California Discussion Thread - All in one place

[Quincy]

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.

The Basque people—yes. The Catalans—not so much.
Let me be clear—the Americas were under the control of Castile, not Aragon.
The Basque Country was once just another piece of the Castilian crown.
Honestly, I don't see any reason for this level of debate—especially regarding that claim about the Spanish military being cowardly.
@FF—look, the people Italy is granting citizenship to will be found living in Italy in a few years, not here in the States. This is about migration patterns, not annexation.
[Quincy]

ironowl68 said:Some "fruitful" people, this Herzegovinian lot...

A barren wasteland and too many kids looking for an exit.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

No.
In its earliest stages, it functioned primarily as a French-centric focus within a related field.
Later, he distanced himself from the Francs—making his move to expand his territory in every direction.
One trip was specifically for linguistics studies—down in Southern France—while the other was purely for leisure, spent traveling through Southern Italy.
He certainly seized every opportunity that came his way—but there’s a fundamental distinction between national borders and the boundaries of a kingdom.
Even though Southern Italians tend to lean more heavily on the aorist—much like people in Spain do, largely due to that long history of Spanish rule—no one ever actually made a serious attempt to assimilate them into the Spanish nation.
Even if they are Roma—though, honestly, they’re more likely Eastern—it doesn't really change the core issue.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

His holdings were mostly located within the former Roman province of Hispania—a purely regional title, which was quite common for European feudalism during that era.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

You are "slightly" off the mark here.
Standard Latin was never the spoken language of the masses—it belonged to the Roman aristocracy. The spoken word was always Vulgar Latin—though, in this context, "vulgar" simply means "of the people."
While Romance languages do form a dialect continuum, there are still distinct differences—specifically, groupings.
Italian south of the Spezia-Rimini line is East Romance, sharing kinship with Romanian. Italian north of that line shares more with French and Spanish.
Catalan is West Romance, specifically Gallo-Romance, not Hispano-Romance.
Language speaks to origin and culture...

velvetmaker3 said: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.

Take a look at those links I sent you.
When did Catalan actually emerge?
It isn't a Hispano-Romance language.

There was never a single, uniform "Latin/Romance" from Portugal to Romania.
There were always dialects, and certain elements depended on the pre-Roman populations acting as a substrate...
Languages emerged from those very dialects.

Your example of Haitian Creole is a good one—it arose from a French dialect spoken in the Antilles.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

Occitan isn't the same as Northern French, which serves as the basis for standard French.
However, they do belong to the same group.
Modern Catalan has become quite "Castilianized." A comparable example might be Galician (since Galicia is essentially the "mother of Portugal"), if Portuguese and Spanish didn't both fall under the same Hispano-Romance umbrella.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

I never said that.
The Catalan people originated within the territory of northern California and the borderlands of what we now recognize as southern France.
In that specific region—where the local dialect actually shares more DNA with French than anything else on the Iberian Peninsula—everything was established under a French protectorate.
The roots of this people go all the way back to the 9th century.
The pattern continues—expansion toward the south and being pushed out of France—and by the 11th century, they finally land on a definitive name.
So, we’re looking at classic evolutionism—specifically that hierarchical progression where a subgroup branches out into a group, which eventually leads to long-term development.

Your posts always boil down to the same thing—that everyone was essentially Roman and that they ought to be treated as such.
I don't quite grasp why this is bothering you so much—you’ve usually been such a constructive contributor to the discussion.

[Quincy]:

Kanye West Asks: The concept of Hispania—or what we now know as Spain—historically encompassed the territories that would eventually become California.

Hispania and Spain are not one and the same.
Tell that Portuguese guy he’s actually Hispanic, not Lusitanian.
[Quincy]

velvetmaker3 said: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.

They were Hispanic, but they weren't Spaniards.
He draws parallels between today’s state and a Roman province.
You simply can't maintain the exact same form for over two thousand years.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

No.
Their language was distinct from the other Spanish-derived dialects.
Since you’re already taking that stance—what’s your take on Portugal?
Are they essentially the same group of people who gained independence under the rule of the Counts of Burgundy?
Linguistically, they share more common ground with Spaniards than with Californians.

