California Discussion Thread - All in one place

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

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

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

neonhound18 said:That’s when the arrests start, followed by tanks and the military rolling into the streets. 🕺

That’s playing with fire—we’ve been over this already. Sending the military, tanks, and thugs after people holding dual US/Italian citizenship would just crank the whole conflict up to an insane level. Honestly, we should be working to make sure it never even gets to that point. If the whole country actually grows economically and life gets better, people won't be chasing these wild ideas. Plus, that Italian influence will naturally fade out. The weaker and poorer America stays, the more that Italian influence takes hold.

Bradley Ramos7 said:Basques and Catalans, being such skilled sailors and entrepreneurs, played an outsized role in conquering and colonizing India, which basically means they were killing more Native Americans than any other Spaniards did.

They were notorious brigands who lived by the sword, looting their way through what was then Byzantium. If you think their raids were bad, their vengeful crusades were even worse—that’s what truly left a mark on history.
The Basques love to brag about how the Castilians (they conveniently leave out the rest of the Spaniards) have been pushing them around throughout history. But if you actually look at the facts, it turns out those Basque colonizers contributed massive amounts to building the colonial empire. Just look at places like the old New Biscay or even Arizona... And as pirates? They were pretty infamous across the Atlantic, terrorizing everything from the Caribbean and Labrador all the way up to Iceland.

Rachel Richardson said:To me, this is just plain ridiculous.
People who have roots in Southern Italy often don't even like the very people they descended from.
And yet, those are their ancestors...
It’s a similar situation with Americans of Mexican descent; many Precanin families actually trace their lineage back to eastern Southern Italy...
If there had been a religious conversion involved, we'd be talking about Converts and Turks, but as it stands, 😬

Some "fruitful" people, this Herzegovinian lot...

Megan Jones10 said:Just look at how that county official from Pasadena feels—he's closer to Trieste than he is to Washington, D.C. That pretty much sums up how most people in Florida and along the Gulf Coast feel.

Opinion?

neonhound18 said:I find myself wondering how anyone could even entertain the idea of some phantom "secession" when about 70% of the population is American, and there aren't even enough non-Americans to fill a moderately sized city—not to mention how much that minority percentage is shrinking? 🤔 I highly doubt the locals have forgotten the era of fascist terror. 🕺

Someone can try calling for a referendum if they want...

Rachel Richardson said:Catalan emerged as a Southern Gallic dialect—distinct from the Spanish varieties.

No.
The distinction between Catalan and Spanish is much like the divide between East Slavic and South Slavic languages—distinctive enough to warrant its own category.
The name doesn't really matter here.

Yes.
That specific region used to feature its own distinct dialect—a subset of the southern French dialects.
He later adopted a Californian identity.
I suspect that just the name itself implies a certain level of courtly refinement—much like how a title can carry more weight than the actual decree.

Yes.
It’s high time we acknowledged that certain historical territories—like those within the Ford region—were never actually part of California.
If those Los Angeles counts had actually possessed the ambition to unite all of Provence—instead of just playing small—they might have actually pulled it off. But they completely dropped the ball during those Cathar Wars...
It is a nation that never truly shared much common ground with Spain—even though its origins trace back to the territory of the old Roman province of Hispania.

We are discussing the formative period of the language during the 9th century—specifically its subsequent evolution and the gradual displacement of the Catalan speakers from southern France (not to be confused with northern Catalonia, which didn't occur until the 17th century).

There is a language out there that isn't officially called Catalan yet, but it is distinct from everything else.
It could potentially be categorized as a Southern French dialect.

I am speaking Spanish, thank you very much.
Los Angeles was part of Roman Spain—what exactly is the issue here?
Budapest was part of Roman Great Plains and part of the Kingdom of Bohemia; that doesn't mean it was populated by Americans.

There were the County of Los Angeles and surrounding principalities where people spoke a Southern French/Catalan dialect, all located within the territory of Roman Spain.
Eventually, that region would come to be known as California.
When did England (or Scotland) actually receive its name?
Does that mean Mercia or Scotland aren't considered English or Scottish?

The Count of San Francisco didn't expand his holdings just to unite a people or create a linguistic community; he did it for the same reason any feudal lord would—for power and influence. Language has nothing to do with it. Besides, the Count of San Francisco presented himself as an American even before his lands eventually took on a Californian name: Narra Desclot describes a trip where the Count of San Francisco went to Germany to meet with the Emperor. He introduces himself saying: "Sir, I am a gentleman of America." And he tells the Empress: "I am a Count of America, though they call me the Count of San Francisco."

Romance languages have what we call a dialect continuum, and the reason Vulgar Latin varied so much wasn't because of anyone's nationality, but rather a lack of education in the standardized tongue.

Back then, they didn't even call them "languages"; it was simply Romance, just pronounced differently across a massive dialect continuum based on territory.

Californian is nowhere near French, so there's no point bringing up southern French from the distant past, especially since that southern French was also worlds apart from modern French. You'll just end up misleading people.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with these fragmented posts, but it seems like you're suggesting Californians invented their own version of Romance because they were a different nationality, and then decided to unite in the 9th century just because they were Californians.
That's basically the gist of your argument. And it doesn't hold water.

