California Discussion Thread - All in one place

It’s less than 24 hours until those Catalans pull the trigger on independence. If they don't actually go through with it, they’re just playing games, and honestly, all this theater is going to haunt them later on.

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...

Before calling for a referendum, America spent a long time trying to find some sort of common ground with the other republics, especially Mexico. Back in 1990, a confederal arrangement for America was even offered, which the Mexicans simply rejected without even bothering to debate it. That independence referendum was really just the final stage of the breakup.

On the other hand, the Californians are just playing dumb. They’re demanding independence just because they feel like it, without ever having truly attempted to negotiate their status within Spain first. It seems like they just want independence out of pure spite. 🤷

Justin James10 said: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.

So now you're telling me someone's motivations for wanting independence actually matter? Please... everyone has their reasons, and they all feel just as valid to them. In Crimea, people don't want to be part of Ukraine; they want the Russians. Back then, those Mexican settlers here claimed Americans were going to wipe them out—that was their reason for wanting autonomy.
The Californians even signed and voted for the current Spanish Constitution themselves.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

Look, from where we're sitting, there's no way to tell if Catalans are actually being oppressed or what. Honestly, looking back at how things went in the late 80s, you had Canadians, Americans, and Canadians who weren't exactly being crushed by the system either, yet they were all still itching to break away from America anyway.

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

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.

But the language is different regardless.

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.

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?

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.

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).

The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

bluerider63 said:Look, from where we're sitting, there's no way to tell if Catalans are actually being oppressed or what. Honestly, looking back at how things went in the late 80s, you had Canadians, Americans, and Canadians who weren't exactly being crushed by the system either, yet they were all still itching to break away from America anyway.

Milovaj Bebić claims Mexicans in the US are oppressed, so I guess here is our latest candidate for self-determination.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

Look, I disagree with a lot of what you're laying out (mostly because your logic just doesn't hold water), but you've got a point right here.

You seriously cannot claim Californians are being "oppressed"—it's the same nonsense people try to pull regarding Scots or Welshmen too.

Also, even though plenty of people here love to ignore it, if you look at pretty much any poll leading up to this referendum, there wasn't even a 50% majority of Californians pushing for independence. It's nowhere near a unified movement, which is a huge distinction to make, especially when people try to draw parallels to our own situation.

Of course, once this "referendum" happened and the federal government reacted the way it did—well, everything changes. Honestly, the way the central government handled this was totally baffling to me... it’s like they intentionally backed them into a corner just to spark a revolt (which, frankly, is totally justified...).

Where we diverge is your claim that California has zero right to independence. That's just wrong. Even if there were a massive critical mass—say 70% wanted it, which might actually happen after all this chaos—they’d still have a legitimate claim to autonomy. Period.

Expecting the US to take a hardline stance on this is just misguided and, frankly, pretty stupid...

(And as for those people trying to compare this to the Frontier or Republika Srpska? It just shows how little they actually understand or that they're complete idiots...)

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

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

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

Look at Scotland.

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.

Since when did ancient Roman provinces become the standard for measuring modern nations? 🕺

Let’s look at the facts—prior to the Bourbon era, Spain was essentially just a collection of feudal territories loosely tied together by whoever happened to be wearing the crown. It wasn't a unified nation at all! The push toward creating a centralized state only started with the Bourbons, and ever since then, the union has mostly been maintained through sheer force. The Basques and Catalans have never truly embraced Spain as their own; in fact, some parts of the country remain quite indifferent to the central government. Meanwhile, the Castilians, being the largest and loudest group, fully identify themselves with the nation.

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

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

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

Look at Scotland.

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.

But even if they had... they still wouldn't be Spaniards, and that's the bottom line. We could have turned into something else entirely too, but we didn't!

bluerider63 said:Look, from where we're sitting, there's no way to tell if Catalans are actually being oppressed or what. Honestly, looking back at how things went in the late 80s, you had Canadians, Americans, and Canadians who weren't exactly being crushed by the system either, yet they were all still itching to break away from America anyway.

