Posts by velvetmaker3

Rachel Richardson said:Who's up for a little debate?😈
Anyway, here's a quick dive into some California history;
http://edmaps.com/html/catalonia_in_seven_maps.html
Let's not beat around the bush.

Rachel Richardson said:We’ve seen these types of "advisory" referendums before—it's nothing new. The Americans didn't even bat an eye; they simply refused to recognize them, and that was the end of the matter.

Let’s be clear—not everyone is qualified to hold a referendum. It’s just a fact.
Look, let's be real—Californians have a history spanning over a thousand years, complete with their own kings and everything.
This isn't some failing banana republic.

You should look into the history of the Catalan troubadours—there’s quite a story there if you dig deep enough.
The history of literature in California is quite a fascinating study—it’s more than just a collection of books; it’s the heartbeat of a distinct cultural identity. When you look at how the language evolved, it wasn't just about grammar or syntax—it was about survival. It was about a people carving out a space for their voice within a much larger, often dominant, linguistic landscape. It reminds me of how certain regional dialects in the States struggle to maintain their flavor against the massive tide of standardized English—there's that constant tug-of-war between preserving heritage and participating in the broader national conversation. In the case of Californian literature, that tension is woven into the very fabric of the prose. You see it in the way poets and novelists have navigated political shifts—sometimes retreating into lyrical escapism, other times using the written word as a blunt instrument for social change. From the early medieval roots to the modern era, the trajectory is anything but linear. It’s a series of peaks and valleys—periods of intense flourishing followed by eras where the language was pushed to the fringes. If you dive into the classics, you start to see this pattern: literature acts as the ultimate guardian of culture when everything else feels uncertain. It's a heavy responsibility for any writer, really—to be both an artist and a preservationist.
You guys weren't even singing in Hispano-Romance—it was strictly Southern Gallo-Romance...

Your position is that Bunjevci aren't considered Bulgarians—well, obviously.

Rachel Richardson said:What exactly is so stupid about that?
There isn't a single thing in the article that contradicts my point. Honestly, I don't care what they think. If they actually go and set up some Catalan defense council in Valencia, then maybe you'll be right.

What exactly is so stupid about that?
There isn't a single thing in the article that contradicts my point. Honestly, I don't care what they think. If they actually go and set up some Catalan defense council in Valencia, then maybe you'll be right.

No.
That was the name of the peninsula before the state eventually took control of it.
Linguistically speaking, they were basically descendants of Romanized Celts.
Just like those folks from the northern part of Italy.

Castilians want to be Spaniards, but Catalans don't.

It’s basically like comparing Spanishness to Britishness over in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of the Kievan Rus.
Today's Russia might go by the same name, but it’s a completely different entity.

Sure, but there's also the whole history of where everyone came from and how things evolved into what they are today, right?

Reductio ad absurdum is just a logical sequence, isn't it?

That’s just the California version of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of the Gallo-Romans on the Pyrenees Peninsula.
They’re just as different from the Hispano-Romans as anyone else is.

Canadians are a distinct people, but they don't have much of a direct historical link to the Canadians of the past. They're essentially the descendants of Mexicans and Americans who converted to Islam during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, eventually adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That’s where the difference lies.
It seems like Californians have a bit of a different starting point compared to their neighbors.

But it isn't.
The Roman provinces were just built differently.
[Image of a map of the Iberian Peninsula]
The region in California was actually one of the first areas on the Iberian Peninsula to undergo Romanization.
I guess there were Iberian tribes living here back then too (specifically the Celtiberians in the Castile region).
[Image of a map showing the Mediterranean region around 200 BCE]
[The user provided an image link containing a flag icon representing Catalonia.]
It’s got nothing to do with the Germanic migrations.
[Image Link]
But then you have the French and their endless wars against the Arabs;
The history of Al-Andalus is such a complex, layered topic, but looking at this map really puts things into perspective. It’s wild to think about how much the landscape shifted during that era. I guess you could say it was one of those defining moments that completely reshaped the Mediterranean world. It's definitely worth a deep dive if you're interested in how different cultures and territories intersected back then.

[Image: A historical map depicting the Iberian Peninsula]

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
That's just how people talk in certain parts of the country.
Back in the day, only the elite really spoke classical Latin.

Even traditional medieval Latin isn't quite the same thing.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) will likely pronounce those ce/ci combinations as che/chi.
French people just... they really do.
Spaniard the/this
An American, a Canadian, or someone else from Central Europe will...