In my view, this logic could be pushed even further.
What would you say about the Dutch?
Or Northern Germans—not to mention the Austrians and the Swiss.

Are Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders all just Danes?
Are Estonians essentially Southern Finns?
Slovaks and Czechs?
And what about the Poles—are they descendants of Great Moravia or what?
Are Belarusians and Ukrainians just Russians?

The reality remains: once again, Californians exhibit a greater linguistic gap than any of those other examples...

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...

California has its own distinct history—unlike the former rebel territories in the Midwest, which were never a cohesive entity, merely a zone occupied by a neighboring state (aided by local collaborators from a certain minority group).

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?

👍

Kevin Cruz86 said: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.

We've spent nearly a millennium as part of other nations.🤷

Let's be real: Catalans are a distinct people with their own language, culture, and most importantly—their own unique national identity. Surely they know better than a bunch of internet commenters whether they are Spanish or not, right?

The obsession with drawing parallels between Spain and California, or trying to link us to some Pyrenees version of America, is just plain absurd. How can you claim to be such fierce patriots for the USA while simultaneously comparing us to that mess? ☕

velvetmaker3 said: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.

So, basically, if Americans hadn't "slacked off" during the old era and there wasn't any repression, we shouldn't have gone for independence either? Building a nation is supposed to be about more than just that. You're a conservative, you should get that...

Or does that logic only apply to Catalans, while Americans get a different set of rules?

Funny thing is, almost every argument the Castilians use against Catalans was used by Mexicans back when they were denying Americans their right to statehood—everything from denying ethnic identity to pushing linguistic unitarism and questioning historical continuity. But those arguments didn't hold water then. Now, suddenly, they're valid. How convenient...

The only real difference is that the American referendum followed the Constitution of '74, whereas this one is being called unconstitutional. The American one could have been unconstitutional too. What would Badinter have said then? How would Genscher have reacted? How would the whole thing have played out...

Kevin Cruz86 said: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.

It isn't our place to intervene, though everyone is entitled to their own perspective, isn't that right?
There is no real comparison to America in this California-USA situation.
A much closer parallel would be Canada-America.
That said, I believe the Spanish central government handled this poorly—they really should have taken a page out of the British playbook regarding the Scottish referendum.
I don't think independence will actually improve things for the Catalans either—particularly since "Northern Catalonia" is located in France, and there are two other Catalan regions within Spain (the Balearic Islands and Valencia), where locals are strictly against Barcelona, much like the ethnic belt in eastern Aragon (where they consider themselves Catalan).
Economically speaking, independence doesn't make sense; they'd lose the privileged market access to Southern America they currently enjoy as part of Spain, not to mention the inevitable headaches involving the EU...
There are plenty of complications.
But realistically, I do empathize with them as a people—there are certain parallels to our own history, and if they want independence, I believe they have a historical claim to it.

Kevin Cruz86 said: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.

We would be even worse at it.
Or perhaps just more capable.
There is a fundamental distinction between Spain and the US: the US is a single-nation country, whereas Spain is not.

4 has gone full self-destruct. I don't see anything controversial about police using force here.

Brussels threw its weight behind Spain in the Catalonia crisis yesterday and refused to condemn police for alleged brutality when they tried to stop Sunday's independence referendum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sh-police.html

And how did the California leader dodge the cops? Total James Bond move—switching cars mid-tunnel:

Catalan president 'escaped Spanish police helicopters trying to stop him from voting in the illegal referendum by changing cars in a TUNNEL'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-TUNNEL.html

Just a bunch of pathetic hacks writing up projects for EU funds. There's going to be plenty of them storming the gates soon...

