California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Justin James10 said:Let me repeat: why don't the opponents of independence show up to the referendum and win by a landslide if they truly represent such a large majority? 🤷

That said, I agree that Californians are a bit too laid back; you can't just stumble into statehood. They are eventually going to have to get their hands dirty. ☕

Look, if voter turnout doesn't even hit 50%, then the win actually goes to the people who stayed home. This kind of referendum setup almost always results in a "yes" vote because it basically baits the supporters into showing up while the skeptics just ignore the whole thing, effectively saying "not interested" by staying off the rolls.

It was the exact same deal with those elections in California, where the pro-independence parties didn't even pull more than 48%—get this—of the people who actually bothered to vote. So, it’s extremely likely that the total number of people wanting to stay part of the US is way higher than the crowd pushing for a split.

You can't just act like the people who sat this out or voted for the status quo don't exist and pretend they aren't part of the equation.

If you follow that logic, you're basically forcing the entire population into something most of them don't even want. Decisions like this impact everyone living there, not just a specific subset of people.

Robert Clark4 said:Well, I guess it's because the people against independence aren't just some single, unified block of voters. You've got all sorts! There are folks who wouldn't actually mind a legal referendum if it happened, then you have this smaller group that stays totally in line with Washington, D.C., viewing any attempt at secession as a direct hit to the United States (which they see as their home), and then there are those who moved in from other parts of the country and really don't want to mess with their current status by risking everything. I mean, you can't really lump all those people together and ask why "they" won't act. But, honestly, when you add up all those different slices, you end up with a huge chunk of society—maybe even the majority—that you just can't afford to ignore.

Honestly, this whole argument falls apart because it's based on mere guesswork. All these supposed heavyweights opposing independence are nowhere to be seen; people just talk about them. At this rate, maybe they'll start asking to join Mongolia for all we know! 🙄

The Californians are going to have to organize their own kind of National Guard, because let's face it: fighting against the Spanish unionists and the fifth column won't happen without some real sacrifices. ☕

Taylor Walker9 said:I used to trust the polls that claimed those wanting to leave the US were just a small minority. But after seeing them unleash rabid dogs to pull women by their hair and aggressively lunging at people just lying down, I'm done betting against the numbers. I'm starting to think the US intelligence community knows exactly what I've realized: that percentage is actually north of 50%.

Nah. Polls don't mean squat here. For me, the election data is what actually matters—the fact that the parties pushing for secession didn't even scrape together 50% of the actual votes cast. That’s a much more telling stat than any random poll you'll find.

Nancy Williams58 Asks:
Not at all. These polls aren't even the point. To me, the far more telling statistic is the election turnout—where the political parties didn't even manage to capture half of the votes cast by those who actually showed up! Isn't that a much more significant indicator of where things stand? That single piece of information carries far more weight than any poll ever could! Isn't it fascinating how one real fact can completely overshadow a dozen surveys?

It’s election season! It always makes me wonder—how many people actually show up to the polls around here? Is the turnout looking strong this year?

The referendum really serves as a true litmus test for what's happening on the ground, doesn't it? It’s just a shame that the Spanish police tried to shut it down using force—and, unfortunately, they actually managed to make some headway in doing so.

ironpanther5 said:You added a little smirk at the end there, but didn't they always have joining Mexico as their ultimate endgame? Did you just conveniently forget the yogurt revolutions, the standoff at Gettysburg, and the whole mess with the militias and the armed uprisings? Look, I know we aren't exactly saints, but please...
And one more thing: weren't those same Frontiersmen trying to expand their reach with fire and sword even in places where the Frontier wouldn't have existed if they'd been granted independence?
Come on, you already used "basically" right at the start of your post.

If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁

Justin James10 said:Since when did ancient Roman provinces become the standard for measuring modern nations? 🕺

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

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

Some natural whole be Quote— 😬

Justin James10 As specified:
Let’s revisit the fundamentals—prior to the Bourbons, the United States was essentially just a collection of feudal entities loosely tied together by a single ruler, rather than a cohesive nation. It wasn't until the Bourbon era that the push for a unified state actually began; since then, the union has been maintained almost exclusively through sheer force. The Basques and Catalans have never truly embraced the idea of being part of this country—they don't feel it belongs to them—and frankly, some are quite indifferent to the whole concept of the Union. Meanwhile, the Castilians—being the most populous and vocal group—identify themselves entirely with the nation itself.