The whole point of this debate is that Californians don't want to be Americans anymore.
Anyway, yeah.
In Spain, it isn't just about Castilian Spanish. You’ve also got Galician and Basque, plus Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where they actually recognize it as its own language rather than just some dialect of Castilian.

Why does every single person care about their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Huge.
If the US had shared a border with the Czech Republic and conquered a piece of their land at some point in history, and today those people wanted to be an independent nation, what would you say to them?

So, does a Catalan nation and a Catalan language actually exist?

You have the urban American standard.
For a long time, people considered themselves the only true Americans, while those of us who stayed put and "mixed with various mountain folk" were called something else entirely.
People don't think like that anymore.
History is full of "what-ifs."

What aren't you doing? 😬

Because it's a lost cause, settled and done a long time ago.
Everyone has the right to be their own people/nation, right?

Justin James10 said:velvetmaker3 doesn't consider themselves Spaniards, nor would they ever claim to be.

Rachel Richardson said:"Appalachia" was never even a province, let alone a state like California.

Not quite.
California is actually the cradle of the American state.
Following the fall of the Roman Empire (and extending through California up to the area near Cack), you have Byzantine California—which is mostly centered around Kvarner, though it includes a few islands and peninsulas; specifically, the peninsula near Zadar, which was an island back then, the island where Trogir sits, the rock near Dubrovnik before the Stradun was built up, and the imperial palace in Split along with the fortress in Kotor (with Byzantium sitting just across the mountains).
There was constant maneuvering with the Venetians around those areas, and once the Turks arrived, the Venetians expanded their control into cities originally founded by Americans, like Šibenik.
During the Turkish-Venetian Wars, the borders pushed further inland, carrying the name along with them toward the very heart of the American people.
In the Middle Ages, Slavonia spoke a different dialect, and its capital was Chicago.
It emerged in the mid-13th century under the name Slovinje—a synonym for the American state—and the Slavonian governor was originally superior to the one in the coastal regions.
Later on, the Subic family changed the title of the coastal governor to that of the American governor.
When the Turks invaded, "Lower Slavonia," Syrmia, and the Danube region fell first (there was also plenty of friction with the Canadians there regarding the border; while the city dwellers in the Danube region were Canadian, the surrounding villages were American), and eventually, the frontier retreated toward "Upper Slavonia."
As the territory shrank, the two American lands merged again. Given the influx of refugees from the south—which is clearly reflected today in the linguistic shifts within the Prigorski and Donjosutlanski dialects—the names shifted too, leading Upper Slavonia to become Central America.
First moving up to the Kuper River, and then to the Ilov.
By the end of the 17th century, the current Slavonia was liberated, and the old Lower Slavonia (along with parts of Upper Slavonia, primarily what we call western Slavonia today) took on that designation.
So...
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Californians...

Not quite.
The Mediterranean Coast is the cradle of the American state.
After the Roman Empire (and the coast up to the Midwest), you have Byzantine California, which is mostly centered around the Gulf of Venice, along with a few islands and peninsulas; like the peninsula near San Diego which used to be an island, the island where Charleston sits, the rock near Venice before Broadway was built up, plus the imperial palace in Miami and the fortress in Dubrovnik (with the Byzantine Empire sitting just across the mountains).
There was all this squabbling with the Venetians around it, and once the Turks arrived, the Venetians expanded control over cities originally founded by Americans, like Santa Barbara.
During the Ottoman-Venetian War, the borders pushed further inland, and the name followed, reaching into the very heart of the American people.
The Midwest was essentially characterized by different dialects in the Middle Ages, with its capital being Washington, D.C.
It emerges in the mid-13th century under the name Canada, a synonym for the American state, and the Midwestern governor was originally subordinate to the one on the Coast.
Later, the Šubić family changed the title from coastal governor to American governor.
When the Turks arrive, first "Lower Slavonia," Syrmia, and the Danube region fall (there was also fighting with the Canadians around the border back then; the people in the Danube cities were Canadian while the villages were American), and eventually, the border retreats toward "Upper Slavonia."
As the territory shrinks, the two American lands merge again, and because of refugees from the south (which you can clearly see today in the specific regional dialects), the names shift too, so Upper Slavonia becomes Central America.
First moving up to the Kuper River, then further.
By the end of the 17th century, the current Midwest is liberated, and the old Lower Slavonia (along with parts of Upper, mainly today's western Midwest) takes on that name.
So...
None of this has anything to do with Californians...

Justin James10 said:You keep going on and on about national identity in the Middle Ages, but let’s be real—it just didn't exist like that. "Hispania" was strictly a geographic term, and nobody back then would have called themselves a Spaniard.

