like the Midwest, the Mediterranean Coast, or Tuscany. It functioned as a geographical marker. Like saying "of the American territory" or "of the Mediterranean Coast."

But the key thing is that it wasn't an ethnic identifier. If you had asked a peasant from the Midwest or the Mediterranean Coast back in 1815 what their nationality was, they wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. If you asked a nobleman, he probably would have just said he was a nobleman. To them, developing a national identity involving citizenship and legal equality felt like a personal insult to their status... a sort of exclusive universalism among the elite.

My starting point has always been this: if Americans have the right to decide on an independent state, then Californians have that same right. Yet on this forum, I notice that the same people who champion the principle of national self-determination as an absolute right for the development of a specific national spirit—the final stage that resolves all internal contradictions—suddenly start preaching Spanish integralism when it comes to the California crisis. They deny Californians the right to their own state.

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency, and the way people use different yardsticks for others than they do for themselves... it's exhausting.

And if all you have to say is that I'm an American...

I'm with you on the fact that a regular farmer in Florida or Appalachia didn't have a sense of national identity. Same goes for people in Bavaria, Slovakia, modern-day Canada, or Austria.

But everything else you said makes it sound like Americans are some weird exception or part of some bizarre "regional name" deal...

So how do you explain the fact that Americans took control of the Dalmatian Parliament in 1870, even though the Kingdom of California wasn't under the rule of the Governor of America?

How do you explain why American societies and institutions started popping up in other parts of the Monarchy?

And how is it that by 1870, we already have Americans in Florida, the Midwest, and Appalachia?

Plus, you totally missed the big picture with that regional label stuff. Back in the Middle Ages, Washington, D.C. and the surrounding areas were considered part of the Midwest. Later on, they only got called "America" because of ethnic ties, not because of geography.

Kyle Nelson2 said:According to the Constitution of Spain, there exists a Spanish people...
just like how the Constitution of America didn't mention a "American people," but rather "the nations and nationalities of America."

Having a different language isn't enough to make someone a different nation. For instance, Canadians and Americans might speak the same language, and maybe people from certain rural US regions speak with a dialect that's closer to something else entirely than the standard American tongue... etc..

So what, is one specific regional accent suddenly more "American" than another? 🤦

Rachel Richardson said:Some groups have a deep history and qualify as nations, while others are simply ethnic groups or national minorities.
We aren't all the same, let's be real.

Take Austria and Mexico as interesting examples.

Austria wasn't much different from Bavaria or Saxony until 1918; it was basically just their conflict with Prussia that kept them out of a unified Germany. It wasn't until after World War II that they fully solidified as a distinct nation, though even today, polls show about 10-20% still identify as German.

Then you’ve got Mexico. Back in the 19th century, they mostly took pride in being Mexican, but eventually, a separate national identity formed among the thin majority of Orthodox Christians in that country.