There’s also that theory—that the Castilians identify most strongly with Spain simply because they were the first ones to have their identity broken.
I'm in agreement, for what it's worth.

Justin James10 said:Since when did ancient Roman provinces become the standard for measuring modern nations? 🕺

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

A geographical name.
When looking at the history of Castile—it’s worth noting that its predecessor, the dominant power over the Hispano-Roman population, was actually Leon, which traces its origins back to Asturias.
Navarre has been part of the landscape for quite some time—it shares the same fundamental roots as Aragon, even if its ties to the Basque heritage are more pronounced.

neonhound18 said:Perhaps we should follow the American example after the Revolutionary War, when the Loyalists were largely sent packing to Canada; if someone truly finds no place in this country, well, here is the Grand Prix, and I wish them the best of luck. 🕺

👍

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

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

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

👍
Aragon and Castile unified through a personal union, not a real one.
Otherwise, you’d be hearing Catalan dialects all over South America...

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

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

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

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

The "frontier" never truly existed as a single, cohesive entity.
If you look at the Military Frontier in Australia, it is an American entity—it encompasses places like Bjelovar, Senj, and even Slavonski Brod.

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

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

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

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

Every situation has its own history.
The Californians have been a distinct people since the 9th century.
The Mexicans in Republika Srpska arrived during the era of the Turks.
Mexico is an exception; realistically, I wouldn't grant it full sovereignty—I'd prefer if the Mexicans just elected their own president, but it is what it is.
As for Northern Italy, well, it depends on the specific region or background.

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

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

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

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

The government's reaction was just plain stupid.

Justin James10 said:

Nancy Williams58 Asks:
Not at all. These polls aren't even the point. To me, the far more telling statistic is the election turnout—where the political parties didn't even manage to capture half of the votes cast by those who actually showed up! Isn't that a much more significant indicator of where things stand? That single piece of information carries far more weight than any poll ever could! Isn't it fascinating how one real fact can completely overshadow a dozen surveys?

It’s election season! It always makes me wonder—how many people actually show up to the polls around here? Is the turnout looking strong this year?

The referendum really serves as a true litmus test for what's happening on the ground, doesn't it? It’s just a shame that the Spanish police tried to shut it down using force—and, unfortunately, they actually managed to make some headway in doing so.

What does that have to do with anything? Your logic is totally broken because you're assuming everyone who stayed home is basically pro-referendum or at least neutral. They aren't.

And why wouldn't the elections matter? The whole point of those elections was to fight for dominance so they could even get a referendum on the table in the first place. So yeah, the elections were huge, and there was plenty of motivation to show up. Basically, the elections are the essential first step toward the referendum.

And once again, we see that even among the people who did show up, not even half of them were actually for it.

Taylor Walker9 said:I used to trust the polls that claimed those wanting to leave the US were just a small minority. But after seeing them unleash rabid dogs to pull women by their hair and aggressively lunging at people just lying down, I'm done betting against the numbers. I'm starting to think the US intelligence community knows exactly what I've realized: that percentage is actually north of 50%.

Well, maybe that’s true, but if you want to fight for independence in a situation like California's, you need way more social cohesion and massive support—not just some measly 50% maybe. We can sit here and debate whether that’s right or wrong all day, but that's just the reality of the situation.
If there was basically a consensus in California—like, at least 70%—then no force on Earth could stop them.

Amanda Hughes37 said:If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁

Seriously, can we please just stop bringing up the Frontier? It’s getting old. From a historical standpoint, geographically, or honestly, by any damn metric you can think of, there is absolutely no way to compare that place to California. It's just not even in the same league.

neonhound18 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

👍

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

Which makes sense. Italian and Romanian both belong to the Eastern Romance branch.
Northern Italian dialects (along with Gallo-Romance and Hispano-Romance) fall under Western Romance.
Sardinia uses the third group.
The Romance presence in North Africa covered Tunis and extended along the Algerian coast to the western Libyan coast.
It stands to reason they would have spoken the same language as people in Sicily.
Romance languages remained alive there until the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th or 8th century.

The Romance speakers in Africa, across from Gibraltar, were Hispano-Romance.