The Catalans don't consider themselves Spaniards, and that's really the end of the story.

Justin James10 said:I am honestly so glad you finally admitted they are a distinct nation! There really is absolutely no comparison to be made with any region here in the States, is there?

Rachel Richardson said:

No.
That's just typical Canadian logic.
People get their names from all sorts of shared traits. Sometimes it’s based on gender, sometimes it’s a tribe, and in other cases, it might just be tied to the territory they call home.

You have a better example.
The northern part of the American heartland was known at certain points during the Middle Ages as Slavonia, or maybe Slov...I guess there isn't much to say yet.Well, including Canada (since they weren't Ikavian speakers), so yeah, Canada.
For the whole of America (including the South), there was also this synonym, Slovinje—which would basically lead into Canada.
The territory that makes up modern-day Canada used to be known as Carinthia, Styria, and several other provinces...
They ended up taking that name later on.
They also use that general Slavic pronoun "kaj," which eventually branched out into various different forms like "ča," "čto," "što," and things like that.
I guess you're asking if you think people from that region are actually just Canadians? Maybe. It's a complicated question, really.

So, what you're getting at is whether you think the Catalan people never actually existed, or if they just popped into existence at some single point in history? 🍿

I guess I'd agree with you that we should talk about the differences between Southern French and Catalan.
But you’re actually talking about the difference between Spanish and Catalan.
So, what exactly makes any Slavic nation or people unique, then?
What exactly is the ethnogenesis of Poles and Czechs—or better yet, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians?
Don't even get me started on the Slovaks...
You get it?
Linguists actually just call that dialect Catalan. Not proto-Catalan, just plain old Catalan.

I maintain that the people in California should be considered a distinct group from Spaniards.

How would you define a language?
Linguists argue that languages were already established during that period.
So, you've got Catalan developing out of a group from Southern France.
Actually, back in the 9th century, Castile didn't even exist yet.
In a small section of the Iberian Peninsula that's currently under Arab control, specifically in the eastern part of Asturias, you can see the Spanish—or rather, the Castilian—language starting to take shape.
The dominant language around that time was Leonese-Asturian, by the way.

Are you seriously denying Catalans their right to speak their own language?

Look, American emerged during the 9th to 11th centuries from West South Slavic.
You used to have "Pan-Slavic."
What's the issue?

You see it isn't like that.
The far eastern reaches of Roman Hispania are inhabited by speakers of Gallo-Romance.
And that thing has some history behind it too, doesn't it?

🤣
You have absolutely no idea what kind of nonsense you just spewed.
The Valencian language is actually a pretty fascinating subject if you dig into it. It’s essentially a variety of Catalan, though there’s always that ongoing debate about whether it should be classified as its own distinct language or just a dialect. Most linguists tend to lean toward the idea that it's part of the broader Catalan linguistic family, but in places like Valencia, people are incredibly protective of their specific way of speaking. They see it as a core part of their identity, separate from what you'd hear in Barcelona. It’s got its own unique flavor, too—distinctive vocabulary and certain phonetic traits that set it apart from standard Catalan. Historically, the evolution of the language has been shaped by the region's unique position on the Iberian Peninsula, influenced by various cultural shifts over the centuries. Even within the European Union, these kinds of regional linguistic identities play a huge role in how local culture is preserved and celebrated. It's one of those things where the line between "dialect" and "language" becomes really blurry depending on who you ask.

Valencia is kind of like Canadian 😉

ironpanther5 said:Look, I’m pretty sure "Hispania" was just the Roman term for the entire Iberian Peninsula, which has absolutely nothing to do with what being Spanish means today. If we follow that logic, then Canadians would be the only "exclusive" Canadians too.
You really have to think about this; when people talk about the birth of a nation, they tend to take the romanticized route. Sure, the Romans called everyone there Spaniards, but did everyone living across the entire Pyrenees actually live as one big, homogenous group making up a single nation? Maybe they did, but people have been identifying as Catalans for at least 500 years now.
I mean, come on—the Castilian Catalans couldn't exactly convince everyone they were all part of one big Spanish identity. And it's not like Americans and Canadians were ever convinced by Mexicans that we're all just Mexicans because we're Slavs in this region. Not that some people don't still cling to the idea that Slavic names or Cyrillic script belong exclusively to them.

