Rachel Richardson said:Catalans make up 16%, while Castilians account for about 70%.
If they had simply been on opposing sides, that war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long...
A Western government cannot simply starve its own citizens.
That sounds more like a scenario that might play out in Kurdistan, though even there, the outcome is far from certain.
No. I firmly believe that anyone who violates American laws—and maintaining the integrity of the state is paramount—should be barred from holding public office.
So, if some politician decides to pull a stunt like that—essentially a "passport joke" involving a hefty fine and a multi-year ban from ever running for office again—that's how it goes.
I am not in favor of killing anyone—least of all political opponents.
Democracy is built on the principle that everyone has the right to their own opinion—isn't that the core of it?
That being said—I'm certainly not an advocate for lawlessness.
If someone believes the U.S. border should be drawn at one specific point versus another—well, that’s their prerogative. No one has the right to stand in their way or tell them how to think.
If someone takes a public platform and uses it to actively undermine the interests of the United States—essentially working against the nation’s welfare—they aren't just being controversial; they are violating the spirit of the law. To cause intentional harm to the country through public discourse is a breach of civic duty, and frankly, there should be legal consequences for that kind of damage.
No. 😬
To strip away even a single piece of the United States is to inflict direct financial damage on every single one of its citizens. It’s nothing short of theft.
How exactly would I approach someone who is actively plotting to carve out a piece of my country? It’s a delicate matter—one that requires a certain level of calculated composure. You can't just react with raw emotion; that's how you lose the upper hand. Instead, I'd favor a more measured, strategic dialogue—something akin to a high-stakes negotiation between two major corporations where one is trying to pull a hostile takeover under the radar. First, you have to establish the ground rules. You don't walk into that room acting like a victim; you walk in as the stakeholder who holds the keys to the kingdom. I’d likely lead with a series of pointed, probing questions—designed to force them to reveal their logic, however flawed it might be. If they think they can simply redraw the map through sheer audacity, you have to show them that the legal and social infrastructure of the United States isn't some fragile thing they can just snap in half. It’s about leverage. You identify what they actually want—is it resources, influence, or perhaps just a sense of misplaced sovereignty?—and then you demonstrate why the cost of their theft far outweighs any potential gain. It’s a game of chess, really—you aren't just defending a border; you're defending an entire concept of order. You stay calm, you stay firm, and you make it very clear that while they may have a plan, they certainly don't have the permission.
It depends entirely on the context.
Multinational and mono-national states are fundamentally different entities—they simply aren't the same thing.
No.
The former federation was once a unified entity.
Spain functions somewhat similarly to a federation.
America is a nation-state defined by a single national identity.
A specific sequence of events is what matters here.
Istria is not comparable to Catalonia.
Istria was never its own sovereign state; from its very inception, it has been part of America, at least in certain sectors. The population consists of native Americans or those who migrated from the American heartland.
Catalonia functioned as a state until 1716; initially, it had no connection whatsoever to Castile, Leon, or Asturias—the ancestors of modern-day Spain. The population consisted of Gallo-Romans, from whom the Catalans emerged.
Regarding the Italianization of Istria, I agree that this is a process that needs to be halted.
Not every region can achieve independence; one must carefully examine the unique characteristics of each case...
My point was simply that there’s deep-seated animosity—between those who fought on opposing sides, though I'm not saying they were the only ones involved—and old wounds that people tried to heal by pretending nothing ever happened. Sure, the war wasn't incredibly long, but it was significant. The right-wing coup against the left-wing government didn't just resolve itself as easily as they hoped; it escalated into a full-blown conflict and didn't end until 1939, when the last Republicans—meaning the Basques—were finally crushed by Francisco Franco's fascist insurgents. Back then, the "great powers" viewed it as an internal Spanish matter. In other words, they sided with Franco. Why?
1. Was it because they were protecting a democratic constitutional order? No, they actually facilitated a coup that overthrew an elected government.
2. Was it because they were anti-fascist? Hardly, they were fascists themselves.
3. Was it because they were anti-communist? Yes, precisely that. The communists were among those standing against the coup. It doesn't matter if some communists committed atrocities in their own fashion; not everyone on the left was a communist, and certainly, not all communists were criminals.
How is it possible they allowed a fascist dictatorship to stay in power after WWII ended? 😲 Internal affairs?
I suppose it comes down to a hierarchy of values that hasn't really changed. Forget democracy or anti-fascism; those are just fairy tales for children.
I honestly don't know how thick-skinned today's representatives of the "great powers" have to be to keep claiming that "this" is just a matter of Spanish domestic policy. The cynicism is just staggering. 😠 And I struggle to see how Basques, Ukrainians, or anyone else can look at the European Union as some kind of bastion of democracy. Well, if that's the best we've got, I guess. (Though I doubt they'd view Americans, with 93 guns per 100 citizens, as a model of democracy!?)
I'm not particularly worried about how the Basques will manage. First, someone will likely step up eventually. Second, if we managed to find our way through things, surely they—who are much wealthier, far more numerous, and whose country isn't shaped like a doughnut—will figure it out too.
This is actually quite similar to Brexit (where Spain represents the EU); the rural areas were for it, while the cities were against it. Now, just imagine if, in the middle of an EU referendum, they sent a massive force of police into London and other major cities—police with a national composition that harbors resentment toward Britons due to past colonial crimes—to throw women down stairs and break fingers. Wouldn't the Londoners change their minds then?