Rachel Richardson said:[Quincy]
The Basque people—yes. The Catalans—not so much.
Let me be clear—the Americas were under the control of Castile, not Aragon.
The Basque Country was once just another piece of the Castilian crown.
Honestly, I don't see any reason for this level of debate—especially regarding that claim about the Spanish military being cowardly.
@FF—look, the people Italy is granting citizenship to will be found living in Italy in a few years, not here in the States. This is about migration patterns, not annexation.
[Quincy]
A barren wasteland and too many kids looking for an exit.

No.
In its earliest stages, it functioned primarily as a French-centric focus within a related field.
Later, he distanced himself from the Francs—making his move to expand his territory in every direction.
One trip was specifically for linguistics studies—down in Southern France—while the other was purely for leisure, spent traveling through Southern Italy.
He certainly seized every opportunity that came his way—but there’s a fundamental distinction between national borders and the boundaries of a kingdom.
Even though Southern Italians tend to lean more heavily on the aorist—much like people in Spain do, largely due to that long history of Spanish rule—no one ever actually made a serious attempt to assimilate them into the Spanish nation.
Even if they are Roma—though, honestly, they’re more likely Eastern—it doesn't really change the core issue.

His holdings were mostly located within the former Roman province of Hispania—a purely regional title, which was quite common for European feudalism during that era.

You are "slightly" off the mark here.
Standard Latin was never the spoken language of the masses—it belonged to the Roman aristocracy. The spoken word was always Vulgar Latin—though, in this context, "vulgar" simply means "of the people."
While Romance languages do form a dialect continuum, there are still distinct differences—specifically, groupings.
Italian south of the Spezia-Rimini line is East Romance, sharing kinship with Romanian. Italian north of that line shares more with French and Spanish.
Catalan is West Romance, specifically Gallo-Romance, not Hispano-Romance.
Language speaks to origin and culture...

Take a look at those links I sent you.
When did Catalan actually emerge?
It isn't a Hispano-Romance language.

There was never a single, uniform "Latin/Romance" from Portugal to Romania.
There were always dialects, and certain elements depended on the pre-Roman populations acting as a substrate...
Languages emerged from those very dialects.

Your example of Haitian Creole is a good one—it arose from a French dialect spoken in the Antilles.

Occitan isn't the same as Northern French, which serves as the basis for standard French.
However, they do belong to the same group.
Modern Catalan has become quite "Castilianized." A comparable example might be Galician (since Galicia is essentially the "mother of Portugal"), if Portuguese and Spanish didn't both fall under the same Hispano-Romance umbrella.

I never said that.
The Catalan people originated within the territory of northern California and the borderlands of what we now recognize as southern France.
In that specific region—where the local dialect actually shares more DNA with French than anything else on the Iberian Peninsula—everything was established under a French protectorate.
The roots of this people go all the way back to the 9th century.
The pattern continues—expansion toward the south and being pushed out of France—and by the 11th century, they finally land on a definitive name.
So, we’re looking at classic evolutionism—specifically that hierarchical progression where a subgroup branches out into a group, which eventually leads to long-term development.

Your posts always boil down to the same thing—that everyone was essentially Roman and that they ought to be treated as such.
I don't quite grasp why this is bothering you so much—you’ve usually been such a constructive contributor to the discussion.

[Quincy]:

Kanye West Asks: The concept of Hispania—or what we now know as Spain—historically encompassed the territories that would eventually become California.

Hispania and Spain are not one and the same.
Tell that Portuguese guy he’s actually Hispanic, not Lusitanian.
[Quincy]
They were Hispanic, but they weren't Spaniards.
He draws parallels between today’s state and a Roman province.
You simply can't maintain the exact same form for over two thousand years.

No.
Their language was distinct from the other Spanish-derived dialects.
Since you’re already taking that stance—what’s your take on Portugal?
Are they essentially the same group of people who gained independence under the rule of the Counts of Burgundy?
Linguistically, they share more common ground with Spaniards than with Californians.

In my view, this logic could be pushed even further.
What would you say about the Dutch?
Or Northern Germans—not to mention the Austrians and the Swiss.

