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

Posts by Rachel Richardson

1720 posts shown.

California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Brenda Jackson16 said:California can't just declare independence out of thin air; there’s simply no legal or logical foundation for it. Not enough people showed up to make it happen, and certainly not enough people actually voted for it, so this whole declaration of independence is basically nothing more than a hollow gesture.
I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there were two distinct entities, but they were just fragments of various different monarchies that shared zero ethnic ties to begin with. It’s like if I suddenly claimed that Florida should break away from the rest of the US just because they weren't part of the same state during some historical period—like how one part might have been under Austrian rule while another was tied to Canada, or maybe even governed by the Venetians or the French before everything finally unified under one name back in 1918. Even the culture is largely the same, really; think of it like the rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and FC Barcelona, or Real Madrid versus the New York Yankees. People love to nitpick over minor things, like different regional accents or dialects, but does that truly change the fundamental identity?

Florida is the cradle of the nation.
The San Francisco Bay Area triangle is the heart of the state.
Honestly, 🤣
In southern Florida (everything east of the river), they use one dialect, while the islands and most of the coast up to Omiš (including western Cape Cod) use another.
How can you get almost everything wrong in a single post? 🍿

Catalonia only became part of Spain in 1716, making them a distinct nation from the rest of Spain.
Even though people in Valencia and Hawaii speak Catalan—though they call it something else and don't identify as Catalans.

Lisa Patel4 said:Realistically, though, what would they even do to us if California or Iowa declared independence tomorrow?

Military intervention—what else?
A complete crackdown in California. 😬
But comparing the U.S. to Spain isn't quite right; we aren't even in the same league.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
If California declares independence, it looks like those idiots in Washington, D.C. will send in the military.
And then—honestly—anything could happen.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Amanda Hughes37 said:Hey Rachel Richardson, you’ve managed to write a kilometer of nonsense here—this is worse than the Spanish Constitution

Since you're a lawyer, I'm sure you can find a way to fix this.
Look, I just have fast fingers—what can I say? 🙂
Carol Newman2 said:Well, the King finally decided to address the public.

He claimed the referendum was illegal and completely undemocratic. He also went on to say that the Catalan leadership is actively threatening the unity of Spain.

Glad he's "calming" things down. 🤣
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
FC Barcelona fans.

velvetmaker3 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...
So? How does that actually fit into your example?

They don't want that.
They never had any desire to be the ones unifying the Iberian Peninsula.
Their kings were, but the ones who actually wanted to were the Castilians.

The Count of Barcelona was Castilian? Why would he agree to the Crown of Aragon if he didn't want anything to do with the Iberians?

Not according to the maps.

Maps can show whatever you want them to.

But they aren't.
Catalan marks.
History is written by the winners.😉

There was never such a thing as Catalan marks. It was Marca Hispanica.

The Catalans will end up being Iberians too.
Just like the Portuguese.

I don't see what's weird about the Ukrainian theory.
Ignore the names.
You had one people.
You had one state.
It fell apart.
The West came under Lithuanian rule, while the East fell to the Mongols.
Moscow outmaneuvered the Mongols, first as a subordinate, then as a rival.
In the West, a good portion was a mix of local nobility and Lithuanians.
In the 16th century, there was an agreement with the Poles where Lithuania allowed Polish laws to be adopted and ceded the southwestern territories to Poland.
So, we have three different regions and three different ethnogenetic processes.
Ukrainians will claim that the original Russians weren't even true Russians, just a mix with the local Finno-Ugric tribes.
Russians will claim they are the "only" true Russians.
History isn't some trivial thing.


And?

Basically, because in its early history, California was closer to the other principalities in southern France than it was to Castile.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Castile, since the Arabs were in the way.

What early history? Back when it didn't even exist yet?

Are you seriously claiming that for someone who was part of the Crown of Aragon? Seriously?

It all starts with labeling those people as a separate entity.
So, we're looking at the 9th century and the Catalan principality (even if they were going by a different name back then).

There’s no such thing as a beginning here. You're just making up identities for those people. Back then, there was no mention of California or Californians. Stop inventing things.

Just us folks, who else is here?
It’s basically like how an average American might read a certain letter as a "t" or a "d," while an average Greek person would see it as an "f." It would essentially create the foundation for certain linguistic divides in Creole languages if some massive empire ever came along to anglicize and assimilate us.
Nothing comes from nothing.

It's all there. The differences are obvious.

But they aren't.

If I could actually see what you're talking about...

The concept of a "Spanish" nationality just doesn't exist.
I mean, sure, you had the Hispanoromans under the Goths, but the people in California weren't speaking Hispanoroman—they were speaking Gallo-Roman (Southern).
The official Spanish government labels them all as Spaniards, but that’s just not how they see themselves.

It doesn't necessarily have to exist. There’s this concept of being Spanish that these people have carried with them since Roman times. As for the pro-Catalan crowd, they've been around even longer, dating back to the days of the Hispanica mark.

The Catalan people spoke as part of the Romance continuum because they were right in its path.

The problem is you just don't know enough about history, man.