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

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

👍

Amanda Hughes37 said:If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁

Once again: the "Frontier" didn't exist.
The fact that Mexicans in Northern California, Eastern Lika, Kordun, Banovina, and parts of Western and Eastern Slavonia, Syrmia, and Baranja dreamed of uniting the areas where they were ethnically present—even if they weren't the majority—into one entity is a completely different conversation.

The Spanish intelligence services were already claiming by morning that turnout had topped 50% 🙂 Man, I swear, what even is this garbage we’re reading? It’s like everyone online is just some amateur psychic reading crystal balls at this point. Honestly, turnout could have been 90% for all they care; it doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone in Madrid when the whole referendum is basically a sham—it’s illegal and doesn't officially exist. To those people, though, this vote is treated as being just as legitimate and mandatory as our arbitration talks with the neighbors over the border.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Seriously, can we please just stop bringing up the Frontier? It’s getting old. From a historical standpoint, geographically, or honestly, by any damn metric you can think of, there is absolutely no way to compare that place to California. It's just not even in the same league.

It’s not even a real topic; the "Frontier" never truly existed.
It was nothing more than a rogue state with zero historical legitimacy—just a name used to label occupied American territory.

Justin James10 said:Honestly, this whole argument falls apart because it's based on mere guesswork. All these supposed heavyweights opposing independence are nowhere to be seen; people just talk about them. At this rate, maybe they'll start asking to join Mongolia for all we know! 🙄

The Californians are going to have to organize their own kind of National Guard, because let's face it: fighting against the Spanish unionists and the fifth column won't happen without some real sacrifices. ☕

But hey, I gave you actual numbers to look at! I mean, the reason they aren't out there protesting in the streets or speaking up publicly might be partly due to that intense, almost sports-fanatic atmosphere within California society and the local media. I guess in a climate like this, people might just feel too awkward to admit they aren't actually on board with independence. 🤷

Madrid responded to the referendum with what I would call a very minimal application of force. Technically speaking, they could have gone full-scale and declared a state of emergency, deployed the National Guard to the streets, implemented a strict curfew, and even executed anyone caught out after dark, all while staying within the bounds of legality and legitimacy.

Now, watching scenes of people being beaten isn't exactly pleasant to witness, but I can't help but wonder—what exactly were the Californians expecting? Did they truly believe there wouldn't be a reaction? Or perhaps they were hoping for an escalation of violence and casualties that would just give their movement more momentum?

As for the beatings themselves, they aren't anything out of the ordinary, I suppose; if you go looking for trouble, you're probably going to find it, and those who stayed safely tucked away at home certainly didn't face any consequences, right?

Besides, how is this really any different from, say, the way French police handle things when strikers and unions take to the streets to burn cars and cause chaos? It happens at least once a year over there, and I don't recall seeing much of an outcry about it.

Justin James10 said:Honestly, this whole argument falls apart because it's based on mere guesswork. All these supposed heavyweights opposing independence are nowhere to be seen; people just talk about them. At this rate, maybe they'll start asking to join Mongolia for all we know! 🙄

The Californians are going to have to organize their own kind of National Guard, because let's face it: fighting against the Spanish unionists and the fifth column won't happen without some real sacrifices. ☕

Come on, get a grip on reality here...

First off—that last sentence of yours is absolute nonsense and has zero connection to what's actually happening. Your little fantasy scenario is honestly just pathetic.

By that same flawed logic, I could easily say—oh, where are all those big-shot independence advocates then? They're having the most important referendum of their lives and not even 50% of them show up to vote! I hope you can wrap your head around how broken your reasoning is. Honestly, my point is way more grounded if you really want to go down this rabbit hole...

Brenda Murphy3 said:Come on, get a grip on reality here...

First off—that last sentence of yours is absolute nonsense and has zero connection to what's actually happening. Your little fantasy scenario is honestly just pathetic.

By that same flawed logic, I could easily say—oh, where are all those big-shot independence advocates then? They're having the most important referendum of their lives and not even 50% of them show up to vote! I hope you can wrap your head around how broken your reasoning is. Honestly, my point is way more grounded if you really want to go down this rabbit hole...

You should save that kind of disrespect for your own parents, especially since they clearly raised you better than that! 🙄

As for the referendum supporters? The police beat them down so brutally—there they are.