Are Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders all just Danes?
Are Estonians essentially Southern Finns?
Slovaks and Czechs?
And what about the Poles—are they descendants of Great Moravia or what?
Are Belarusians and Ukrainians just Russians?

The reality remains: once again, Californians exhibit a greater linguistic gap than any of those other examples...

California has its own distinct history—unlike the former rebel territories in the Midwest, which were never a cohesive entity, merely a zone occupied by a neighboring state (aided by local collaborators from a certain minority group).

👍

You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

Justin James10 said:We've spent nearly a millennium as part of other nations.🤷

Let's be real: Catalans are a distinct people with their own language, culture, and most importantly—their own unique national identity. Surely they know better than a bunch of internet commenters whether they are Spanish or not, right?

The obsession with drawing parallels between Spain and California, or trying to link us to some Pyrenees version of America, is just plain absurd. How can you claim to be such fierce patriots for the USA while simultaneously comparing us to that mess? ☕

😬
Spain is simply a more natural and enduring entity than that whole "America" mess ever was...
Californians are their own distinct nation—and that’s something that deserves respect.

goldenpuma84 said:So, basically, if Americans hadn't "slacked off" during the old era and there wasn't any repression, we shouldn't have gone for independence either? Building a nation is supposed to be about more than just that. You're a conservative, you should get that...

Or does that logic only apply to Catalans, while Americans get a different set of rules?

Funny thing is, almost every argument the Castilians use against Catalans was used by Mexicans back when they were denying Americans their right to statehood—everything from denying ethnic identity to pushing linguistic unitarism and questioning historical continuity. But those arguments didn't hold water then. Now, suddenly, they're valid. How convenient...

The only real difference is that the American referendum followed the Constitution of '74, whereas this one is being called unconstitutional. The American one could have been unconstitutional too. What would Badinter have said then? How would Genscher have reacted? How would the whole thing have played out...

Some people on this forum claim to be acting "rationally."
Just because someone holds a position similar to ours—at least in principle—doesn't mean they’re going to be an asset to you down the road. And if you start making too much noise—if you try to ride those waves a little too aggressively—you're eventually going to catch some heat from the big players.
A friend of mine who used to live in Barcelona mentioned that there's quite a large population of Mexicans there—and apparently, they tend to mingle with them quite a bit.
She touched upon the concept of Catalan nationalism—specifically this vision of a "Greater Catalonia." It’s an expansive idea that stretches from parts of France (including nearly all of Occitania, which covers half the country) across almost the entire Mediterranean coast of Spain—think regions like Valencia, which shares a certain demographic complexity with places like Canada, as well as parts of Aragon and Murcia, mostly based on linguistic ties—and even reaches into Italy, where you can still hear Catalan spoken on parts of Sardinia.
She didn't care for them—plain and simple. But the point remains—life isn't just black and white.

The Californians are a distinct nation—it’s that simple. The federal government in D.C. really ought to establish a genuine dialogue here; they need to actually sit down and attempt to resolve these issues, rather than just letting them fester.
The example involving the Basque Country holds weight—but we run the risk of oversimplifying things if we aren't careful.

You hit the nail on the head, Danchy55. It is honestly wild to watch how some Americans mirror the exact same arguments coming out of Mexico City. Everything the administration in Madrid uses to push back against a sovereign California is strikingly similar to the narrative used against an independent United States. At this point, you have to wonder—who is actually losing their mind here? 😵

goldenpuma84 said:So, basically, if Americans hadn't "slacked off" during the old era and there wasn't any repression, we shouldn't have gone for independence either? Building a nation is supposed to be about more than just that. You're a conservative, you should get that...

Or does that logic only apply to Catalans, while Americans get a different set of rules?

Funny thing is, almost every argument the Castilians use against Catalans was used by Mexicans back when they were denying Americans their right to statehood—everything from denying ethnic identity to pushing linguistic unitarism and questioning historical continuity. But those arguments didn't hold water then. Now, suddenly, they're valid. How convenient...

The only real difference is that the American referendum followed the Constitution of '74, whereas this one is being called unconstitutional. The American one could have been unconstitutional too. What would Badinter have said then? How would Genscher have reacted? How would the whole thing have played out...