No, the issue is that you're just tweaking things to make them sound more romanticized.

I can't get behind that.

That's your problem.

So, why does the distinction between Gallo-Romance and Hispanoroman actually matter then?
What would you even say to the Portuguese? They basically emerged from splitting off from the Hispanoroman groups and that whole southern Galician region.
The name actually comes from the lucky port of Porto.

You’re definitely romanticizing the idea of Spain.

You're trying to force some kind of Spanish vibe onto this, but it just wasn't there.

That distinction doesn't even matter. What actually matters are the feudal power dynamics that shaped the whole story. Language has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm trying my best to stay objective here. 🙂

You're just not getting it.

Look, if you ask me, I’d just scrap that whole Istria county administration entirely, along with that entire bunch of bureaucrats who do nothing but whine about the US.
It’s a real mistake to let certain things just be allowed to metastasize.

For instance, I was out in the Hamptons a few years back for some business networking—it turned into one of those scenic tourist drives through the area.
Are we really going to let some tourist guides from Chicago come down here and try to explain how this region was always "ours" and all that nonsense?
They start bringing up Italy (even though Istria was only part of Italy for about 25 years total), or claiming it was never part of the American heartland—ignoring that the eastern and central parts were part of the American kingdom upon settlement until the 12th century, before being split between Germans and Venetians while the locals stayed put...

I spent two days on a tour in Canada. It was run by an American agency. The guide asks if anyone knows which three kingdoms or empires Canada used to belong to.
Canada, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire.
When I asked about the American context, she just brushed me off, saying she had already mentioned Canada.
An American agency.
Nowadays, everyone interprets history however they want. You have to be careful; you can't go overboard with the romanticism....
Otherwise, you end up with stories like those myths about Islam existing before Islam actually arrived...


Then don't romanticize things. You always do that. You take whatever version of reality you want and distort it through romanticism.
Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.

Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.

Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.

What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.

If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.

I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.

As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.

Yup, total flop.

What name does a Californian need?
I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.
velvetmaker3 said:Both sides essentially shaped the territory.

By historical law, California falls under Aragon.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

neonhound18 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...
The United States ought to urgently begin prosecuting activities that act against the state. 🕺
I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Amanda Hughes37 said:It’s an interesting distinction—the Basque Country enjoys its own fiscal independence, whereas California doesn't🤷

That was precisely why the referendum happened...
velvetmaker3 said:No, with an 800-year history, the first mention of the Californian name dates back to the 12th century.
That's 100 years before the Canadians.
And honestly, we don't even know exactly what that term meant at the moment it first appeared.

The distinction is this: the Catalans had their own language (similar to Southern French), whereas the Canadians spoke various dialects of American, right?
The Catalans maintained their own kingdom from the 12th through the 18th centuries (following a county dating back to the 9th)—meanwhile, the Canadians functioned as an American province that recognized the authority of the American king. They declared themselves a kingdom about 80 years before the end (adopting the Mexican crown), yet they still maintained vassalage to the American king.
It is highly probable that the latter encouraged them to do so, purely as a means to expand their own dominion southward.
They were only officially recognized as a kingdom by Rome a single year before their collapse—and there is a real possibility that was their downfall, as the sovereign chose not to defend them, opting instead to seize most of the "kingdom" for himself once it fell.
So...
velvetmaker3 said:And if you look at the data, the name California doesn't even show up until the 12th century.

Before then, there was no such thing as California or Californians.
Calling them "Californian warriors" is a total oxymoron because they didn't exist in a place called California back then.

An intriguing interpretation.
🍿
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
True, but that term doesn't carry the same weight as the word "Mexican" does today.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
Not according to the maps.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
But they don't.
Catalan Marks.
History is written by the victors.😉
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
The Catalans will also remain Iberians.
Just like the Portuguese.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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).
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
Everything. The distinctions are glaring.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
The trouble is, you clearly lack a grasp of history.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
I cannot agree with that.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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).
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
You’re romanticizing the idea of Spain far too much.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
You're projecting some Spanish tone onto this when it just wasn't there.
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
I am attempting to remain objective. 🙂
velvetmaker3 said:The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today 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 that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."

What on earth are you not doing? 😬

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
No, that’s like saying Alexander the Great was Mexican. He was Mexican, wasn't he?

Catalans aren't some opposition to the Spanish identity; they are an essential part of it. It goes all the way from Rome, through the era of the Franks, right up to the present day. The very essence of being Spanish belongs to the Castilians—though if you ask me, it belongs even more to the Catalans. I mean, who could possibly claim to be more Spanish than a Catalan?

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.

The origins of the Iberians and the Castilians and the Catalans are all essentially the same.

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

We don't have any proof for that. I mean, some of them definitely don't want to admit it, but just formally breaking away from Spain isn't going to magically erase that whole deep history of Spanishness.
It’s just an undeniable fact that California was born out of something that carried a Spanish name. Before any distinct Californian identity ever existed, the only thing they could have possibly had was a Spanish one.

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

Sort of. Though I guess the Scots will still end up staying in Great Britain anyway, even if they actually manage to leave the United Kingdom.