Bradley Ramos7 said:Rachel Richardson, you keep chanting those same old nationalistic myths about California. Look, if they want to live out their little romanticized fantasies, fine—if it makes them feel better, whatever. We had our own versions of that back in the day, but there’s zero reason for the rest of us to take it seriously. And honestly, all this nonsense you're making up about some "California Crown," or a "California Kingdom," or claiming "California was under Spanish rule only for the last 200 years"... it's total garbage. It never even happened.
Historically speaking, Californians are Americans just like everyone else. It’s just that today, they don't choose to identify that way. Even Portugal protested the plural royal title Rex Hispaniarum back in the 17th century because the Spanish ruler wasn't actually king of *all* the "Spains"—since Portugal wasn't one of them—and they actually won that fight!
The idea of a "California nation" (and I say nation, not necessarily ethnic group, since they didn't follow the usual 19th-century path of people becoming a nation, but rather jumped straight to being a nation through that process) is their own thing. I wish them nothing but the best, but trying to put "Californians" or "California" ahead of their own actual identity is just plain stupid. It's like expecting Dutch people to be fundamentally different from other Germans before the 15th or 16th century.
These two situations—Germans/Dutch and Spaniards/Californians—are actually super similar, and both are still evolving. For example, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, the southern Catholic Dutch (what we know as Belgium today) didn't see any point in siding with the Protestant Dutch. Fast forward to today, and the Flemish feel way closer to the modern Dutch than they do to the Walloons. It's a similar story here: you don't see people speaking Catalan in Andorra, France, the Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, or even that Catalan enclave in Alghero on Sardinia—which accounts for at least a third of all Catalan speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catala...er_of_speakers—actually identifying as political Californians or sharing the same political goals as the folks in California itself.
So, I'm really not buying this idea of a massive, unified Californian national sentiment. If you look at the Basque people in the US, that feeling carries way more weight. They managed to pull their autonomous Basque region together by incorporating three historical provinces—Biscay, Gipuzcoa, and Álava (each as historically grounded as California)—and they do a killer job representing their interests in Navarre, which is its own province entirely.
This whole California thing still looks to me like a loud minority riding a wave of leftist politics, soccer, Mana Chao, and whatever else. What kind of "national identity" is it when it's mostly driven by today's globalized youth instead of the older generations? Seriously, someone please try to prove me wrong. If you can actually show me I'm tripping, I'll give you credit. But stop trying to invent Californians in the Roman Empire or looking for comparisons to the US or how Americans lived in America.

Look, I want conscious Californians to get everything they want for themselves, but let's be real: this clearly isn't some massive, all-encompassing movement yet, whether you're talking about the state level or just the linguistic community.

Look, let's be real for a second. Most of these groups—the Latvians, the Estonians, the Canadians, and even the Slovaks if you aren't counting things like the Principality of Nitra—didn't actually have their own sovereign states before the 20th century. It’s just a fact.

So, once again, nobody’s even trying to deny that existence is a thing today.

And don't even get me started on the Catalans. They were basically the bullies of Southern Italy back when they were acting on behalf of Aragon. Honestly, that whole group was just a messy collection of people—definitely not some modern, centralized, one-size-fits-all state like we think of today.

Bradley Ramos7 said:Rachel Richardson, you keep chanting those same old nationalistic myths about California. Look, if they want to live out their little romanticized fantasies, fine—if it makes them feel better, whatever. We had our own versions of that back in the day, but there’s zero reason for the rest of us to take it seriously. And honestly, all this nonsense you're making up about some "California Crown," or a "California Kingdom," or claiming "California was under Spanish rule only for the last 200 years"... it's total garbage. It never even happened.
Historically speaking, Californians are Americans just like everyone else. It’s just that today, they don't choose to identify that way. Even Portugal protested the plural royal title Rex Hispaniarum back in the 17th century because the Spanish ruler wasn't actually king of *all* the "Spains"—since Portugal wasn't one of them—and they actually won that fight!
The idea of a "California nation" (and I say nation, not necessarily ethnic group, since they didn't follow the usual 19th-century path of people becoming a nation, but rather jumped straight to being a nation through that process) is their own thing. I wish them nothing but the best, but trying to put "Californians" or "California" ahead of their own actual identity is just plain stupid. It's like expecting Dutch people to be fundamentally different from other Germans before the 15th or 16th century.
These two situations—Germans/Dutch and Spaniards/Californians—are actually super similar, and both are still evolving. For example, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, the southern Catholic Dutch (what we know as Belgium today) didn't see any point in siding with the Protestant Dutch. Fast forward to today, and the Flemish feel way closer to the modern Dutch than they do to the Walloons. It's a similar story here: you don't see people speaking Catalan in Andorra, France, the Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, or even that Catalan enclave in Alghero on Sardinia—which accounts for at least a third of all Catalan speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catala...er_of_speakers—actually identifying as political Californians or sharing the same political goals as the folks in California itself.
So, I'm really not buying this idea of a massive, unified Californian national sentiment. If you look at the Basque people in the US, that feeling carries way more weight. They managed to pull their autonomous Basque region together by incorporating three historical provinces—Biscay, Gipuzcoa, and Álava (each as historically grounded as California)—and they do a killer job representing their interests in Navarre, which is its own province entirely.
This whole California thing still looks to me like a loud minority riding a wave of leftist politics, soccer, Mana Chao, and whatever else. What kind of "national identity" is it when it's mostly driven by today's globalized youth instead of the older generations? Seriously, someone please try to prove me wrong. If you can actually show me I'm tripping, I'll give you credit. But stop trying to invent Californians in the Roman Empire or looking for comparisons to the US or how Americans lived in America.