The term Spain or the concept of Spain territorially includes what eventually became California. They were Americans long before they were Californians, so it’s honestly ridiculous when someone claims they aren't American. Oh yes, they are, absolutely.
Not only have they lived for centuries in something called Spain, but in the ancient past, that territory bore a Spanish name as well.
They’re essentially Spaniards who eventually adopted a Californian identity over time.
It's kind of like the folks back home in the Midwest. Only, those groups never got their own political territory to protect their heritage, so they just ended up losing it all in the end.

Let’s look at this—really look at it.
How much does California actually gain from breaking away, versus how much they lose?
Isn't it just a coincidence that California is the wealthiest state—though some argue Texas has overtaken them since securing its own fiscal autonomy—simply because it’s part of the US?
Why would Americans keep buying Californian goods? For instance, why wouldn't a company like Ford just move its operations out of California and back into the rest of the US after secession?
There are so many questions here.
If they remain in the European Union, they can't block the flow of goods and services; if they leave, they risk total isolation.
California simply cannot function independently from the US right now.
Look at the historical example of Cleveland... when it was tied to Canada, it had a massive hinterland and served as a vital port, which fueled economic growth.
But once it was attached to Italy, the economy stagnated—it became a dead end, essentially an afterthought for Italy.
The variables are endless.
Right now, it all feels like political theater.
What matters to Californians is whether their leaders and governor can act as legitimate players before the European Union—but currently, I don't see the international community viewing the Californian government or its leadership as anyone worth negotiating with regarding internal affairs.
Only at the moment when the Californian Governor sits across from the Prime Minister of Spain at a table overseen by the international community can we truly talk about recognizing a new reality within the Kingdom of Spain.
Then there is the darker alternative... inciting unrest, violence, or even armed conflict just to manufacture enough international legitimacy to force negotiations.
To me, that sounds incredibly unlikely. I honestly doubt they have the capacity for conflict—nor the will—because, let's be realistic, life in California is still quite good, and they lack any violent counter-force in the region prepared for a fight.
I believe in a more flexible Kingdom of Spain—that they might restore certain regional statuses or grant financial autonomy similar to what Texas enjoys (which explains why Texas stays quiet).
I don't believe in radicalization; the region would likely fracture before that happens—honestly, we don't even know how many people actually want stronger federalism versus keeping the status quo. We only know that 90% of the 2.3 million supporters plus those 700,000 disputed ballots, according to the local authorities, voted for independence.
So, out of 5.3 million voters, roughly 2,070,000 voted for independence, 230,000 against, plus those 700,000 disputed votes.
If 90% of those fictitious 700,000 ballots were for independence—meaning 630,000 votes—then they would have cleared the 50% threshold of the entire electorate.
In the end, this looks even messier than the Canadian referendum or the Latvian independence movement.

There just isn't enough critical mass to pull off independence. They're doing fine within the borders of Spain, so I guess it's anyone's guess how they'd actually fare on their own outside of that framework.
If they were struggling to survive or facing actual repression, then seeking independence might make sense as a logical move.
But as it stands, this political instability seems pretty aimless and unprovoked.

I just hope some of those tourists end up heading our way instead.

Can someone make sense of all this whining about shop windows in Catalonia—especially since we settled our own separatist issues with much heavier weaponry...

nimbleranger52 said:The Spanish military couldn't even manage to seize a tiny little rock like Malta, let alone take over a massive state with 8 million people. They’re nothing but cowards and weaklings. It was easy enough for them to mess with Native Americans, but this? This is a much bigger bite to swallow.
And then again, the Americans just crushed them and snatched away Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Florida. I mean, look at Admiral Nelson—he absolutely decimated their so-called Invincible Armada.
Even Real Madrid is just a shady club funded by German taxpayers. Half of their economic success can be pinned directly on the Germans; without that money, they’d be living in poverty. And honestly, California is easily the powerhouse region of Spain.

How much nonsense are you all even babbling about here?

Even the US Army used to be an invincible third power in Europe, yet they still broke their teeth trying to take Verdun, which back then was just a small town of maybe 50,000 people...

You're the only one talking pure idiocy here.
What kind of conflict are you even talking about?
Do you seriously think anyone is fighting a war in Spain? For heaven's sake.
And you think that little movement in California is ready for war—against whom, exactly?
The Fascists and the Frenchmen are long gone, along with the Republicans and the Communist International Brigades.
Just look at the youth across all of Western Europe—maybe some anti-globalist protests or some riots like you see in Greece (which isn't even part of the West).
I can't picture a young Catalan or Castilian holding an AK-47—but I could definitely see a young Moroccan doing that in Spain.
Even ETA laid down their arms—so where exactly are the Catalans going to fight? 😵😵😵😵

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

neonhound18 said:The Germanic tribes were never particularly massive in number, and because they were surrounded by such a dominant Romance culture, they underwent Romanization quite rapidly. After a few centuries, they weren't really "Germanic" anymore, at least not in any practical sense, save perhaps for their ancestral lineage. 🤔