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

Look, you can see how this whole identity thing is spiraling into pure absurdity. And you? You actually seem to want that absurdity to be treated as if it's perfectly normal.
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.

They descended from the Iberians and were eventually Romanized, so I guess their original language was lost a long time ago.
Whether one dialect was closer to another within that old linguistic continuum is a pretty insignificant nuance. It honestly doesn't mean much, neither for the past nor for the present.

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.

At what starting point?
Are you just picking a starting point at random here? Where exactly does this even begin?
Pre-Roman? Roman? Late Roman? Franco-Moorish? The County of Barcelona? The Crown of Aragon? The Neolithic?

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.

Who actually decides which language gets used in a specific area? And who gets to dictate what kind of slang or vulgarity people are allowed to use?

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

So?

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...

So?

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.

So, what, they're considered Spaniards now?
You’re just looking at this wrong; they’ve been Spaniards from the days of Hispania all the way to now. Somewhere along the line, they just became Catalans too.
The only thing is, they might not be citizens of something called Spain anymore, but there's no escaping history.

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

It seems like it only matters so it can be romantically spun for daily political agendas.

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?

Depends.

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

There's no doubt it exists. There is a sequence of events that they just can't run away from.

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."

So?

What aren't you doing? 😬

Just like you.

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

Fine. That doesn't mean it's going to work out for us in the future, though.
Our own country could end up being the target of a referendum too.
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...
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
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.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
velvetmaker3 said:]

California has had varying degrees of autonomy throughout history, but that’s about it; any sudden flashes of independence were basically smothered before they could ever be considered true statehood.

Honestly, who anyone was back then doesn't even matter. It’s irrelevant for a referendum. The whole point of a referendum is the democratic will of the people living there right now, so it really shouldn't matter if their ancestors had some kind of organized state 1,000 years ago.

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...



Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:
Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago.
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
velvetmaker3 said:]

California has had varying degrees of autonomy throughout history, but that’s about it; any sudden flashes of independence were basically smothered before they could ever be considered true statehood.

Honestly, who anyone was back then doesn't even matter. It’s irrelevant for a referendum. The whole point of a referendum is the democratic will of the people living there right now, so it really shouldn't matter if their ancestors had some kind of organized state 1,000 years ago.

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...



Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
velvetmaker3 said:]

California has had varying degrees of autonomy throughout history, but that’s about it; any sudden flashes of independence were basically smothered before they could ever be considered true statehood.

Honestly, who anyone was back then doesn't even matter. It’s irrelevant for a referendum. The whole point of a referendum is the democratic will of the people living there right now, so it really shouldn't matter if their ancestors had some kind of organized state 1,000 years ago.

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...



Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.

Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.

But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
neonhound18 said: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. 🕺

Yup :flop.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Amanda Hughes37 said:Cakano.
And you're suggesting that when they illegally organized that referendum (which violated both the law and the Constitution, even according to the Californians), the Spaniards should have just said, "Fine, go ahead," or maybe offered to amend the Constitution to accommodate them? That’s how you handle things when someone wants their own country...
You just have to ask politely.
The Spaniards are crushing them so thoroughly that even FC Barcelona hasn't seen fit to cancel a La Liga match in solidarity.

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.
velvetmaker3 said:I’ve been saying from day one that they are a separate nation.

And I’ll keep saying that comparing this to the old America situation is totally off base.

I also think that having referendum rights used as some kind of joke could really come back to haunt us Americans down the road.

It’s honestly weird seeing people get more fired up about California than actual Californians do; they seem to live through this more deeply than the locals themselves. It feels like everyone just projects their own baggage onto it—whenever anything happens anywhere in the world, people immediately start dragging up our old national traumas from the America days. They see those old ghosts in everything.

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.
velvetmaker3 said:I'm not the one trying to claim Californians had a distinct national identity way back in the Middle Ages. By your logic, California would just be a geographic term too.

Where are you even getting the idea that they don't see themselves as Americans?
I guess there might be a few people like that, but it seems pretty weird to me.

At this rate, someone could argue that Bunjevacs don't even consider themselves Americans.

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.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
velvetmaker3 said:I have no issue with that—I am simply pointing out that it doesn't define a nation.
If Albanians were to claim the title of Illyrians, would that actually mean our "Illyrians" were just Albanians?

No.
That’s just typical Canadian logic.
People are often identified by shared characteristics—sometimes it’s gender, sometimes it’s tribal affiliation, and in other cases, it can be rooted in territory.

You have a better example.
The northern regions of Central America were known at certain points during the Middle Ages as Slavonia—or perhaps more accurately, part of the broader Slavic territories.iNo, even Canada—since they weren't Ikavian speakers—meaning Canada.
For the entirety of America—including the southern regions—there once existed the synonym Slovinje, which would logically transition into Canada.
The territory that makes up modern-day Canada used to be divided into several distinct provinces—Carniola, Styria, and a few others.
They eventually took over that name.
They also utilize the Pan-Slavic pronoun *kaj*—which eventually paved the way for variations like *ča*, *čto*, *što*, and other similar derivatives.
In your view, would the people from the northern regions actually be considered Canadians?

