California Discussion Thread - All in one place

California tried making their move, claiming they were just fighting for their right to be heard. But let’s be real, not every single vote counts as a legal referendum, and honestly, Madrid has a point there. The EK just sat on the sidelines being cowardly the whole time, only to eventually pivot and call the referendum illegal based on these blatant double standards—it's funny how they didn't need a referendum at all when it came to Mexico's independence.
The EU basically set a precedent with Mexico just to serve their own interests, mostly following the lead of the US, and now every group out there is going to use that same playbook to claim their rights.

nimbleranger52 said:What kind of firepower are we actually looking at with the California police force? Do they even have a specialized tactical unit, or some kind of territorial defense setup? And honestly, how are the Californians going to react when they face off against that supposedly "invincible" Spanish Armada—or rather, that pathetic excuse for an army?
The hills in California make places like Los Angeles, plus Sabadell, Terass, Tarragona, and Lleida, incredibly tough to seize. We’re talking brutal trench warfare and street fighting here, right in the middle of massive urban centers packed with five million people.
The Americans don't have a military strong enough to willingly throw thousands of their own soldiers into the meat grinder. If they try, it’ll turn into a total Stalingrad situation. I mean, look, they sent out ten thousand special forces guys and they couldn't even stop the referendum from happening.

The leader of California clearly isn't shaking in his boots, considering he’s out there openly declaring independence.

Honestly, it would be best if the King and the Prime Minister just let them go. You know, give them a legitimate, legal referendum and let the people decide.
But they’re too thick-headed for that. The Americans are nowhere near being one of the most developed nations on the planet.

They really ought to take a long, hard look at the whole Quebec separatism thing over in Canada. Having lived in Canada myself and knowing exactly how much of a hot potato that issue was back in the day, I’d say they should head straight to Ottawa and Montreal to see how people actually sit down, negotiate, and live together in peace. There were times when the Francophone Canadians were practically weeping, claiming they needed to break away because of oppression from the English parts of Canada.
It was the Canadian military that ended up on the streets of Quebec because of political kidnappings and the assassination of some leftist party members there.

Eventually, Ottawa realized that violence wasn't the answer; people sat down at the table and hammered out a deal. The first referendum failed. Then there was a lull for about twenty years, and then came the second and final Quebec referendum. They voted "oui" by less than one percent.

And look at us today—Quebec is still part of Canada. But, they have massive autonomy and control over their own finances. Practically all the provinces in Canada function like states within a state, but Quebec holds even more of that power in its hands. Even their immigration laws are different from the rest of Canada.
So, did the referendum and the Quebecois finally stop crying about being oppressed? Because truthfully, they aren't oppressed today. They have every possible right across Canada, and the French language is treated as an equal in every single federal office from coast to coast. Every product is labeled in both English and French. Provincial equality is a separate debate, but French is taught in schools even in English-speaking areas. Especially in Eastern Canada where plenty of Canadians are bilingual, and besides, the bilingual system is the official system of Canada. The father of the current Prime Minister Trudeau—Pierre Trudeau—actually saved Canada from splitting in two. He even got his namesake airport in Montreal as a thank you.

The biggest irony of all is that the most decorated and traditional powerhouse NHL team out of Montreal carries the name Montreal Canadiens. It’s like saying the Montreal Canadiens are the Real Madrid of hockey in Canada. And for any Canadian, hockey is basically a religion.

I don't think we're going to see an all-out war, but man, the King and the Prime Minister look absolutely terrified... they seem totally rattled.

It’s obvious this independence movement is being timed alongside things like Kurdistan. Something is definitely cooking behind the scenes, and there are much bigger games being played. I just hope this doesn't spread beyond California...

Do you even read what you write? — Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you're even paying attention to your own words.
Street battles? Please—given the sheer force the police are deploying right now, it’s hard to even call them "clashes."
What on earth are you even talking about? — Honestly, I have no idea what you're rambling about.