Look, I want conscious Californians to get everything they want for themselves, but let's be real: this clearly isn't some massive, all-encompassing movement yet, whether you're talking about the state level or just the linguistic community.

Look, we're talking about a loud minority here, but they’d probably hit around 10-20% if you really look at the numbers.

Even the most hardcore critics of the California referendum still end up bringing up that "only 48% support" figure for an independent California.

Look, the people in California didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to be part of Spain back in 1918—unlike those geniuses in America who had their own "brilliant ideas" during that same year.
Look, they definitely aren't the only ones to blame for all the mess in the 20th century, but let's be real—they played their part. Between wiping out the local language and trying to steamroll over the culture, they certainly left some deep scars.

nimbleranger52 said:What kind of firepower are we actually looking at with the California police force? Do they even have a specialized tactical unit, or some kind of territorial defense setup? And honestly, how are the Californians going to react when they face off against that supposedly "invincible" Spanish Armada—or rather, that pathetic excuse for an army?
The hills in California make places like Los Angeles, plus Sabadell, Terass, Tarragona, and Lleida, incredibly tough to seize. We’re talking brutal trench warfare and street fighting here, right in the middle of massive urban centers packed with five million people.
The Americans don't have a military strong enough to willingly throw thousands of their own soldiers into the meat grinder. If they try, it’ll turn into a total Stalingrad situation. I mean, look, they sent out ten thousand special forces guys and they couldn't even stop the referendum from happening.

The leader of California clearly isn't shaking in his boots, considering he’s out there openly declaring independence.

Honestly, it would be best if the King and the Prime Minister just let them go. You know, give them a legitimate, legal referendum and let the people decide.
But they’re too thick-headed for that. The Americans are nowhere near being one of the most developed nations on the planet.

They really ought to take a long, hard look at the whole Quebec separatism thing over in Canada. Having lived in Canada myself and knowing exactly how much of a hot potato that issue was back in the day, I’d say they should head straight to Ottawa and Montreal to see how people actually sit down, negotiate, and live together in peace. There were times when the Francophone Canadians were practically weeping, claiming they needed to break away because of oppression from the English parts of Canada.
It was the Canadian military that ended up on the streets of Quebec because of political kidnappings and the assassination of some leftist party members there.

Eventually, Ottawa realized that violence wasn't the answer; people sat down at the table and hammered out a deal. The first referendum failed. Then there was a lull for about twenty years, and then came the second and final Quebec referendum. They voted "oui" by less than one percent.

And look at us today—Quebec is still part of Canada. But, they have massive autonomy and control over their own finances. Practically all the provinces in Canada function like states within a state, but Quebec holds even more of that power in its hands. Even their immigration laws are different from the rest of Canada.
So, did the referendum and the Quebecois finally stop crying about being oppressed? Because truthfully, they aren't oppressed today. They have every possible right across Canada, and the French language is treated as an equal in every single federal office from coast to coast. Every product is labeled in both English and French. Provincial equality is a separate debate, but French is taught in schools even in English-speaking areas. Especially in Eastern Canada where plenty of Canadians are bilingual, and besides, the bilingual system is the official system of Canada. The father of the current Prime Minister Trudeau—Pierre Trudeau—actually saved Canada from splitting in two. He even got his namesake airport in Montreal as a thank you.