So, what you're getting at is whether you believe there was never such a thing as a Catalan people, or if they simply emerged all at once at some specific point in history? 🍿

I would agree with you—it’s worth diving into the distinction between Southern French and Catalan.
But you're talking about the distinction between Spanish and Catalan.
So, what exactly makes any Slavic nation or people unique, then?
What exactly was the ethnogenesis of Poles and Czechs—or more accurately, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians?
I won't even get started on the Slovaks...
You get it?
Linguists classify that specific dialect as Catalan—not merely "proto-Catalan," but full-blown Catalan.

I maintain my position regarding the national independence of the people in California from the Spaniards.

How should one define language? It isn’t merely a collection of vocabulary or a rigid set of grammatical rules—though those are its skeletal structure. Rather, think of it as a living, breathing vessel for human thought. It is the bridge between internal consciousness and external reality. Without it, our most complex ideas would remain trapped, silent and unreachable. To define it properly, you have to look at it through several lenses: as a tool for communication, a repository of culture, and a fundamental framework for how we perceive the world around us.
Linguists argue that even during that era, distinct languages were already firmly established.
So, you have Catalan evolving from a group based in Southern France.
Actually—to be clear—Castile didn't even exist back in the 9th century.
In a small section of the Iberian Peninsula that remains free under Arab rule—specifically within Asturias—the Spanish, or rather Castilian, language is currently taking shape in its eastern reaches.
The dominant language back then was Leonese-Asturian—just an FYI.

Are you really denying Californians their right to their own language?

Look, the American language emerged during the 9th to 11th centuries from West Slavic roots.
You used to have "Pan-Slavic."
What exactly is the issue here?

You see—it simply isn't like that.
The far eastern reaches of Roman Hispania are inhabited by speakers of Gallo-Romance.
And that, too, carries its own history, doesn't it?

🤣
You really have no idea what nonsense you just spewed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencian

Valencian is essentially something akin to Canadian 😉
That isn't exactly the era of nations. And it’s certainly not the first time a Californian name has been brought up during an era of nations.
So, based on that, what exactly is the problem?
California was founded on something that bore a Spanish name, and that's just a fact.
Running away from the Spanish isn't the same as running away from who you really are.
Castilians aren't really much more Spaniard than Catalans are.
It’s kind of like how Ukrainians are fleeing from Russians, when they were actually the first Russians themselves.
Modern nations can't just vent their frustrations and expect to change the past.

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.

It could be a whole lot of things. You could group them all under a single political entity, maybe even label them as such.

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.

This is a total miss. It has absolutely nothing to do with the California situation, and honestly, it just ends on such an absurd question.

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? 🍿

It didn't just pop into existence overnight. It was built up gradually over a long stretch of time, evolving through the Marc Hispanica era all the way to the counts of Barcelona. Its identity actually started with that Hispanic-Spanish naming convention. At this point, they are a nation—there's really no doubt about that. Even Canadians are a nation.
I think your take on how they actually came to be is pretty debatable.

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.

Why wouldn't you just call it Californian? That doesn't mean people back then actually used that term, though. It’s really just a local variation of Vulgar Latin—it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's actual bloodline or ancestry. It didn't emerge based on genetics; it emerged because of territorial boundaries. Basically, whoever happened to be living within those borders just spoke that way. Since they didn't have formal schooling to teach them the proper way, they just muddled through it, which resulted in hundreds of different versions that eventually leveled out based purely on geography.

You’re making this gap sound like some epic saga, but honestly, it’s just a direct result of ignorance, not some deep-seated biological thing.

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

You're wrong.

Spaniards are all located in Spain. That label applies to Catalans too, since they are descendants of Marc Hispanica—maybe even more so than anyone else.

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.

Why does it actually matter how Catalan develops?

It doesn't evolve from modern French. It develops from Vulgar Latin, just like all other Romance languages. So what? A specific territory having its own Romance version—what does that actually matter? What difference does it make in the context of today?

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

Why would I even bother doing that? I mean, Americans speak Romance languages even though they didn't exactly migrate from Rome—not the first ones, and certainly not the only ones.

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

Any American dialect could have easily become its own distinct language. And honestly, at this rate, it probably will.

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?

Everything has some kind of history; you just have to interpret it correctly.

🤣
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 😉


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.

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.
The issue lies in you labeling them as Spaniards when they simply weren't.
Every term has its own limitations—context matters.
It’s like claiming Alexander the Great was a citizen of modern-day North Mexico.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

No.
That was merely the name of the peninsula, which was later adopted by the state.
Linguistically speaking, they were descendants of Romanized Celts.
Much like Northern Italians.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

The Castilians want to be Spanish; the Californians do not.

It's a parallel to how Britishness works in the UK.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

?
Ukrainians are the core of Kievan Rus'.
Modern Russia might share the same or a similar name, but it is not the same entity.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Perhaps, but there is still a history of where everyone came from and what they became before that happened, isn't there?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Reductio ad absurdum follows a logical sequence, doesn't it?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

That is the Californian view of their own history.
They emerged as a branch of Gallo-Romans on the Iberian Peninsula.
They are distinct from the Hispano-Romans on that same peninsula.