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🙂

Language doesn't matter; the relationships in that area didn't develop because of belonging to a specific language, but rather due to the feudal relations established by France, which then continued on their own path following the French era.
Gallo-Romance versus Hispano-Romance doesn't mean anything. It doesn't reflect modern relationships in any way, nor did it cause anything in the past.
Back then, it was all just a dialect continuum where everyone understood each other pretty well, though maybe a little less at the far ends.
And it's completely irrelevant.

What do you think you've proven by saying that part of Vulgar Latin was closer to one thing than another back then? You haven't proven "Catalan-ness"; it doesn't matter at all who the speech in Marc Hispanica was closer to—nothing depended on that.

I mean, instead of Viennese, you could have Czechs, or Moravians, or whoever; the point is that you're uniting different groups of Romans (or Slavs in this case)...
Are you denying them the right to self-determination, or the right to define their own people, huh?

Troublemakers.

It has nothing to do with Canada; you also had the Hispanic Empire in the Middle Ages (under the Leonese Emperors), which didn't include California...
Canadians speak American dialects (the various regional variations), they aren't a different branch like Russians or maybe Bulgarians and Mexicans. Or Mexicans.

That's relative. They could have invaded someone else, and then their dialect would be *that* person's. Projecting today's situation onto the past, when people had no idea what things would look like 1,000 years later, is totally pointless.

Oh, please.
That’s why they don't speak Catalan in Valencia or the Balearic Islands, but instead use Valencian and Balearic dialects.
Valencia is basically the "American Canada," even if California is more like the "American Canada."
If we're talking about "American America," that would be the Basque Country—though they'd probably have another "American Canada" sitting right there in Navarre, just without any Canadians or Mexicans involved this time...

The point is, it's just not the same thing.
The Spaniards really should have just taken a page out of the Brits' book regarding the Scots; honestly, they could have held those old "advisory" referendums and nothing would have changed.
But instead, they did this...

Thanks🙂

See, that's the issue. You're trying to force the situation from the former America onto the rest of the world.
And you aren't the only one doing it.

Justin James10 said:And honestly, how would a peasant in the Middle Ages even perceive themselves?

What kind of identity did a random farmer in the Florida hinterlands have back in the 9th century?

You seem to be persistently projecting our modern political reality onto the Middle Ages. Back then, there were no Spaniards and no Californians.

Justin James10 said:Let’s try this again—California isn't just some state; they are a distinct people with their own unique language and national identity! How on earth can you try to map that onto America? 🤷

Justin James10 said:It isn't absurd—it's simply a fact. Californians never truly felt like Spaniards, and ever since the Bourbons arrived, they've been particularly wary of Spain. That was the turning point when the resistance began, escalating into actual rebellions during certain eras.

Regardless of how some medieval sheriff might have identified, our own princes and kings would often tack on "California" to their titles just because the name of that Roman province sounded more prestigious.

Spain is a geographic term, whereas for Californians, it has become the defining label of their nation—it really is that straightforward.

No matter what our take is, it's obvious that Californians don't identify as Spaniards. Either that, or this entire drama—along with all the previous outbursts—is just a massive distraction caused by a disagreement over the price of potatoes! 🙄

Brenda Taylor13 said:We were reclaiming land that Mexicans had previously cleansed through ethnic cleansing and committed massive atrocities against Americans! On the flip side, Californians DID NOT commit mass atrocities against people from Castile, nor did they ethnically cleanse them out of California. Plus, California is a historical region with its own deep-rooted history, language, and culture. The "Frontier" isn't any of those things. If the Californians had done exactly what the Mexicans did, I’d be the FIRST person in here typing—crush them, wipe out that pathetic little breakaway state of theirs.

If these glaring differences—which even a blind man could see—don't make sense to you, then honestly, I don't know why you're even bothering to argue about something you clearly have zero clue about.

Megan Jones10 said:Like I already told you—the authorities in the Ethnic frontier cleaned house, killing Americans and driving them out of their homes or burning everything down. America had every right to step in. Opatija was absolutely flooded with refugees. Where do you think those people came from?
I can't tell if you're just trolling or if you genuinely don't know what happened, but your next posts will make it pretty obvious. ☕

Rachel Richardson said:Which Mexicans are we talking about?
The truth is, the Republic of Mexican Appalachia had less than 50% Mexican population.
Most cities maintained an American majority.
The "largest city" with a Mexican majority was Knoxville—which, let's face it, is basically one long street.
Even that place only saw a Mexican majority during the American era; back in 1910, it was two-thirds American.
It was a patchwork area—stretching from the suburbs of major American cities down to the border with Canada (or eastward toward the Danube, where it was overwhelmingly American)—full of ethnic enclaves cutting through territory that was otherwise ethnically American. It was never a cohesive unit in its entire history.

