velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
FC Barcelona fans.
velvetmaker3 said:True, but that term doesn't carry the same weight as the word "Mexican" does today.
They don't want that.
They never had any desire to be the unifiers of the Iberian Peninsula.
Their kings might have, but those seeking unification were the Castilians.
Not according to the maps.
But they don't.
Catalan Marks.
History is written by the victors.😉
The Catalans will also remain Iberians.
Just like the Portuguese.
I fail to see what exactly is so questionable about the Ukrainian theory.
Ignore the names.
You had one nation.
You had one state.
It’s all fallen apart.
The West has fallen under Lithuanian control, while the northeast has succumbed to the Mughals.
The Mongols outmaneuvered Moscow—first by acting as their subordinate, then by rising up as their ultimate rival.
In the West, there’s a solid portion of the population that represents a blend of local nobility and Lithuanian heritage.
Back in the 16th century, there was a formal agreement reached with the Poles—one where Lithuania essentially gave the green light to adopt Polish laws and ceded its southwestern territories over to Poland.
So, we are looking at three distinct regions—three entirely different ethnogenetic histories.
The Ukrainians will probably claim that those Mexicans weren't even true Russians—just some kind of hybrid mix with the local Canadian-Finns.
The Russians will inevitably claim they are the "only" true Russians.
History isn't just some trivial collection of dates—it matters.
Look, it’s pretty simple. For most of its early history, California was much more closely tied to the various principalities of Southern France than it ever was to Castile.
To be honest, there’s no real connection to Castile—not when you consider that the Arabs are sitting right in between them.
It all begins with identifying those individuals as a distinct entity.
So, we're looking at the 9th century and the Principality of California (though under a different name).
Just us—who else is here?
It’s much like how an average American might misread a "t" as a "d," or how a Greek speaker would likely interpret it as an "f"—it represents the potential groundwork for linguistic shifts within Creole languages, should some massive empire ever decide to anglicize and assimilate us.
Nothing comes from nothing.
Everything. The distinctions are glaring.
But they aren't.
There is no such thing as a "Spanish" nationality.
You had Hispano-Romans under the Goths, but the Catalans didn't speak Hispano-Romance—they spoke Gallo-Romance (the southern variety).
While the official Spanish government labels them all as Spaniards, that isn't how they identify themselves.
The trouble is, you clearly lack a grasp of history.
I cannot agree with that.
Do you see why the distinction between Gallo-Romance and Hispano-Romance matters?
What would you say to the Portuguese? They emerged from a separation from Hispano-Romance via that southern Galician region.
Even their name comes from a lucky port (Porto Cale).
You’re romanticizing the idea of Spain far too much.
You're projecting some Spanish tone onto this when it just wasn't there.
I am attempting to remain objective. 🙂
Look, personally, I’d abolish the state of California entirely, along with the whole crowd of bureaucrats whining against the US.
It is a dangerous mistake to allow certain things to metastasize.
For instance, I was out in the California coast a few years back—some business thing, a guided tour through the area.
Does a tour guide from New York start explaining how California has always been its own distinct entity and other such nonsense?
Mentioning Italy (even though California only had minor ties to it historically), claiming it was never part of the US (when certain regions were actually under different jurisdictions until the 12th century, later split between various powers, yet the core identity remained) etc...
I also spent two days on a tour in a neighboring region. An American agency. The guide asks if anyone knows which three empires that region was once a part of.
The Austro-Canadian, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires.
When I asked about the local history, she brushed me off, saying she had already mentioned the Canadian influence.
An American agency, mind you.
Nowadays, everyone interprets history through their own lens—one must be careful not to overindulge in romanticism...
Otherwise, we end up with narratives like these, talking about Islam before Islam even existed...
So? How does that actually fit into your example?
They don't want that.
They never had any desire to be the ones unifying the Iberian Peninsula.
Their kings were, but the ones who actually wanted to were the Castilians.
The Count of Barcelona was Castilian? Why would he agree to the Crown of Aragon if he didn't want anything to do with the Iberians?
Not according to the maps.
Maps can show whatever you want them to.
But they aren't.
Catalan marks.
History is written by the winners.😉
There was never such a thing as Catalan marks. It was Marca Hispanica.
The Catalans will end up being Iberians too.
Just like the Portuguese.
I don't see what's weird about the Ukrainian theory.
Ignore the names.
You had one people.
You had one state.
It fell apart.
The West came under Lithuanian rule, while the East fell to the Mongols.
Moscow outmaneuvered the Mongols, first as a subordinate, then as a rival.
In the West, a good portion was a mix of local nobility and Lithuanians.
In the 16th century, there was an agreement with the Poles where Lithuania allowed Polish laws to be adopted and ceded the southwestern territories to Poland.