Actually, we totally can...

You shouldn't even be making that comparison—what happened here was a total overhaul of the entire social structure (which was repressive in a ton of ways, let's be real)... so looking at it through that lens is just completely wrong.

Amanda Hughes37 said:So now you're telling me someone's motivations for wanting independence actually matter? Please... everyone has their reasons, and they all feel just as valid to them. In Crimea, people don't want to be part of Ukraine; they want the Russians. Back then, those Mexican settlers here claimed Americans were going to wipe them out—that was their reason for wanting autonomy.
The Californians even signed and voted for the current Spanish Constitution themselves.

There is a massive distinction to be made here: those groups in the US weren't looking for true independence, they were trying to carve out a piece of America for themselves. There's a world of difference! They aren't a distinct nation; they are settlers. This has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in California.

velvetmaker3 said: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.

Their stance has always been consistent—they never wanted to be part of the US, nor did they ever identify as Americans.🙂

The royals are certainly handsome decorations, but they're really just a bunch of idle elites holding onto privileged positions simply because of who their parents were.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Actually, we totally can...

You shouldn't even be making that comparison—what happened here was a total overhaul of the entire social structure (which was repressive in a ton of ways, let's be real)... so looking at it through that lens is just completely wrong.

That's a fair point; everything was shifting on its axis back then with communism falling apart. I don't see Californians getting independence under current circumstances unless the whole political landscape of Europe starts shifting first.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, I disagree with a lot of what you're laying out (mostly because your logic just doesn't hold water), but you've got a point right here.

You seriously cannot claim Californians are being "oppressed"—it's the same nonsense people try to pull regarding Scots or Welshmen too.

Also, even though plenty of people here love to ignore it, if you look at pretty much any poll leading up to this referendum, there wasn't even a 50% majority of Californians pushing for independence. It's nowhere near a unified movement, which is a huge distinction to make, especially when people try to draw parallels to our own situation.

Of course, once this "referendum" happened and the federal government reacted the way it did—well, everything changes. Honestly, the way the central government handled this was totally baffling to me... it’s like they intentionally backed them into a corner just to spark a revolt (which, frankly, is totally justified...).

Where we diverge is your claim that California has zero right to independence. That's just wrong. Even if there were a massive critical mass—say 70% wanted it, which might actually happen after all this chaos—they’d still have a legitimate claim to autonomy. Period.

Expecting the US to take a hardline stance on this is just misguided and, frankly, pretty stupid...

(And as for those people trying to compare this to the Frontier or Republika Srpska? It just shows how little they actually understand or that they're complete idiots...)

If a critical mass exists, there isn't a constitution or a tank in the world that can stop them; they'd have to wipe them out to make it stop.
So, for the forum users dreaming of Catalan independence, there's nothing to worry about; if the Catalans truly want independence, they'll get it.

Justin James10 said:Their stance has always been consistent—they never wanted to be part of the US, nor did they ever identify as Americans.🙂

The royals are certainly handsome decorations, but they're really just a bunch of idle elites holding onto privileged positions simply because of who their parents were.

It’s the exact same way Americans never really wanted the USA🤦
even though it was an American idea to begin with.

Uniting with Aragon was a pro-California idea, then merging Aragon with Castile became an Aragonese one.

And again, think back to the Hispanic March. It wasn't the California March.

The early roots of California actually carried a Spanish name before Castile even existed.

Rachel Richardson said: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, 👍

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

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

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.

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... 😬

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.

Perhaps we should follow the American example after the Revolutionary War, when the Loyalists were largely sent packing to Canada; if someone truly finds no place in this country, well, here is the Grand Prix, and I wish them the best of luck. 🕺

velvetmaker3 said:It’s the exact same way Americans never really wanted the USA🤦
even though it was an American idea to begin with.