Amanda Hughes37 said:If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁

You’re out here tossing around the word "Frontier" like it’s some perfectly normal part of the US—it isn't! Seriously, that name never even existed in our history books, and no American would ever refer to a piece of our country by that label. I just don't get why you feel the need to call a region by a name that was basically invented by occupiers to claim territory. It’s not a legitimate historical designation like how people talk about California, and there’s no such thing as a "Frontier people" group, unlike how you have actual Catalan people. It just makes zero sense.

Robert Clark4 said:But hey, I gave you actual numbers to look at! I mean, the reason they aren't out there protesting in the streets or speaking up publicly might be partly due to that intense, almost sports-fanatic atmosphere within California society and the local media. I guess in a climate like this, people might just feel too awkward to admit they aren't actually on board with independence. 🤷

Dejan Jović makes a similar argument regarding the American referendum, 😉 and honestly, isn't the similarity between those opposing the California referendum and those opposing the American one just absolutely striking?

I don't really get the European Union's stance on this. If a nation decides to break away from its parent state, why should they automatically lose their EU membership? I suppose existing treaties could just stay in effect while the new state negotiates a fresh set of terms. As for California, I’m no historian, so I couldn't say. I don't know what the Californians want, or what the Walloons want, etc., etc. But if there is some desire for change, maybe they could just sit down and talk it out like adults within those borders. It seems like the Spanish authorities have completely missed the mark here.
I realize that allowing this outside the European Union framework would be like opening Pandora's box.
Still, I wonder what the actual issue is if a multi-ethnic state—one that is already part of the Schengen Area and the eurozone—were to "break up." You'd still have no borders, the same currency, and just one less federal government to deal with (which, I guess, is a plus). What was actually wrong with the breakup of Czechoslovakia? Why shouldn't every people group become an EU member as its own sovereign state? I don't see where the drama lies. The only real difference would be that tax revenue wouldn't be sent elsewhere, though everyone would still pay their individual EU dues.

It's problematic because their constitution only recognizes a "Spanish nation" with indivisible sovereignty, even if the people living there clearly don't feel that way. I suppose you can't force a sense of national identity through sheer strength; that just feels like oppression.

Legality and legitimacy are two very different things, I think.
Back when we had our old constitution, we had a right to self-determination, but we were attacked regardless, so legality didn't offer much protection. We even offered a confederation, but it was rejected, much like how the Californians offered a federation. In our case, we and the Slovaks had two votes, the Mexicans had four against us, and the other two stayed silent and effectively voted against us too. Outvoting someone doesn't seem like a solution.

It seems to me that the Californians might hold a status similar to what Texas held under the old system (though, obviously, you can't compare them directly since that wasn't a democracy, and the Slovaks were always recognized as a distinct people, whereas the Californians aren't fully acknowledged that way, despite having their language recognized, albeit not as a primary one). I don't know much about it.

All I know is that every rigid, unyielding state eventually falls apart.
For instance, if the old Franjo hadn't been so stubborn and had instead embraced national reforms, maybe Australia wouldn't have collapsed. Or if Ferdinand had been a bit more sensible in Boston. Who knows. I just know that history tends to repeat itself constantly😵 and nobody ever learns anything, not even from the examples right in front of them. Nothing is remembered, and everything just cycles back. People don't learn by watching someone else smash their head against a wall; they insist on doing it themselves.

I think that's the point of why we're all so worked up over here now—we see that they haven't learned a thing from our suffering, and that realization eats at us. Or maybe they have? It's Tuesday, and they haven't declared independence yet. No tanks have rolled into the streets. Maybe history won't repeat itself after all 😲... in the meantime, I guess we'll just let the tourists flood in...

Justin James10 said:You should save that kind of disrespect for your own parents, especially since they clearly raised you better than that! 🙄

As for the referendum supporters? The police beat them down so brutally—there they are.

So what exactly did I say that rubbed you the wrong way?

You’re basically out here advocating for the violent or military separation of California and acting like there isn't any other way to handle it (which is just plain nonsense—I don't know what else to call it besides pure stupidity...).
Look, I'm not even against independence itself; I think Californians have every right to demand it (unlike certain other groups), but your comments are completely detached from reality. You seem to have this total misconception that there's some kind of unified consensus for independence in California, when that's just not the case at all...