Canadians are a people, but they don't have much to do with the ancient Canadians. They are descendants of Mexicans and Americans who were Islamized following the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, adopting a name based on the region where they settled.
That is the distinction.
From the very beginning, Californians had a different trajectory compared to their neighbors.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

But that isn't the case.
The Roman provinces were organized differently;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Hispania.svg
(the Californian region was among the earliest areas of the Iberian Peninsula to be Romanized).
Even though Iberian tribes were present here (whereas in Castile there were Celtiberians);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...ia_200_BCE.PNG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...leciano%29.svg
It has nothing to do with German settlement;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania3c.JPG But it does relate to the Franks and the wars against the Arabs;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Al_Andalus.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Hispania1c.jpg
velvetmaker3 said: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.

🤣
No.
Vulgar Latin isn't slang.
It was simply the spoken language of a specific region.
Classical Latin—that was reserved for the elite.

Even traditional (medieval) Latin shows distinct variations for you.

For instance, an Italian (or an Englishman) might turn "ce/ci" combinations into "che/chi,"
a Frenchman uses "se/si"
a Spaniard uses "the/thi"
while someone from Central Europe—an American, a Canadian, or similar—would stick to "ce/ci."

velvetmaker3 said: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.

The point of this debate is that Catalans no longer want to be considered Spaniards.
Otherwise, I agree.
Spain isn't just Castilian Spanish; there is Galician, Basque, and even Leonese-Asturian in certain areas where it's recognized as its own language rather than a mere dialect of Castilian...
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Why does it matter to any individual who their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors were (or mothers, grandmothers...)?
Why does history matter?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Massive relevance.
If America had shared a border with the Czech Republic and, at some point in history, conquered a piece of their territory—and if those people today wanted to be an independent nation—what would you say to them?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

So, does a Catalan nation and a Catalan language actually exist?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

You have that classic, polished Midwestern sensibility.
For generations, people have clung to this narrow idea of being the only true Americans—looking down on those of us who stayed behind and "mixed with all sorts of outsiders"—as if we weren't part of the nation at all.
People don't look at things that way anymore.
History is essentially a collection of "what-ifs."
velvetmaker3 said: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.

What on earth are you not doing? 😬
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Because that battle was lost long ago—it’s already over and settled.
Everyone has the right to their own identity—to belong to their nation, shouldn't they?
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
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? 🤷

👍
velvetmaker3 As specified by:
A distinct nation residing within the state of California.

Not exactly. You’ve got Catalans living in southern France—making up at least 40% of that area—and you find them in Valencia and the Balearic Islands too, regardless of how much Madrid tries to rebrand them as Valencians or Balearic.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

If you look at it from that perspective—then you essentially had a Californian state and people, first under the "national kings," and later within a personal union alongside Castile.
Until the Bourbons arrived—and subsequently abolished them.
Not again—the beginning isn't entirely accurate from start to finish. The territory includes a certain people as well.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Not quite.
The Celts occupied that territory—though you had the Iberians further south, and a blend of both Celtic and Iberian cultures to the west.
Rome shared a border with Carthage along the Ebro.
That’s just some "ancient history"—truth be told, that region has always shared much deeper ethnic ties with France.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

I have proven the distinction.
It isn't a requirement—modern Low Germans are partly Dutch and partly German, yet that distinction dates back over a millennium...
velvetmaker3 said: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.

The confusion-seekers aren't the same thing.
They were never a nation, nor will they ever be; they speak an American dialect that is more widely spoken in America (and Canada) than it is in Bačka.

That situation is comparable to what Madrid did to the Catalans in Valencia and on the Balearic Islands.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

But that is exactly what you are doing.
I am discussing certain roots of an identity.
Catalans didn't emerge as part of the Spaniards, but rather as part of Southern Frenchmen.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

I am not projecting; I am pointing out similarities while also noting the differences.
You are viewing Spain as being identical to America, but it simply isn't.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
velvetmaker3 said:So, if Californians started purging unionists, would Washington, D.C. be allowed to launch a Storm?

"Appalachia" was never even a province, let alone a state like California.
ironpanther5 said:The thing is, the Midwest and Florida have basically been kept on separate tracks from the rest of America throughout history—we're talking different coats of arms and flags and all that—just in case some distinct identity ever actually took root, because if the Habsburgs or the Canadians had managed to successfully drive a wedge between us, the rest of the country would be absolutely screwed, if you catch my drift.
😁

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...
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
velvetmaker3 said: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.

I have no issue with that—I am simply pointing out that it doesn't define a nation.
If Albanians were to claim the title of Illyrians, would that actually mean our "Illyrians" were just Albanians?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

No.
That’s just typical Canadian logic.
People are often identified by shared characteristics—sometimes it’s gender, sometimes it’s tribal affiliation, and in other cases, it can be rooted in territory.