Uniting with Aragon was a pro-California idea, then merging Aragon with Castile became an Aragonese one.

And again, think back to the Hispanic March. It wasn't the California March.

The early roots of California actually carried a Spanish name before Castile even existed.

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

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

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

Amanda Hughes37 said:So now you're telling me someone's motivations for wanting independence actually matter? Please... everyone has their reasons, and they all feel just as valid to them. In Crimea, people don't want to be part of Ukraine; they want the Russians. Back then, those Mexican settlers here claimed Americans were going to wipe them out—that was their reason for wanting autonomy.
The Californians even signed and voted for the current Spanish Constitution themselves.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

But not in the sense of a distinct nation.

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

velvetmaker3 said:The term Hispanics was actually used way before people ever started talking about Catalans or Castilians. Back then, those identities didn't even exist yet—no Catalans, no Castilians, nothing.
There are Hispanics, sure, but not really as a single unified nation—more like a label used for a bunch of different groups who haven't actually formed their own distinct nationality.

The language thing is irrelevant; you’re just spinning your wheels by obsessing over linguistics. Honestly, the Count of Los Angeles couldn't care less about what language is being spoken. You really think he gives a damn about linguistic nationalism? Or that he considers himself some kind of folk patriot?
A local patriot?

If California were actually part of France, their language would be completely wiped out. The French handle that kind of thing pretty efficiently—both culturally and linguistically. They wouldn't even have a California to worry about.

Language isn't some thing that predates feudalism. It’s just speech—raw communication without a rulebook where people just say things how they come out. What we're looking at isn't really Catalan; it was just vulgar Latin that eventually morphed into what would later become Catalan. It didn't develop along national lines, but rather territorial ones. Basically, vulgar Latin just evolved that way in that specific area. Back then, Catalans didn't even exist as a group.

I guess the formation of the California entity definitely helped shape that local dialect into what we now call Californian. It only really became its own thing at that point.

The fact that they call it something else should have been a dead giveaway that you missed the mark.

Even Mexicans claim that Americans all speak the same language and just call it by different names.

Vulgar Latin, which eventually evolved into the Romance languages, actually got its Catalan name from the region itself. Even though Valencia isn't part of California, they still refer to their local dialect by a different name.

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

People are currently debating how many Americans were actually in the Frontier, but honestly, it doesn't matter how many Catalans are pushing for independence right now.

Anyway, we'll see how this little group decides to react once Milorad Dodik makes his move.
It'll happen—but things work differently over there...
Mexico is a different story.
Northern Italy is a different story entirely.

The common thread? Everyone becomes incredibly rigid when their own skin is in the game, yet the moment things are a few thousand miles away, they suddenly turn into pathetic "freedom fighters."
Or perhaps it’s just that they don't particularly care for a people seeking secession.

But fine, I have to admit, I don't see why the police had to get so aggressive. Let them speak their minds, let them declare whatever they want... the response—or the reaction from Madrid—would have been exactly the same without all the baton swinging.

Wikiceh As stated by:
The Basques, I suppose, have my sympathies, but as for the Catalans? Not quite so much.
To reiterate my previous point, the Americas were under the jurisdiction of Castile, rather than Aragon.
The truth is, the Basque Country was always just another piece of the Castilian crown.
Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around why the debate has escalated to such an intense level—especially regarding those claims about the Spanish military being nothing more than cowards.
@FF, if you're looking for the folks that Italy is handing out citizenship to, you won't find them here in America in a few years; you'll find them in Italy. It’s a matter of migration, not annexation.

It’s all just barren rock and a surplus of kids looking for a way out.