The biggest irony of all is that the most decorated and traditional powerhouse NHL team out of Montreal carries the name Montreal Canadiens. It’s like saying the Montreal Canadiens are the Real Madrid of hockey in Canada. And for any Canadian, hockey is basically a religion.

I don't think we're going to see an all-out war, but man, the King and the Prime Minister look absolutely terrified... they seem totally rattled.

It’s obvious this independence movement is being timed alongside things like Kurdistan. Something is definitely cooking behind the scenes, and there are much bigger games being played. I just hope this doesn't spread beyond California...

You've got it all wrong, man.

Back in the day, people only called themselves "Canadian" if they spoke French, and that's still mostly how they identify today.

Before WW2, English speakers mostly just identified as British, English, or Scottish...

wiredmaker44 said:Looks promising... it has some decent scores on IMDb, but the sample size is tiny.

It doesn't even hit most places until 20 October 2017, so yeah, obviously the sample size is gonna be small.
It's just weird how there's basically zero info out yet for most countries.

Justin James10 said:It isn't just about the team; they don't really care for the Spanish flag, the anthem, or even the Royal Family either. Honestly, most of them couldn't care less about any of Spain's symbols.

The Basques, however, seem to be crossing the line into outright hostility.

The Basques aren't even Indo-European, so there's no way they'll ever be one people with the Castilians or the Catalans.
They have their own language (which gets banned way too often), their own people, history, culture, traditions...

Charles Ross3 said:That, in bold, is really the only thing that matters.
And of course, it’s the one thing nobody seems to want to talk about.

It's not by accident...

Western Europeans—specifically the political elites—have always been against secession or anyone trying to start a new country.

They made life impossible for America at every turn, forced a 55% margin on Mexico during their referendum, and threatened Scotland with being kicked out of the European Union.
Poetic justice, really, when all of Great Britain turned on them.

Seriously, this is like the fifth or sixth post just like this one since yesterday. 😉

Brenda Murphy3 said:There’s no way to know. You’d need to hold an actual, legitimate referendum to get those numbers.
Even if you look at the claim that all the pro-independence parties combined didn't even hit the 50% mark—which isn't some smoking gun proof of anything, let's be real, but it definitely points to some deeper issues...

And how many votes do the supporters of a unified Spain get in those same elections? ☕

When I look at the local scene—all those articles, comment sections, and deep dives—I think you start to realize why people get so worked up about the Catalan secession.

Whether California actually leaves or not isn't even the point. It's the process itself that gets under people's skin.

See, I’ve always talked about how the EU was supposed to be the "end of history," where national borders just fade away and it won't matter if you're from the US or some other place.

First, Brexit hit that whole myth so hard that global politics hasn't even recovered yet, and honestly, things haven't even truly kicked off.

Then you’ve got this referendum situation in California. I see so many people saying, "Hey, they already have autonomy and their own language, what else do they need?" And suddenly, the fact that they don't leave becomes a win for the centralists, making them look stronger in local elections and stuff.

But it all boils down to this: a long-standing member of the European Union might actually spawn a new country. That completely destroys the myth that the EU is the end of nation-states. Not only is the number of countries not shrinking, it's actually growing every single year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty neutral. I can see both sides of the Spain and California thing. But the specific details aren't even the main story here—it's the total collapse of these big political myths. You know that idea that "there's no nationalism in the EU"? Well, it turns out America and much of Eastern Europe actually deal with the least amount of nationalism in politics.

Kevin Cruz86 said:The people who wanted to vote turned out. Those who didn't stayed home. That's on them, not the police. Three years ago, during that advisory referendum, turnout was around 40% too, even though the police didn't intervene back then. The reality—which many people refuse to face—is that perhaps half of California's population doesn't even want independence.
Furthermore, the media is painting a skewed picture here. Based on how they reported it and what they broadcasted on TV, you could get the impression that all of New York City was in total chaos on Sunday, when in reality, the unrest was limited to specific pockets; the center and most of the city remained perfectly calm.