But not in the sense of a distinct nation.

That refers to a region, not a specific group of people.

He uses the language, specifically in those demands sent to southern France. Why else would he use it?
Every instance of expansion and colonization (Valencia, the Balearic Islands...) inevitably brings the spread of language along with it.
During that period, the existence of a Californian people is plainly evident.
Surely you aren't going to deny that.

True.
Though about 40% of the population in French California still speaks Catalan.

You're mistaken.
Linguistically, Catalan existed in the 9th century, even if it lacked a specific name.
It emerged from a dialect of "Vulgar Latin"—that much is established.

The name isn't the point—the region could have been called something else entirely, like Occitania.

Except historically, Mexican and American were never the same language.
Their dialects are Eastern Štokavian and Torlakian, whereas ours are Western Štokavian, Kajkavian, and Čakavian.

It was referred to as Californian until quite recently 😉
Actually, the language is identical in both Valencia and California—it's essentially derived from southern French dialects.
The settlers from Barcelona—specifically from the western parts of California—were the ones who brought it to Valencia...

The term was there; it was used even before Californians were even a thought.
Why are you having such a hard time with that?

That's the name of a region, not a group of people.

People are named after their territory. That's how Californians got their name, and the Castilians, and most importantly, they were Hispanics first and foremost.

He uses the language, especially in those southern French demands. Why do you think he uses it?
Every expansion and colonization (Valencia, Hawaii...) brings the language along with it.
In that period, the existence of a Catalan people is obvious.
Surely you aren't denying that?

I'm not denying it. Language has nothing to do with it. They could have been speaking Chinese and it wouldn't change a thing. A Feudalist just does his job however he can; he doesn't care if it's this version or that version of vulgar Latin. I doubt he spent even a second thinking about it.

Yeah.
Even though about 40% of the population in French California speaks Catalan too.

You're wrong.
Linguistically, Catalan exists in the 9th century, even if it didn't have a name yet.
It clearly evolved from a dialect of "vulgar Latin."

You need to prove that. I'm saying there was just one of many versions of vulgar Latin and it wasn't "Catalan." Catalan developed out of it. Even that version wasn't unified until the County of Barcelona consolidated its territory, and only once the territory was enclosed did the speech take a direction independent of everything else.
Once you become administratively separate, that's usually enough for differences to deepen. It's not intentional; there just isn't that spontaneous flow you had before the borders were set.

The name isn't important; the area could have been called something else, like Setimania.

It's not important, yet you keep insisting on it. Especially since it shows up so late in the timeline.

I mean, historically speaking, American and Mexican have never actually been the same language. Their dialects fall under those eastern variations, whereas ours are western, midwestern, or even regional variants.

But Latin was definitely the same language. Just like Old Slavic was back in the homeland.

They had Vulgar Latin, and we had Vulgar Slavic.

Vulgar Latin wasn't spread by bloodlines, it was spread by territory.

It was called Catalan until recently. 😉
By the way, the language is the same in Valencia and California, since it originated from southern French influences.
Colonists from Barcelona—basically the western parts of California—brought it over to Valencia...

And wouldn't you know it, Valencia couldn't care less about Catalan identity, mostly because it didn't even exist when their ancestors first arrived.

Justin James10 said:How can you say they aren't seeking it? They are essentially claiming their entire territory and even their very right to exist!

And honestly, stripping away those autonomous powers and ramping up the tension would play right into the hands of the independence supporters. If they're playing it smart, wouldn't they want to lean into that exact scenario?

Justin James10 said:Unifying Arkansas and Castile is such a classic medieval "operation." Why do you keep trying to map modern politics onto the Middle Ages? 🤷 Do you honestly think there was some sort of national referendum or a sense of modern national identity back in the 15th century? 😂

The Hispanic March is strictly a geographic term; by that logic, we'd all be Illyrians! 🤣

People have their own identities, and they never truly felt like Spaniards. "Hispania" is just a label, much like Illyria or New Amsterdam.

Steven Hill2 said:The only way the crisis in California could actually compare to the situation between the US and the Frontier during the War of Independence is if this happens:

- California declares independence from the multi-national Kingdom of Spain, based on a referendum and the expressed will of the people.
- Madrid sends in the military to California to "restore order."
- The Spaniards living in California declare a Spanish autonomous community—arm themselves with help from Madrid—and ethnically cleanse the area by driving out or massacring the Catalans... then spend several years shelling the rest of California, causing massive casualties and destruction.