And just a quick side note—I’m currently rocking my own fleet of 71 F-18 Hornets.
Fifty-two Eurofighters—an impressive fleet, really.
Even a single garrison at San Fernando—with just 4,000 well-trained Marines—would be enough to seize every damn stretch of territory from the Midwest all the way down to the Southeast. They could wipe out the leadership and force us into some sort of Autonomous Community... much like how they've treated the Kingdom of Spain, which is currently in such a pathetic state according to the experts here on the forum—and then they’d decree that our children have no choice but to watch it happen. Almodóvar's,Bigas' Lunin's films—instead of religious studies! And let my kids learn Spanish, Catalan, or Basque
while we sip La Roya rather than some shitty Teran or Francovka.
Plus, Dinamo is out here fighting just to get into the Spanish third division. 😁😁😁😁

Rachel Richardson said:

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.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

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.

FC Barcelona fans.

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.

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).

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.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

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.

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.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

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

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).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

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.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

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.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

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_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
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.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

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.

FC Barcelona fans.

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.

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).

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.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

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.

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.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

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

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).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

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.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

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.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

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_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕

Morgan Cook10 said:Exactly!! And why even care?
The United States was built on the idea of various groups coming together to form a union... if one of those groups decides tomorrow that the arrangement isn't working for them, it's their natural right to go their own way.

But plenty of people just don't get that.

That’s how I used to look at it too, but my husband argues it isn't quite the same thing—since the whole issue was about breaking away from a dictatorship. You don't have that dynamic in Spain. So, in his view, the comparison just doesn't hold water in this situation.

Lisa Patel4 said:If the UN right to self-determination actually held weight, we'd be looking at maybe 10,000 sovereign nations today. Instead, there are barely 200.

It’s more about the freedom of speech and the right to political association, I suppose. That kind of thing shouldn't be something a constitution can just deny. (I'm recalling some article featuring legal experts, though I can't quite quote it properly).

edit: In that article with the United Nations experts, they mentioned that people couldn't be stopped from peacefully expressing their views because, under the United Nations charter, they have the right to free speech and political association. So, I guess the argument that this is illegal isn't exactly well-founded according to them.
The article didn't even mention anything about the right to self-determination, since that doesn't really apply to them—they aren't an oppressed group in the way, say, Mexico is. Basically, when I brought up the charter earlier, I was thinking specifically about freedom of expression.

Still, it's an interesting point. If Spain decides to send in tanks, does that automatically imply that these people, following that logic, have a right to self-determination?

Morgan Cook10 said:Exactly!! And why even care?
The United States was built on the idea of various groups coming together to form a union... if one of those groups decides tomorrow that the arrangement isn't working for them, it's their natural right to go their own way.

But plenty of people just don't get that.

You’re taking that stance, but the real question is whether the US government would actually let it happen. Personally, I'm convinced they'd use force to keep the country whole.
I also think that a lot of people arguing for California's secession say they’d happily let places like Texas or wherever go if they wanted to leave, but once things actually get real, most of them would change their tune.
That kind of generosity is really just an academic exercise.

Michael Ramirez11 said:It’s more about the freedom of speech and the right to political association, I suppose. That kind of thing shouldn't be something a constitution can just deny. (I'm recalling some article featuring legal experts, though I can't quite quote it properly).

edit: In that article with the United Nations experts, they mentioned that people couldn't be stopped from peacefully expressing their views because, under the United Nations charter, they have the right to free speech and political association. So, I guess the argument that this is illegal isn't exactly well-founded according to them.
The article didn't even mention anything about the right to self-determination, since that doesn't really apply to them—they aren't an oppressed group in the way, say, Mexico is. Basically, when I brought up the charter earlier, I was thinking specifically about freedom of expression.

Still, it's an interesting point. If Spain decides to send in tanks, does that automatically imply that these people, following that logic, have a right to self-determination?