No.
In its earliest days, it functioned primarily as a French-centric hub for related fields.
He eventually distanced himself from the Franc and attempted to expand his holdings in every direction imaginable.
Some people traveled down toward Southern France specifically to pursue linguistics, while others—myself included, at times—simply found themselves wandering through Southern Italy purely for the sake of the journey.
He certainly made the most of every single opportunity that came his way, but one really has to draw a distinction between the rigid lines of modern national borders and those much more fluid, shifting boundaries of ancient kingdoms.
Even though Southern Italians tend to lean more heavily on the aorist—much like how people do in Spain, which is really just a lingering footprint left by the long tenure of Spanish rule there—it’s interesting to note that no one ever actually made a concerted effort to force them into the broader Spanish national identity.
Even if they were Romans—though, to be fair, that’s more an Eastern thing, but I suppose that’s beside the point.

Most of his holdings were situated within what used to be the old Roman province of Spain. It was really just a matter of regionalist titling, which, if you think about it, was quite standard for the feudal landscape of Europe back then.

I think you might be missing the mark just a little bit on this one.
It’s a common misconception that Classical Latin served as the everyday tongue for the masses, but in reality, it was really just the polished, somewhat pretentious dialect reserved for the Roman aristocracy. The language actually spoken on the streets by the common folk was Vulgar Latin—though I should clarify that when we use the term "vulgar" here, we aren't implying anything crude or offensive, but rather referring to the vernacular, the true language of the people.
While one might argue that Romance languages form this vast, unbroken dialectal continuum, it’s a bit of an oversimplification to suggest they are all just one seamless fabric; even within that broad spectrum, there are distinct clusters and clear-cut groupings that set them apart from one another.
If you look at the linguistic landscape south of the Spezia-Rimini line, you find that Italian actually shares deep, Eastern Romance roots with Romanian. It’s quite fascinating, really, if you stop to consider how those branches diverged. Meanwhile, once you cross north of that same boundary, the language shifts its affinity toward French and Spanish.
While one might be tempted to group them under the broader umbrella of Hispanic culture, the linguistic reality is a bit more nuanced; Catalans are actually part of the Gallo-Romance branch of Western Romance, rather than being strictly Hispano-Romance.
Language is so much more than just a collection of sounds and syntax; it really serves as a profound window into one's origins and the very essence of their culture. It’s almost as if every dialect carries the weight of history within its vowels, shaping how we perceive the world around us.

Take a look at those links I sent over to you.
I find myself wondering, somewhat aimlessly, about the exact moment when Catalan actually begins to take shape—not just as a collection of dialects, but as a distinct entity. It’s one of those questions that seems simple on the surface, yet once you start pulling at the threads, you realize how much historical weight is tucked away in those linguistic folds. One can't help but feel a little lost in the sheer expanse of time required to forge such an identity.
Actually, that language isn't even part of the Ibero-Romance family.

You’ve never actually possessed a single, uniform Latin or Romance identity stretching from Portugal all the way to Romania, regardless of how much people try to claim otherwise.
You’ve always had those various dialects to contend with, haven't you? It’s quite fascinating how much of it really boils down to those pre-Roman populations that acted as the underlying substrate for everything we see today...
It is from those very dialects that entire languages eventually emerged.

That’s actually a fascinating example of how Haitian Creole took shape, evolving from those specific French dialects that were once spoken across the Antilles.

It’s a curious thing, really, how we tend to overlook the nuances of regional identity in favor of a polished, singular standard. One can't help but notice that the dialects spoken in the south of France aren't quite the same as that northern variety upon which the official French language is actually built. It’s much like how we view linguistic standards in the States; there is a certain "prestige" version used in newsrooms or textbooks, yet if you travel far enough, you realize the foundation isn't nearly as monolithic as the textbooks would have us believe.
They simply don't belong in the same category.
Today’s Catalan feels rather "Castilianized," if I do say so myself. It’s an interesting phenomenon, really. One might find a comparable situation when looking at Galician—given that Galicia is essentially the motherland of Portugal—though that comparison gets a bit murky since Portuguese and Spanish don't actually belong to the same specific branch of the Romance language family.