So, we have three different regions and three different ethnogenetic processes.
Ukrainians will claim that the original Russians weren't even true Russians, just a mix with the local Finno-Ugric tribes.
Russians will claim they are the "only" true Russians.
History isn't some trivial thing.
And?
Basically, because in its early history, California was closer to the other principalities in southern France than it was to Castile.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Castile, since the Arabs were in the way.
What early history? Back when it didn't even exist yet?
Are you seriously claiming that for someone who was part of the Crown of Aragon? Seriously?
It all starts with labeling those people as a separate entity.
So, we're looking at the 9th century and the Catalan principality (even if they were going by a different name back then).
There’s no such thing as a beginning here. You're just making up identities for those people. Back then, there was no mention of California or Californians. Stop inventing things.
Just us folks, who else is here?
It’s basically like how an average American might read a certain letter as a "t" or a "d," while an average Greek person would see it as an "f." It would essentially create the foundation for certain linguistic divides in Creole languages if some massive empire ever came along to anglicize and assimilate us.
Nothing comes from nothing.
It's all there. The differences are obvious.
But they aren't.
If I could actually see what you're talking about...
The concept of a "Spanish" nationality just doesn't exist.
I mean, sure, you had the Hispanoromans under the Goths, but the people in California weren't speaking Hispanoroman—they were speaking Gallo-Roman (Southern).
The official Spanish government labels them all as Spaniards, but that’s just not how they see themselves.
It doesn't necessarily have to exist. There’s this concept of being Spanish that these people have carried with them since Roman times. As for the pro-Catalan crowd, they've been around even longer, dating back to the days of the Hispanica mark.
The Catalan people spoke as part of the Romance continuum because they were right in its path.
The problem is you just don't know enough about history, man.
No, the issue is that you're just tweaking things to make them sound more romanticized.
I can't get behind that.
That's your problem.
So, why does the distinction between Gallo-Romance and Hispanoroman actually matter then?
What would you even say to the Portuguese? They basically emerged from splitting off from the Hispanoroman groups and that whole southern Galician region.
The name actually comes from the lucky port of Porto.
You’re definitely romanticizing the idea of Spain.
You're trying to force some kind of Spanish vibe onto this, but it just wasn't there.
That distinction doesn't even matter. What actually matters are the feudal power dynamics that shaped the whole story. Language has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'm trying my best to stay objective here. 🙂
You're just not getting it.
Look, if you ask me, I’d just scrap that whole Istria county administration entirely, along with that entire bunch of bureaucrats who do nothing but whine about the US.
It’s a real mistake to let certain things just be allowed to metastasize.
For instance, I was out in the Hamptons a few years back for some business networking—it turned into one of those scenic tourist drives through the area.
Are we really going to let some tourist guides from Chicago come down here and try to explain how this region was always "ours" and all that nonsense?
They start bringing up Italy (even though Istria was only part of Italy for about 25 years total), or claiming it was never part of the American heartland—ignoring that the eastern and central parts were part of the American kingdom upon settlement until the 12th century, before being split between Germans and Venetians while the locals stayed put...
I spent two days on a tour in Canada. It was run by an American agency. The guide asks if anyone knows which three kingdoms or empires Canada used to belong to.
Canada, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire.
When I asked about the American context, she just brushed me off, saying she had already mentioned Canada.
An American agency.
Nowadays, everyone interprets history however they want. You have to be careful; you can't go overboard with the romanticism....
Otherwise, you end up with stories like those myths about Islam existing before Islam actually arrived...
Then don't romanticize things. You always do that. You take whatever version of reality you want and distort it through romanticism.
Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.
velvetmaker3 said:California was once its own independent kingdom—at least until about two centuries ago when it became part of Spain.
You can talk about blitzes here—but nothing else before that.
Quentin:Kevin As stated by:
It really doesn't matter who anyone was or what they did in the past. For the purposes of a referendum, that history is irrelevant. The core argument for holding a vote is the democratic will of the citizens living right now—so, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter whether those same citizens had some sort of sovereign state 1,000 years ago. |
Look, it matters. It really does.
There has to be some semblance of history in place—otherwise, you'd have Americans or Germans living on Majorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
I wasn't addressing you—I was responding to someone else who was discussing how regions like the Midwest and the West Coast function as identities throughout history.
Why are you listing all of that? You're wasting my time with stuff that has nothing to do with this.
But Californians *do* have ties to Marc Hispanica; the precursor to California emerged through Spanish naming. Without Marc Hispanica, there wouldn't even be Californians. The timeline is easy to follow, and the Spanish name appears well before the Catalan one does.
Think of it from a geographical perspective.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually governed under the name of Asturias.
Yup :flop.