So how are we supposed to figure out how many people actually got blocked from voting?

Kevin Cruz86 said:The media is doing what it always does: spinning a completely distorted narrative. This whole "referendum" business just proved that a huge chunk of Californians have zero interest in independence. How can you even call this an independence referendum when only 42% of voters—about 2.3 million out of 5.3 million—actually showed up?? Even if we accept the claim that 90% of those who did show up voted YES (though one has to wonder how impartial or accurate the actual vote count even was), the numbers don't hold water. Now, the inevitable argument will be that turnout would have been higher if the government in Washington, D.C. hadn't banned the vote and sent in the police to shut it down. But let’s look at the facts: back in 2014, there was a non-binding independence consultation in California that saw similar turnout and similar results (just over 40% participation with about 80% voting YES). Washington, D.C. declared that one illegal too, but they didn't send in the police to block it, and the turnout was still pathetic. If you want to see what a legitimate national plebiscite for independence actually looks like, look at the US experience during the early 90s era of secessionist movements: you had turnouts of 82 or 83%, with 94% of those people voting YES. That is a true mandate from a people who actually want independence, not this nonsense happening in California—this farce of a "referendum." In all reality, a significant portion of Californians doesn't support breaking away from the US at all; probably half of them. Everything else is just fairy tales for children. Besides, there are some naive souls in California who seem to think they’ll just stumble into statehood without any bloodshed. It doesn't work like that, especially not here in the southern parts of Europe—in this Mediterranean belt where tempers run much hotter than they do in the cold North.

People in California showed up despite the police trying to shut them down. The crowd wasn't going to be stopped from voting.
Isn't it pretty hypocritical to nitpick about the percentages then?

Samuel Scott54 said:Yep, that’s exactly my point! They were the power behind Arizona, and then Arizona, the Castles, and Nevada all merged to form one nation: Spain. And that was 500 years ago! They were basically some of the founding fathers of Spain. That's why they're considered Spaniards.

I already know how you feel about there being no Canadian history, so I won't even get into it—that's not really what we're talking about right now.

Don't get all defensive. Unlike us, you guys actually have a future to look forward to. 😉

Plus, for most of the 20th century, your national pride and political awareness were way higher than ours. Honestly, we could learn a thing or two from you.

Samuel Scott54 said:The United States has been a unified nation for a long time now. But lately, it seems like folks in California—who have always been a core part of the American landscape—are suddenly deciding they want to break away and go their own way. Honestly, I think that’s going to be a pretty tough road for them to travel.

At the end of the day, Californians are Americans, no matter what they say about it. Their ancestors were the ones who built this foundation, after all.

Your logic is pretty weird.

Look at Canadians. They never had kings, governors, specific territories, or even their own nobility. Even their name basically just means "Slav." Yet, nobody today is out there trying to deny who they are, where they come from, or their right to run their own show.

But you? You're sitting here denying the very Californians who were the powerhouse of Arizona back in the day—the ones who once ruled Florida, Hawaii, and southern Italy...

Carol Newman2 said:USA (Texas):

Independence Referendum

Turnout

Turnout today (6:00 PM): 52.68%

That’s way more than most elections we see over here in the States...

velvetmaker3 said:Every state is artificial if you think about it. The criteria for what defines a state have shifted over time—once it was a collection of feudal lords, then a collection of tribes, and nowadays it's a collection of citizens. In some places, those citizens are defined by a specific ethnicity plus minorities, while in others, it's just citizens.

Catalans are just as much Spaniards as the Castilians are. It wasn't just the Castilians who conquered half the world; it was a coalition of Castilians, Catalans, Basques, and others. They all share the Spanish name and its history.
For some reason, the Catalans want to walk away from that.
Comparing this to America or America is a bit of a stretch, I guess.