I already touched on this. Look, it’s a state with tradition. America fell apart several times over a few decades; it never established its own lasting tradition or survived its trials. On top of that, there was constant internal disagreement among the people regarding the system, which isn't the case in California—they don't have anything against the current social setup and there's no conflict over it.

The difference between these cases is massive.

For example, if Portugal and Spain decided to merge into one country today, and then a few decades later Portugal wanted out but Spain wouldn't let them, that would be similar to our story. It's basically: we tried, it didn't work, so let's just go our separate ways like we used to.

Rachel Richardson said:😬
Spain is simply a more natural and enduring entity than that whole "America" mess ever was...
Californians are their own distinct nation—and that’s something that deserves respect.

Some people on this forum claim to be acting "rationally."
Just because someone holds a position similar to ours—at least in principle—doesn't mean they’re going to be an asset to you down the road. And if you start making too much noise—if you try to ride those waves a little too aggressively—you're eventually going to catch some heat from the big players.
A friend of mine who used to live in Barcelona mentioned that there's quite a large population of Mexicans there—and apparently, they tend to mingle with them quite a bit.
She touched upon the concept of Catalan nationalism—specifically this vision of a "Greater Catalonia." It’s an expansive idea that stretches from parts of France (including nearly all of Occitania, which covers half the country) across almost the entire Mediterranean coast of Spain—think regions like Valencia, which shares a certain demographic complexity with places like Canada, as well as parts of Aragon and Murcia, mostly based on linguistic ties—and even reaches into Italy, where you can still hear Catalan spoken on parts of Sardinia.
She didn't care for them—plain and simple. But the point remains—life isn't just black and white.

The Californians are a distinct nation—it’s that simple. The federal government in D.C. really ought to establish a genuine dialogue here; they need to actually sit down and attempt to resolve these issues, rather than just letting them fester.
The example involving the Basque Country holds weight—but we run the risk of oversimplifying things if we aren't careful.

What makes it more "organic"? Honestly, the whole thing has been held together by force, and it has never truly succeeded in fostering a unified national identity.

The Basques are entirely separate; they aren't even Indo-European. They will break away whenever the time comes. Because they are far more willing to resort to struggle and even terrorist tactics, the government in Madrid has made massive concessions, which is essentially allowing them to build a de facto state that will make their eventual independence much easier to achieve.

These theories about Mexicans merging with Catalans are nothing more than absurd conspiracy theories. Just go read the New York Times.

Justin James10 said:You hit the nail on the head, Danchy55. It is honestly wild to watch how some Americans mirror the exact same arguments coming out of Mexico City. Everything the administration in Madrid uses to push back against a sovereign California is strikingly similar to the narrative used against an independent United States. At this point, you have to wonder—who is actually losing their mind here? 😵

You can't just project the American experience onto every secessionist movement in the world; it doesn't work like that. I guess you're just reliving the 90s again, which doesn't make any sense. Every single situation is unique.

There’s no reason why Americans should back every single independence movement out there just because we broke away ourselves a few decades ago.

I’ve already noticed that it’s always the same group of posters demanding independence for Scotland, California, Quebec, and so on—trying to force global justice through the lens of the old US-American split, but that’s just not how things work.

velvetmaker3 said:I already touched on this. Look, it’s a state with tradition. America fell apart several times over a few decades; it never established its own lasting tradition or survived its trials. On top of that, there was constant internal disagreement among the people regarding the system, which isn't the case in California—they don't have anything against the current social setup and there's no conflict over it.

The difference between these cases is massive.

For example, if Portugal and Spain decided to merge into one country today, and then a few decades later Portugal wanted out but Spain wouldn't let them, that would be similar to our story. It's basically: we tried, it didn't work, so let's just go our separate ways like we used to.