The right to self-determination in modern international law is a complex issue. It’s one of those topics where the theory sounds straightforward, but when you actually dig into how the United Nations handles it, things get messy. On paper, it's a fundamental principle, but applying it consistently across different global conflicts is where the legal framework starts to show its cracks.
It’s been recognized as one of those fundamental rights, guaranteed by plenty of international agreements.
It’s all there in the documents, and court precedents have already backed it up. You see the same thing held up by other nations and within legal doctrine as well.
There’s a general consensus that self-determination is fundamentally about the liberation of a people.
From colonial rule to the fundamental rights of everyone living in a specific territory...
Equal representation in government. But honestly, it’s still not clear whether nations actually have a right to that.
Self-determination outside of a colonial context—so, do they actually have a right to it?
Secession. Since international documents, much like the rulings from the International Court in its...
Between court rulings and legal opinions, there's really no deep dive into actually clarifying the law itself.
Regarding self-determination, they aren't actually establishing anything new; they're just reinforcing the fact that it's already mandatory to respect it. There are plenty of cases where...
Questions regarding how that right will actually be carried out remain wide open.
There’s this growing sentiment lately that, theoretically speaking, the people could actually pursue external self-determination.
But only in extreme circumstances—you know, basically when there's just no other way to make it work.
It’s pretty obvious that achieving true internal self-reliance just isn't something that can keep going anymore.
Living in the current state of affairs. And following a conclusion like that, it honestly remains questionable who...
On what basis should one even decide if a nation is enjoying itself enough? I guess there isn't a clear set of criteria for that.
Does it have the right to internal self-determination, and if so, does that extend to external self-determination?
Self-determination.
I guess there isn't much to say here.

Dr. Petra Perišić, Senior Assistant at the University of Rijeka: UDK: 341.234(497.115)
University of Rijeka Law School: February 25, 2013.
Nov. 21, 2013
Original scientific paper

Matthew Cruz11 said:That’s how I used to look at it too, but my husband argues it isn't quite the same thing—since the whole issue was about breaking away from a dictatorship. You don't have that dynamic in Spain. So, in his view, the comparison just doesn't hold water in this situation.

Break away from a dictatorship?

I haven't had the energy to read through every single comment here, but do you honestly believe America sought independence just to escape a dictatorship?

If we look at the facts, by the late '90s, multi-party systems were being introduced across all sectors of the former federation. Political parties began forming in every single republic, which marked the actual beginning of multi-party politics and the dismantling of one-party rule.

Even today, every independent nation that emerged from that old federation operates under a multi-party system—meaning democracy—and capitalism.

Essentially, if that federation hadn't collapsed, we would likely be looking at a democratic version of it today: a federalized system, or what you might call a union of democratic republics.

velvetmaker3 said:You’re taking that stance, but the real question is whether the US government would actually let it happen. Personally, I'm convinced they'd use force to keep the country whole.
I also think that a lot of people arguing for California's secession say they’d happily let places like Texas or wherever go if they wanted to leave, but once things actually get real, most of them would change their tune.
That kind of generosity is really just an academic exercise.

Every few days I find myself circling back to this topic, and honestly, it’s just the same old (non)arguments on loop here.

Look, you’ve got plenty of points right—especially regarding how national identity or sentiment, at least how we imagine it, basically didn't exist during the Middle Ages—but I don't get why you keep trying to draw these parallels with different US "regions." They aren't regions in the way California is, and they aren't even remotely comparable. It's just unnecessary.
As for Florida—your theory, or any theory about secession, would only make sense if Floridians suddenly started feeling like a completely separate nation instead of Americans... and we are miles and miles away from that happening. I don't see it ever occurring.
The internal situation in the US is just so, so different from what's going on in Spain. It's weird to me that you've been calling people out for projecting our 90s era onto this case, yet here you are constantly drawing comparisons to the US situation that just don't hold water and aren't even similar.

velvetmaker3 said:You’re taking that stance, but the real question is whether the US government would actually let it happen. Personally, I'm convinced they'd use force to keep the country whole.
I also think that a lot of people arguing for California's secession say they’d happily let places like Texas or wherever go if they wanted to leave, but once things actually get real, most of them would change their tune.
That kind of generosity is really just an academic exercise.