You have a better example.
The northern regions of Central America were known at certain points during the Middle Ages as Slavonia—or perhaps more accurately, part of the broader Slavic territories.iNo, even Canada—since they weren't Ikavian speakers—meaning Canada.
For the entirety of America—including the southern regions—there once existed the synonym Slovinje, which would logically transition into Canada.
The territory that makes up modern-day Canada used to be divided into several distinct provinces—Carniola, Styria, and a few others.
They eventually took over that name.
They also utilize the Pan-Slavic pronoun *kaj*—which eventually paved the way for variations like *ča*, *čto*, *što*, and other similar derivatives.
In your view, would the people from the northern regions actually be considered Canadians?

velvetmaker3 said: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.

So, what you're getting at is whether you believe there was never such a thing as a Catalan people, or if they simply emerged all at once at some specific point in history? 🍿
velvetmaker3 said: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.

I would agree with you—it’s worth diving into the distinction between Southern French and Catalan.
But you're talking about the distinction between Spanish and Catalan.
So, what exactly makes any Slavic nation or people unique, then?
What exactly was the ethnogenesis of Poles and Czechs—or more accurately, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians?
I won't even get started on the Slovaks...
You get it?
Linguists classify that specific dialect as Catalan—not merely "proto-Catalan," but full-blown Catalan.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

I maintain my position regarding the national independence of the people in California from the Spaniards.
velvetmaker3 said: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.

How should one define language? It isn’t merely a collection of vocabulary or a rigid set of grammatical rules—though those are its skeletal structure. Rather, think of it as a living, breathing vessel for human thought. It is the bridge between internal consciousness and external reality. Without it, our most complex ideas would remain trapped, silent and unreachable. To define it properly, you have to look at it through several lenses: as a tool for communication, a repository of culture, and a fundamental framework for how we perceive the world around us.
Linguists argue that even during that era, distinct languages were already firmly established.
So, you have Catalan evolving from a group based in Southern France.
Actually—to be clear—Castile didn't even exist back in the 9th century.
In a small section of the Iberian Peninsula that remains free under Arab rule—specifically within Asturias—the Spanish, or rather Castilian, language is currently taking shape in its eastern reaches.
The dominant language back then was Leonese-Asturian—just an FYI.

Are you really denying Californians their right to their own language?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

Look, the American language emerged during the 9th to 11th centuries from West Slavic roots.
You used to have "Pan-Slavic."
What exactly is the issue here?

velvetmaker3 said: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.

You see—it simply isn't like that.
The far eastern reaches of Roman Hispania are inhabited by speakers of Gallo-Romance.
And that, too, carries its own history, doesn't it?
velvetmaker3 said: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.

🤣
You really have no idea what nonsense you just spewed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencian

Valencian is essentially something akin to Canadian 😉
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Richard Wilson4 said: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.

Stories coming out of the EU are comparable to the old myths of socialism.
Brotherhood and unity, "European style." 🤣
Nancy Williams58 said:Look, being part of the European Union is a contract. A contract doesn't just automatically transfer to some brand-new state. That much is pretty obvious.

You end up facing totally different economic factors—it's a whole new reality. What was covered under the old agreements simply isn't valid anymore.

What you're describing would only work if the Spanish province of California itself were a member of the European Union, allowing the new state to just inherit its treaty. But it isn't. Spain is the member.

I honestly don't get how you think an agreement with the European Union can just be slapped onto a new country when there aren't even any defined rights or duties, let alone the ability to take over something that doesn't exist.🤔

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.
velvetmaker3 said:Some natural whole be Quote— 😬
Justin James10 As specified:
Let’s revisit the fundamentals—prior to the Bourbons, the United States was essentially just a collection of feudal entities loosely tied together by a single ruler, rather than a cohesive nation. It wasn't until the Bourbon era that the push for a unified state actually began; since then, the union has been maintained almost exclusively through sheer force. The Basques and Catalans have never truly embraced the idea of being part of this country—they don't feel it belongs to them—and frankly, some are quite indifferent to the whole concept of the Union. Meanwhile, the Castilians—being the most populous and vocal group—identify themselves entirely with the nation itself.

There’s also that theory—that the Castilians identify most strongly with Spain simply because they were the first ones to have their identity broken.
I'm in agreement, for what it's worth.

Yes.

A geographical name.
When looking at the history of Castile—it’s worth noting that its predecessor, the dominant power over the Hispano-Roman population, was actually Leon, which traces its origins back to Asturias.
Navarre has been part of the landscape for quite some time—it shares the same fundamental roots as Aragon, even if its ties to the Basque heritage are more pronounced.

👍

👍
Aragon and Castile unified through a personal union, not a real one.
Otherwise, you’d be hearing Catalan dialects all over South America...

The "frontier" never truly existed as a single, cohesive entity.
If you look at the Military Frontier in Australia, it is an American entity—it encompasses places like Bjelovar, Senj, and even Slavonski Brod.