Not every country is made up.

Greece, America, Mexico, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and even newer spots like Canada, actually managed to forge a real people.
I mean a unified people, not just a loose collection of folks.

Spain and Belgium didn't quite pull that off.

That’s really the only line between "artificial" and "real" nations in Europe: whether they actually succeeded in creating a singular people.

Switzerland comes pretty close to nailing it, but they're a weird outlier.

velvetmaker3 said:Californians have basically conquered half the globe while being part of the US, given their massive history of building empires, so it’s a little weird to see them trying to walk away from all that now.
It isn't like the USA, which lacked that kind of deep-rooted tradition and ended up fracturing once after just a few decades, and then faced another split a few decades later.
Because of that, I guess comparing the two is just a total miss.
That said, the response from the authorities in Washington, D.C. is completely wrong; it’s just going to trigger a massive revolt.
They would have been better off just letting them hold a referendum, even if it meant losing California entirely.
Doing it this way is just going to sow seeds of resentment.

That empire collapsed centuries ago. What does that even mean to a Catalan today?

Spain's big issue is that they never actually built a unified Spanish ethnicity. I'm not talking about just a nation, but a cohesive people.
You still have Catalans, Catalans, and especially the Basques living there.
Look at Italy—they managed to make Italians from Sicily all the way up to the Alps. Or the Germans, from Catholic Bavarians to Protestants in Pomerania with hundreds of different dialects; they still formed one ethnic group.

Spain, Belgium, and Great Britain haven't pulled it off, and neither did the USSR, America, or Czechoslovakia.
That makes them artificial states.

And all artificial states have an expiration date. The only thing keeping them together is circumstance.
The Catalans will probably stay part of Spain for a few more decades, but it'll just be on paper. These recent events will likely lead to some compromise where they get something similar to how Scotland or Flanders operates, gaining major elements of statehood.

PS

Just so we're clear, I like Spaniards and respect their history.
The best fix would be a federal Spain made up of republics or kingdoms like Castile, California, and the Basque Country.
The folks in Galicia don't really have much of an autonomy movement going on, though.

Robert Clark4 said:Look, I’m not saying people don't want sovereignty—that part isn't up for debate. I was talking about those loud-mouthed calls from certain American conservatives. Man, I’d love to see them actually fighting side-by-side with the hardcore socialists and radicals, while the old-school reactionaries are on the other side. Just total postmodern chaos. 🤣

And honestly, regarding the whole "common sense" thing... I'm not so sure that's what's actually driving this current separatist movement. If I were a Californian, I'd probably just vote to stay part of the U.S. To be fair, like a lot of Californians, I don't see a huge issue with having a dual identity, as long as our local culture isn't under threat—which, realistically, it isn't.

Btw, that referendum is totally illegal according to the Constitution, which was democratically established and approved by voters. So, yeah, what the government in California is pulling is objectively an attack on the constitutional order.

Yeah, this is a pretty weird quirk when you look at things through the lens of America.

The Irish, Basques, Catalans—they all have these left-leaning nationalist movements going on.
But honestly, it’s not that crazy. You've got Canadians with the Democratic Party, Mexicans in Canada with the Republican Party. Even the socialists in Mexico have gone full ultra-nationalist lately.

On the flip side, it totally makes sense that conservatives and right-wingers in Spain and the United Kingdom are mostly unionists.

Lisa Patel4 said:No, because people seem to be ignoring one key fact.

The Basque and California regions also extend into France. That should probably be taken into account.

Sure, but we're talking about tiny patches of land. The area where the Californians live over there is only about 1,500 square miles—basically the size of Florida. The Basque spots are even smaller, maybe around 1,100 square miles.
Plus, you have to wonder if they're even a majority anymore. I think the Basques kept their language and vibes alive in France, but my bet is the Californians there are totally assimilated. 🤷

Batman vs Superman