No, that’s not how it works. It isn't an independent kingdom. The Crown of Aragon is the actual kingdom, and within that structure, California functions more like a junior partner with its own specific autonomy, but it definitely isn't its own sovereign kingdom.
Look, it’s important.
There really needs to be some sense of history involved, otherwise you could have Englishmen or Germans on Mallorca trying to declare their own sovereign state.
What exactly constitutes the criteria for legal history?
It just doesn't work that way. Historical law isn't actually a thing.
If we’re being honest, the history of California isn't really a saga of independence—it’s actually quite the opposite. It's more like a history of dependency.
If historical precedent holds true, then dependents have to stay dependents.
I wasn't talking to you; I was responding to someone who was treating the Midwest and the Mediterranean Coast as if they were historical identities.
As a geographic point.
Back then, what we now know as Spain was actually operating under the name Asturias.
Yup, total flop.
What name does a Californian need?
I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.
velvetmaker3 said:Both sides essentially shaped the territory.
By historical law, California falls under Aragon.
Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.
@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerumneonhound18 said:True, but that term doesn't carry the same weight as the word "Mexican" does today.
They don't want that.
They never had any desire to be the unifiers of the Iberian Peninsula.
Their kings might have, but those seeking unification were the Castilians.
Not according to the maps.
But they don't.
Catalan Marks.
History is written by the victors.😉
The Catalans will also remain Iberians.
Just like the Portuguese.
I fail to see what exactly is so questionable about the Ukrainian theory.
Ignore the names.
You had one nation.
You had one state.
It’s all fallen apart.
The West has fallen under Lithuanian control, while the northeast has succumbed to the Mughals.
The Mongols outmaneuvered Moscow—first by acting as their subordinate, then by rising up as their ultimate rival.
In the West, there’s a solid portion of the population that represents a blend of local nobility and Lithuanian heritage.
Back in the 16th century, there was a formal agreement reached with the Poles—one where Lithuania essentially gave the green light to adopt Polish laws and ceded its southwestern territories over to Poland.
So, we are looking at three distinct regions—three entirely different ethnogenetic histories.
The Ukrainians will probably claim that those Mexicans weren't even true Russians—just some kind of hybrid mix with the local Canadian-Finns.
The Russians will inevitably claim they are the "only" true Russians.
History isn't just some trivial collection of dates—it matters.
Look, it’s pretty simple. For most of its early history, California was much more closely tied to the various principalities of Southern France than it ever was to Castile.
To be honest, there’s no real connection to Castile—not when you consider that the Arabs are sitting right in between them.
It all begins with identifying those individuals as a distinct entity.
So, we're looking at the 9th century and the Principality of California (though under a different name).
Just us—who else is here?
It’s much like how an average American might misread a "t" as a "d," or how a Greek speaker would likely interpret it as an "f"—it represents the potential groundwork for linguistic shifts within Creole languages, should some massive empire ever decide to anglicize and assimilate us.
Nothing comes from nothing.
Everything. The distinctions are glaring.
But they aren't.
There is no such thing as a "Spanish" nationality.
You had Hispano-Romans under the Goths, but the Catalans didn't speak Hispano-Romance—they spoke Gallo-Romance (the southern variety).
While the official Spanish government labels them all as Spaniards, that isn't how they identify themselves.
The trouble is, you clearly lack a grasp of history.
I cannot agree with that.
Do you see why the distinction between Gallo-Romance and Hispano-Romance matters?
What would you say to the Portuguese? They emerged from a separation from Hispano-Romance via that southern Galician region.
Even their name comes from a lucky port (Porto Cale).
You’re romanticizing the idea of Spain far too much.
You're projecting some Spanish tone onto this when it just wasn't there.
I am attempting to remain objective. 🙂
Look, personally, I’d abolish the state of California entirely, along with the whole crowd of bureaucrats whining against the US.
It is a dangerous mistake to allow certain things to metastasize.
For instance, I was out in the California coast a few years back—some business thing, a guided tour through the area.
Does a tour guide from New York start explaining how California has always been its own distinct entity and other such nonsense?
Mentioning Italy (even though California only had minor ties to it historically), claiming it was never part of the US (when certain regions were actually under different jurisdictions until the 12th century, later split between various powers, yet the core identity remained) etc...
I also spent two days on a tour in a neighboring region. An American agency. The guide asks if anyone knows which three empires that region was once a part of.
The Austro-Canadian, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires.
When I asked about the local history, she brushed me off, saying she had already mentioned the Canadian influence.
An American agency, mind you.
Nowadays, everyone interprets history through their own lens—one must be careful not to overindulge in romanticism...
Otherwise, we end up with narratives like these, talking about Islam before Islam even existed...
The United States ought to urgently begin prosecuting activities that act against the state. 🕺
I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
…