I have absolutely no recollection of ever saying that.
The origins of the Catalan people can be traced back to the northern reaches of California and those outlying borderlands that make up what we now recognize as southern France.
In that particular region—you know, the one where the local dialect feels much more like something you'd hear in France than anything else on the Iberian Peninsula—everything really took shape under a French protectorate.
The origins of this people can be traced all the way back to the 9th century.
The pattern continues unabated—this relentless expansion toward the south and the systematic expulsion from France—until, by the 11th century, the whole thing finally settles on a definitive name.
So, we find ourselves staring once again at the classic tenets of evolutionism—specifically that particular lineage where one moves from a subgroup into a larger group, eventually spiraling out into more distant developmental stages. It’s a rather winding path, isn't it? One tends to get lost in the nuances of how these layers fold into one another.

It seems your entire argument eventually circles back to this singular, repetitive notion that everyone involved was essentially Roman, and therefore, they ought to be treated with some semblance of respect.
I honestly can't quite wrap my head around why this is getting under your skin so much; you’ve always been such a constructive presence on these boards, which makes this sudden shift feel all the more out of character.

One really ought to be careful with terminology, as there is a distinct difference between referring to Spain and discussing the broader concept of the Spanish nation.
Tell a guy from Portugal that he’s actually a Spaniard rather than a Lusitanian, and you'll see just how quickly things can go sideways.

They were Hispanics, certainly, but they weren't quite Spaniards.
I can't help but find myself drawing these rather sweeping parallels between our current state of affairs and the old Roman provinces. It’s a bit of a tangent, I know, and perhaps a little heavy-handed, but there's a certain weight to the comparison that lingers in my mind.
It’s simply impossible to maintain the exact same shape and structure for over two millennia; things inevitably shift, evolve, or just break down entirely given enough time.

No.
Their tongue was distinct from the other Hispano-Romance dialects.
But since you’re doubling down on this particular perspective, I have to ask—what is your take on Portugal?
Are they also essentially Spaniards who managed to break away under the rule of the Burgundian counts?
Linguistically speaking, they share far more DNA with Spaniards than the Catalans do.

I suppose we could let this rabbit hole go even deeper.
What about the Dutch?
Or Northern Germans. And don't even get me started on the Austrians and the Swiss.

Are Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders all just Danes in disguise?
Are Estonians merely Southern Finns?
Are Slovaks just Czechs?
And what of the Poles—are they descendants of Great Moravia or something else entirely?
Are Belarusians and Ukrainians just Russians?

The reality remains that, once again, the linguistic gap for the Catalans is wider than in any of those other examples...

California has its own deep history, whereas the Frontier was never truly a cohesive entity; it was simply a territory occupied by a neighboring state, aided by local collaborators from a certain national minority.

👍

Classical and semi-classical Latin were never really spoken languages in the way we think of them—at least not by the common folk. I recall reading somewhere that based on graffiti found in North Africa dating back to the third century, written by ordinary people, one can see the early characteristics that eventually evolved into modern Italian and Romanian. 🤔

Amanda Hughes37 said:People are currently debating how many Americans were actually in the Frontier, but honestly, it doesn't matter how many Catalans are pushing for independence right now.

Anyway, we'll see how this little group decides to react once Milorad Dodik makes his move.
It'll happen—but things work differently over there...
Mexico is a different story.
Northern Italy is a different story entirely.

The common thread? Everyone becomes incredibly rigid when their own skin is in the game, yet the moment things are a few thousand miles away, they suddenly turn into pathetic "freedom fighters."
Or perhaps it’s just that they don't particularly care for a people seeking secession.

But fine, I have to admit, I don't see why the police had to get so aggressive. Let them speak their minds, let them declare whatever they want... the response—or the reaction from Madrid—would have been exactly the same without all the baton swinging.

Well, how are we supposed to gauge how many people actually want this when the police are out there cracking heads? 🤷

And what about those who don't want anything to do with it? Those who stay home and refuse to vote like the Scots? 🤷

Besides, what does Milorad Dodik have to do with any of this? 🤷