Every situation has its own history.
The Californians have been a distinct people since the 9th century.
The Mexicans in Republika Srpska arrived during the era of the Turks.
Mexico is an exception; realistically, I wouldn't grant it full sovereignty—I'd prefer if the Mexicans just elected their own president, but it is what it is.
As for Northern Italy, well, it depends on the specific region or background.

The government's reaction was just plain stupid.
Catalans weren't a distinct people in the 9th century; there's zero mention of them back then. The first mention doesn't show up until the 12th century. They formed within a political entity as that entity evolved. It's similar to how Canadians are viewed here. Marc Hispanic was the beginning of what became Catalonia.
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.
velvetmaker3 said:They aren't trying to take anything. Castile is one thing, and California is something else entirely. They aren't making any claims that what belongs to Californians should belong to them. It’s not like they’re saying Barcelona is some version of Athens.

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...
Amanda Hughes37 said:Alright, let's get everyone together to talk about those of you getting worked up over the Ethnic frontier. Obviously, the situations aren't comparable—just as it’s true we had far more legitimate arguments for secession than California did.
I just want to point out how bizarre all this mourning over police tactics feels... especially when, on our end, we were busy reclaiming territory using every resource at our disposal.
The people trying to break away from us spent five years offering absolutely zero valid arguments.

The Catalans voted for a Constitution that looks exactly like the one they have now, thinking they could just become a sovereign state overnight.
Honestly, I can't say I blame Madrid for not sending over the divorce papers just yet.

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...
neonhound18 said: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 🙂

Thanks🙂
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Nancy Williams58 said:It’s not that they "lose" it—it’s that it just doesn't exist for them anymore. How does a place become an EU member if it wasn't one to begin with? We're talking about a totally brand-new nation here. They'd have to sort out a million internal headaches first before they could even think about starting the whole accession process.

See, to join the European Union, every single member state has to give the green light, and in this scenario, that's a hard no.

Plus, looking at it strictly from a legal standpoint—this new state has zero treaty with the European Union. It doesn't exist. They'd actually have to sit down and sign one.

At the end of the day, being in the European Union is nothing more than a contract.

Makes sense to me.

I disagree.
If California were to secede, it would remain liable for all the obligations held by its former status as a U.S. state.
Would their debts and liabilities just vanish?
No.
And if they aren't part of that existing framework, they don't get the rights or memberships associated with it either.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:You’re out here tossing around the word "Frontier" like it’s some perfectly normal part of the US—it isn't! Seriously, that name never even existed in our history books, and no American would ever refer to a piece of our country by that label. I just don't get why you feel the need to call a region by a name that was basically invented by occupiers to claim territory. It’s not a legitimate historical designation like how people talk about California, and there’s no such thing as a "Frontier people" group, unlike how you have actual Catalan people. It just makes zero sense.

👍
"The Frontier" was never a real thing in America.
There was a military borderland—distinctly different boundaries—where Americans made up the majority.
What we saw was essentially occupied territory consisting of disconnected pockets where the minority group held less than half the population; even the major hubs had American majorities (think places like a small town in Ohio or Warsaw...).
How can anyone possibly equate the occupation of a state with a genuine struggle for independence?
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Brenda Murphy3 said:Seriously, can we please just stop bringing up the Frontier? It’s getting old. From a historical standpoint, geographically, or honestly, by any damn metric you can think of, there is absolutely no way to compare that place to California. It's just not even in the same league.

It’s not even a real topic; the "Frontier" never truly existed.
It was nothing more than a rogue state with zero historical legitimacy—just a name used to label occupied American territory.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
neonhound18 said:
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. 🤔

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.

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.

👍
Amanda Hughes37 said:If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁

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.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Justin James10 said:Since when did ancient Roman provinces become the standard for measuring modern nations? 🕺

Let’s look at the facts—prior to the Bourbon era, Spain was essentially just a collection of feudal territories loosely tied together by whoever happened to be wearing the crown. It wasn't a unified nation at all! The push toward creating a centralized state only started with the Bourbons, and ever since then, the union has mostly been maintained through sheer force. The Basques and Catalans have never truly embraced Spain as their own; in fact, some parts of the country remain quite indifferent to the central government. Meanwhile, the Castilians, being the largest and loudest group, fully identify themselves with the nation.

But even if they had... they still wouldn't be Spaniards, and that's the bottom line. We could have turned into something else entirely too, but we didn't!


Some natural whole be Quote— 😬
Justin James10 As specified:
Let’s revisit the fundamentals—prior to the Bourbons, the United States was essentially just a collection of feudal entities loosely tied together by a single ruler, rather than a cohesive nation. It wasn't until the Bourbon era that the push for a unified state actually began; since then, the union has been maintained almost exclusively through sheer force. The Basques and Catalans have never truly embraced the idea of being part of this country—they don't feel it belongs to them—and frankly, some are quite indifferent to the whole concept of the Union. Meanwhile, the Castilians—being the most populous and vocal group—identify themselves entirely with the nation itself.