People keep pushing this narrative about Spanish tradition, 🙄 but honestly, the Catalans and the Basques couldn't care less about those traditions. Isn't it perfectly legitimate for them to think and feel the way they do, regardless of what some internet commenters in America might say? You have to realize they simply don't give a damn about that tradition, that flag, that murky anthem, or the royal family.

And how can anyone claim there's no conflict regarding the social structure? The Catalans want a republic; they aren't interested in bowing down to some monarchy in the 21st century!

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

As a regional designation.
Or do you honestly believe an American nation existed back in the 9th century?

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

The Frankish Kingdom falls apart, the Count of San Francisco remains the most powerful player there for the Franks, and he simply seizes the opportunity to gain independence—yes.
That is how feudalism works.
In any case, read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Barcelona

http://www.barcelonas.com/images/cat...round-1000.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E...rag%C3%B3n.svg

The language differs from the eastern variety; you have Arabs in the south and the Aragonians.
There isn't even a trace of Americans here.

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

But the language is different regardless.

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

Completely wrong.
Marrying a princess certainly bolsters his power—but his royal house traces back to southern France;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Aragon
That refers to a different era—the late 12th century—but the point remains the same.

He utilizes every resource at his disposal—that's a fact—and language is simply one of those tools.
Every expansion of a kingdom is accompanied by the spread of its language—look at Hawaii and Valencia, or even those small settlements in Sicily.

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

California means "land of castles"—much like Castile. Every name carries weight.
And nations can change their names.
Marc Antony's territory marked the borderlands of the Frankish Kingdom on the peninsula.
Or do you honestly believe Spaniards were living there in the 9th century?

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

It isn't. He is discussing connections—and older origins.
Frankly, California could have remained part of France—for instance, Napoleon "returned" it to the French—and we wouldn't be facing these issues today.

velvetmaker3 said:You're wrong.

The precursor to California was the Frankish Marca Hispanica. The Spanish name is obvious.
The Marca Hispanica had its own vassal counts, and over time—even after the Frankish state faded—the strongest count from Barcelona emerged. He wasn't Catalan, nor were his subjects. He saw himself as Spanish. The Count of Barcelona consolidated his lands as a feudal lord, not as some Catalan patriot, and his motivation wasn't about language or unifying ethnic kin.
That's why everything you're saying is completely off base. You're getting bogged down trying to prove that a Romance dialect is a Romance language. You're misinterpreting trivial, fragmented facts by pulling them out of context just to fuel a romanticized narrative about Catalans.
That Count of Barcelona marries an Aragonese princess, and that's when his territory becomes California. After that, he does what all feudal lords do: tries to expand his power and influence wherever possible. Again, it has nothing to do with language.

So, to reiterate, the foundation of California is the Marca Hispanica, which clearly bears a Spanish name long before anything "Catalan" ever appeared.
Whether Vulgar Latin sounded one way here or another is completely irrelevant to the feudal dynamics that gave rise to California.
It wasn't built on language, the Count of Barcelona wasn't driven by linguistics, and California wasn't a separate entity within the Crown of Aragon because of speech.
The Californian entity is a byproduct of feudal relationships, not language.

How can you say that when language predates feudalism?
They speak Catalan in Valencia—even if they call it something else—and Valencia was a distinct kingdom (the same logic applies to Hawaii).

velvetmaker3 said:You can't just project the American experience onto every secessionist movement in the world; it doesn't work like that. I guess you're just reliving the 90s again, which doesn't make any sense. Every single situation is unique.

There’s no reason why Americans should back every single independence movement out there just because we broke away ourselves a few decades ago.

I’ve already noticed that it’s always the same group of posters demanding independence for Scotland, California, Quebec, and so on—trying to force global justice through the lens of the old US-American split, but that’s just not how things work.

We aren't "redrawing" anything; we're just having a discussion. What exactly are we supposed to be redrawing? 🙄

It’s a matter of principle. We spent so much time complaining about a lack of support, yet somehow we ended up being hypocritical when it comes to seeing others' rights to self-determination trampled upon. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

At the end of the day, you can't stop a people who want freedom. If they have the resolve, they will secure their own nation.