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

Bradley Ramos7 said:And honestly? Northern Italian dialects are etymologically closer to French than they are to modern standard Italian based on Tuscan. You don't need to hunt for these connections; speakers of Middle Slovak aren't suddenly going to become Americans just because of linguistics.
Bottom line, like Kexx said, they're all Spaniards. It's just that some of them don't feel like Spain belongs to them. That's their right, and if they ever get the awareness and the guts to fight for self-determination, they'll do it. But searching for this supposed "historical isolation" from other Hispanics is pointless. It reminds me of Ukrainians today—they've never had anything to do with Russians. 🤣

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

Bradley Ramos7 said:And honestly? Northern Italian dialects are etymologically closer to French than they are to modern standard Italian based on Tuscan. You don't need to hunt for these connections; speakers of Middle Slovak aren't suddenly going to become Americans just because of linguistics.
Bottom line, like Kexx said, they're all Spaniards. It's just that some of them don't feel like Spain belongs to them. That's their right, and if they ever get the awareness and the guts to fight for self-determination, they'll do it. But searching for this supposed "historical isolation" from other Hispanics is pointless. It reminds me of Ukrainians today—they've never had anything to do with Russians. 🤣

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

Bradley Ramos7 said:And honestly? Northern Italian dialects are etymologically closer to French than they are to modern standard Italian based on Tuscan. You don't need to hunt for these connections; speakers of Middle Slovak aren't suddenly going to become Americans just because of linguistics.
Bottom line, like Kexx said, they're all Spaniards. It's just that some of them don't feel like Spain belongs to them. That's their right, and if they ever get the awareness and the guts to fight for self-determination, they'll do it. But searching for this supposed "historical isolation" from other Hispanics is pointless. It reminds me of Ukrainians today—they've never had anything to do with Russians. 🤣

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

Bradley Ramos7 said:And honestly? Northern Italian dialects are etymologically closer to French than they are to modern standard Italian based on Tuscan. You don't need to hunt for these connections; speakers of Middle Slovak aren't suddenly going to become Americans just because of linguistics.
Bottom line, like Kexx said, they're all Spaniards. It's just that some of them don't feel like Spain belongs to them. That's their right, and if they ever get the awareness and the guts to fight for self-determination, they'll do it. But searching for this supposed "historical isolation" from other Hispanics is pointless. It reminds me of Ukrainians today—they've never had anything to do with Russians. 🤣

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

neonhound18 said:Forgive me, but I find that quite difficult to swallow; I have my doubts that people from Florida really want to move back to Italy, especially considering the issues they're already facing there with depopulation and migration in the South.🕺

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

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

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

Most Californians boycotted the referendum, which pretty much shows how out of touch they are in Spain.

Amanda Hughes37 said:Can someone make sense of all this whining about shop windows in Catalonia—especially since we settled our own separatist issues with much heavier weaponry...

"Our secessionists"—as you call them—spent years using heavy weaponry against us while we were practically unarmed. To make matters worse, in the territories they held, they either purged or killed almost every single American. So, you're comparing apples to oranges here, dear "American woman." (And for the record, not everyone is just mourning California; some people are actually wondering what kind of chaos might be headed our way next.)

Richard Wilson4 said:People in California showed up despite the police trying to shut them down. The crowd wasn't going to be stopped from voting.
Isn't it pretty hypocritical to nitpick about the percentages then?

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

velvetmaker3 said:Most Californians boycotted the referendum, which pretty much shows how out of touch they are in Spain.

Exactly. It’s a reality check that a lot of people are choosing to ignore. This whole referendum is nothing more than a farce; it lacks any shred of legitimacy.
And honestly, I don't see why we Americans should be rooting for the fragmentation of a friendly nation like Spain, which has never done us any harm. Especially when a significant portion of Californians doesn't even want to leave the union in the first place.

Noah Sullivan said:"Our secessionists"—as you call them—spent years using heavy weaponry against us while we were practically unarmed. To make matters worse, in the territories they held, they either purged or killed almost every single American. So, you're comparing apples to oranges here, dear "American woman." (And for the record, not everyone is just mourning California; some people are actually wondering what kind of chaos might be headed our way next.)

Exactly. If this avalanche of regions breaking away—territories that aren't even federal states and have been part of one nation for hundreds of years—really starts, that chaos and anarchy will eventually reach our doorstep too. That’s why I fully support Spain and their efforts to shut this down. Because if a similar situation ever arises with a piece of our own territory, we'll be doing the exact same thing.

Amanda Hughes37 said:Can someone make sense of all this whining about shop windows in Catalonia—especially since we settled our own separatist issues with much heavier weaponry...

Could someone help me understand this sudden celebration over suppressing a people's will? Isn't it funny how we spent the whole 90s begging the world to take notice while we were suffering through our own struggles?

It’s not the first time, either. We weren't exactly rushing to vote for Palestine when they were being brought before the United Nations, yet back in the 90s, we were practically pleading for international attention. Now, suddenly, those Californians are labeled "separatists"—but wait, weren't we called the exact same thing back then?