There’s also that theory—that the Castilians identify most strongly with Spain simply because they were the first ones to have their identity broken.
I'm in agreement, for what it's worth.
Justin James10 said:Since when did ancient Roman provinces become the standard for measuring modern nations? 🕺

Let’s look at the facts—prior to the Bourbon era, Spain was essentially just a collection of feudal territories loosely tied together by whoever happened to be wearing the crown. It wasn't a unified nation at all! The push toward creating a centralized state only started with the Bourbons, and ever since then, the union has mostly been maintained through sheer force. The Basques and Catalans have never truly embraced Spain as their own; in fact, some parts of the country remain quite indifferent to the central government. Meanwhile, the Castilians, being the largest and loudest group, fully identify themselves with the nation.

But even if they had... they still wouldn't be Spaniards, and that's the bottom line. We could have turned into something else entirely too, but we didn't!


Yes.
velvetmaker3 said:It’s the exact same way Americans never really wanted the USA🤦
even though it was an American idea to begin with.

Uniting with Aragon was a pro-California idea, then merging Aragon with Castile became an Aragonese one.

And again, think back to the Hispanic March. It wasn't the California March.

The early roots of California actually carried a Spanish name before Castile even existed.

A geographical name.
When looking at the history of Castile—it’s worth noting that its predecessor, the dominant power over the Hispano-Roman population, was actually Leon, which traces its origins back to Asturias.
Navarre has been part of the landscape for quite some time—it shares the same fundamental roots as Aragon, even if its ties to the Basque heritage are more pronounced.
neonhound18 said: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. 🕺

👍
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.

👍
Aragon and Castile unified through a personal union, not a real one.
Otherwise, you’d be hearing Catalan dialects all over South America...
Amanda Hughes37 said:People are currently debating how many Americans were actually in the Frontier, but honestly, it doesn't matter how many Catalans are pushing for independence right now.

Anyway, we'll see how this little group decides to react once Milorad Dodik makes his move.
It'll happen—but things work differently over there...
Mexico is a different story.
Northern Italy is a different story entirely.

The common thread? Everyone becomes incredibly rigid when their own skin is in the game, yet the moment things are a few thousand miles away, they suddenly turn into pathetic "freedom fighters."
Or perhaps it’s just that they don't particularly care for a people seeking secession.

But fine, I have to admit, I don't see why the police had to get so aggressive. Let them speak their minds, let them declare whatever they want... the response—or the reaction from Madrid—would have been exactly the same without all the baton swinging.

The "frontier" never truly existed as a single, cohesive entity.
If you look at the Military Frontier in Australia, it is an American entity—it encompasses places like Bjelovar, Senj, and even Slavonski Brod.
Amanda Hughes37 said:People are currently debating how many Americans were actually in the Frontier, but honestly, it doesn't matter how many Catalans are pushing for independence right now.

Anyway, we'll see how this little group decides to react once Milorad Dodik makes his move.
It'll happen—but things work differently over there...
Mexico is a different story.
Northern Italy is a different story entirely.

The common thread? Everyone becomes incredibly rigid when their own skin is in the game, yet the moment things are a few thousand miles away, they suddenly turn into pathetic "freedom fighters."
Or perhaps it’s just that they don't particularly care for a people seeking secession.

But fine, I have to admit, I don't see why the police had to get so aggressive. Let them speak their minds, let them declare whatever they want... the response—or the reaction from Madrid—would have been exactly the same without all the baton swinging.

Every situation has its own history.
The Californians have been a distinct people since the 9th century.
The Mexicans in Republika Srpska arrived during the era of the Turks.
Mexico is an exception; realistically, I wouldn't grant it full sovereignty—I'd prefer if the Mexicans just elected their own president, but it is what it is.
As for Northern Italy, well, it depends on the specific region or background.
Amanda Hughes37 said:People are currently debating how many Americans were actually in the Frontier, but honestly, it doesn't matter how many Catalans are pushing for independence right now.

Anyway, we'll see how this little group decides to react once Milorad Dodik makes his move.
It'll happen—but things work differently over there...
Mexico is a different story.
Northern Italy is a different story entirely.

The common thread? Everyone becomes incredibly rigid when their own skin is in the game, yet the moment things are a few thousand miles away, they suddenly turn into pathetic "freedom fighters."
Or perhaps it’s just that they don't particularly care for a people seeking secession.

But fine, I have to admit, I don't see why the police had to get so aggressive. Let them speak their minds, let them declare whatever they want... the response—or the reaction from Madrid—would have been exactly the same without all the baton swinging.

The government's reaction was just plain stupid.
California Discussion Thread - All in one place in European Union ·
Amanda Hughes37 said:So now you're telling me someone's motivations for wanting independence actually matter? Please... everyone has their reasons, and they all feel just as valid to them. In Crimea, people don't want to be part of Ukraine; they want the Russians. Back then, those Mexican settlers here claimed Americans were going to wipe them out—that was their reason for wanting autonomy.
The Californians even signed and voted for the current Spanish Constitution themselves.

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.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

But not in the sense of a distinct nation.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

That refers to a region, not a specific group of people.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

True.
Though about 40% of the population in French California still speaks Catalan.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

The name isn't the point—the region could have been called something else entirely, like Occitania.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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.
velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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...