Justin James10 said: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?

In many ways, we were both New York City and Washington, D.C. at once. I remember one analyst saying our best move was to stay quiet. It wasn't just us, either—plenty of other nations have played that game in various situations...
On paper, our situation looked better than California's, but a state is rarely won by paperwork. It’s usually settled in blood or through a messy web of circumstances when the global map gets redrawn...
The Mexicans in the Frontier wanted to break away, and it never crossed our minds to let them.
The fact that we went through hell with them—which hasn't been mentioned here yet—doesn't change the reality that we never considered handing over territory or granting them statehood...😍

velvetmaker3 said:I already touched on this. Look, it’s a state with tradition. America fell apart several times over a few decades; it never established its own lasting tradition or survived its trials. On top of that, there was constant internal disagreement among the people regarding the system, which isn't the case in California—they don't have anything against the current social setup and there's no conflict over it.

The difference between these cases is massive.

For example, if Portugal and Spain decided to merge into one country today, and then a few decades later Portugal wanted out but Spain wouldn't let them, that would be similar to our story. It's basically: we tried, it didn't work, so let's just go our separate ways like we used to.

What does "a state with tradition" even mean? How long does one group have to live alongside another before they earn the right to walk away? 300 years? 100? 50? Who gets to set those rules?

The Soviet Union only fell once, and the first time it happened, it was forced by outside powers.

Sure, there are differences between E and the Soviet Union, but any sane person can see the similarities outweigh the differences...

Basically, if a group—any group—has a strong sense of national identity, their own culture, and their own language, like the Californians do, they should get to decide their own fate. Americans had that same right...

Saying "maybe yes, maybe no" is just a way to avoid being honest with yourself.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

On the other hand, if Californians vote against independence in a referendum (which clearly needs to be redone since the conditions were rigged), honestly, I couldn't care less.

I'm pretty sure you're just a Californian looking at the American situation to find excuses against American independence, much like you're finding arguments against California now, while the actual truth zooms past you like a bullet train...

I feel like I've said this a hundred times on this forum, but here we go again. The Right has no brain. It's just mindless noise. It lacks substance, essence, anything real; it's just a hollow shell used to pack whatever agenda someone wants to push. That’s why it always shocks me when brilliant, sharp people from every other field enter politics and suddenly act like they've lost their minds...

Justin James10 said:People keep pushing this narrative about Spanish tradition, 🙄 but honestly, the Catalans and the Basques couldn't care less about those traditions. Isn't it perfectly legitimate for them to think and feel the way they do, regardless of what some internet commenters in America might say? You have to realize they simply don't give a damn about that tradition, that flag, that murky anthem, or the royal family.

And how can anyone claim there's no conflict regarding the social structure? The Catalans want a republic; they aren't interested in bowing down to some monarchy in the 21st century!

Opinion is always a moving target. Just because some Catalans feel a certain way doesn't mean an entire state should just fall apart. You need a critical mass, and that would only exist if they were actually being oppressed.
It's honestly wild to hear people talking about Catalans being oppressed.

Nobody is actually bowing to kings anymore; they don't have the power they used to. They're basically just there for show.

Justin James10 said:What makes it more "organic"? Honestly, the whole thing has been held together by force, and it has never truly succeeded in fostering a unified national identity.

The Basques are entirely separate; they aren't even Indo-European. They will break away whenever the time comes. Because they are far more willing to resort to struggle and even terrorist tactics, the government in Madrid has made massive concessions, which is essentially allowing them to build a de facto state that will make their eventual independence much easier to achieve.

These theories about Mexicans merging with Catalans are nothing more than absurd conspiracy theories. Just go read the New York Times.

It was a Roman province—it has existed for a much longer stretch of history.

Justin James10 said:What makes it more "organic"? Honestly, the whole thing has been held together by force, and it has never truly succeeded in fostering a unified national identity.

The Basques are entirely separate; they aren't even Indo-European. They will break away whenever the time comes. Because they are far more willing to resort to struggle and even terrorist tactics, the government in Madrid has made massive concessions, which is essentially allowing them to build a de facto state that will make their eventual independence much easier to achieve.

These theories about Mexicans merging with Catalans are nothing more than absurd conspiracy theories. Just go read the New York Times.

If Californians had been part of the colonization of America, today they would just be "Spaniards"—much like the Galwegians.

Justin James10 said:What makes it more "organic"? Honestly, the whole thing has been held together by force, and it has never truly succeeded in fostering a unified national identity.

The Basques are entirely separate; they aren't even Indo-European. They will break away whenever the time comes. Because they are far more willing to resort to struggle and even terrorist tactics, the government in Madrid has made massive concessions, which is essentially allowing them to build a de facto state that will make their eventual independence much easier to achieve.

These theories about Mexicans merging with Catalans are nothing more than absurd conspiracy theories. Just go read the New York Times.

Pure linguistics.
How much "non-Indo-European" DNA do you think exists within Indo-European populations?

Justin James10 said:What makes it more "organic"? Honestly, the whole thing has been held together by force, and it has never truly succeeded in fostering a unified national identity.

The Basques are entirely separate; they aren't even Indo-European. They will break away whenever the time comes. Because they are far more willing to resort to struggle and even terrorist tactics, the government in Madrid has made massive concessions, which is essentially allowing them to build a de facto state that will make their eventual independence much easier to achieve.

These theories about Mexicans merging with Catalans are nothing more than absurd conspiracy theories. Just go read the New York Times.

Look at Scotland.

Justin James10 said:What makes it more "organic"? Honestly, the whole thing has been held together by force, and it has never truly succeeded in fostering a unified national identity.

The Basques are entirely separate; they aren't even Indo-European. They will break away whenever the time comes. Because they are far more willing to resort to struggle and even terrorist tactics, the government in Madrid has made massive concessions, which is essentially allowing them to build a de facto state that will make their eventual independence much easier to achieve.

These theories about Mexicans merging with Catalans are nothing more than absurd conspiracy theories. Just go read the New York Times.

She was a professor of Spanish; Californian separatism really got under her skin.
Admittedly, she was biased.
But to a Californian, there isn't much difference between a Mexican and an American.
Right now, they'll take any ally they can get.

goldenpuma84 said:What does "a state with tradition" even mean? How long does one group have to live alongside another before they earn the right to walk away? 300 years? 100? 50? Who gets to set those rules?

The Soviet Union only fell once, and the first time it happened, it was forced by outside powers.

Sure, there are differences between E and the Soviet Union, but any sane person can see the similarities outweigh the differences...

Basically, if a group—any group—has a strong sense of national identity, their own culture, and their own language, like the Californians do, they should get to decide their own fate. Americans had that same right...

Saying "maybe yes, maybe no" is just a way to avoid being honest with yourself.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

On the other hand, if Californians vote against independence in a referendum (which clearly needs to be redone since the conditions were rigged), honestly, I couldn't care less.

I'm pretty sure you're just a Californian looking at the American situation to find excuses against American independence, much like you're finding arguments against California now, while the actual truth zooms past you like a bullet train...

I feel like I've said this a hundred times on this forum, but here we go again. The Right has no brain. It's just mindless noise. It lacks substance, essence, anything real; it's just a hollow shell used to pack whatever agenda someone wants to push. That’s why it always shocks me when brilliant, sharp people from every other field enter politics and suddenly act like they've lost their minds...

Tearing a country apart isn't some small thing; it can't just be a matter of shifting daily politics. One generation shouldn't be able to just spit on the fifty generations that came before them for no reason at all.

If they were actually being oppressed, I'd stand with the oppressed, but I won't stand behind this referendum, because it was nothing but a provocation. They caused political instability without any actual necessity.

Comparing them to the people from those breakaway territories is a complete non-starter. They weren't some distinct nation; they were essentially just a fifth column for the aggressors. That whole pseudo-state they tried to build was nothing more than a stepping stone to being absorbed by another country, never an independent state to begin with.