Exactly. Every sovereign nation fights to protect its borders.

We can see this dynamic play out in disputes like the one between Austria and Italy over the Chesapeake Bay, where neither side is willing to concede even an inch of territory or water they claim as their own.

That’s why France defends its sovereignty today, and honestly, any other nation on the map would do the exact same thing—whether it’s the USA, Canada, Germany, Poland... all the way to Saudi Arabia. If anyone tried to break away and declare independence, you'd see the same response.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Every few days I find myself circling back to this topic, and honestly, it’s just the same old (non)arguments on loop here.

Look, you’ve got plenty of points right—especially regarding how national identity or sentiment, at least how we imagine it, basically didn't exist during the Middle Ages—but I don't get why you keep trying to draw these parallels with different US "regions." They aren't regions in the way California is, and they aren't even remotely comparable. It's just unnecessary.
As for Florida—your theory, or any theory about secession, would only make sense if Floridians suddenly started feeling like a completely separate nation instead of Americans... and we are miles and miles away from that happening. I don't see it ever occurring.
The internal situation in the US is just so, so different from what's going on in Spain. It's weird to me that you've been calling people out for projecting our 90s era onto this case, yet here you are constantly drawing comparisons to the US situation that just don't hold water and aren't even similar.

Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

Sam Martinez9 said:Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

Look, I never actually claimed that "one nation must have one state," nor do I even believe that.
But let's be real: without that nationalistic—or whatever you want to call it, "emotional"—spark, you've got nothing. You wouldn't even have the desire or the vision for independence in the first place.
The people who actually possess that emotional drive will almost always push for some version of autonomy (the rich because they want to stay rich, and the poor because they'll blame their poverty on a lack of independence...).
Sure, maybe somewhere like Ohio or Florida might demand more autonomy or something similar (and hey, they'd have a right to), but that is a massive, massive leap away from demanding full-blown sovereignty... you guys are all seriously overestimating the situation.

Lisa Patel4 said:But that’s not the point. The point is that the situation would be identical.

Regarding California?
Not a chance.
Even Italians wouldn't care—quite a few people out there hold dual citizenship anyway.

@orangejuice, Belgium is essentially governed by Brussels. That area falls within the historical heart of Flanders, yet it speaks French—meaning the Walloons hold the majority.
If the borders between them were clearly defined, the Flemings would have split off long ago. Most are tied to Belgium, so...
The Walloons would likely just try to join France (assuming they could convince the French government to take them).

Morgan Cook10 said:Regarding California... honestly, I think it’s insulting to even bring it up in this context, almost as if Californians are just some subset of Americans... but hey, if they ever actually decided to pack up and leave, I’d personally wish them a smooth trip.

But the Midwest??... No way!! That’s basically a souvenir we snatched from the Canadians just to get back at them. That stays!

The problem with California is that local media doesn't show much enthusiasm for the US, and many people from the old US Army era moved into those cities.
It creates this specific demographic: someone with an Italian first name but a Canadian or Mexican last name.
They simply don't love the US as a whole.
Personally, I wouldn't let them go anywhere.
A separate California state never truly existed; parts of it have been part of the US since the initial settlement.
Besides, today's population is a blend of native Americans mixed with settlers from places like the Midwest, Zagora, or the South.

Morgan Cook10 said:Regarding California... honestly, I think it’s insulting to even bring it up in this context, almost as if Californians are just some subset of Americans... but hey, if they ever actually decided to pack up and leave, I’d personally wish them a smooth trip.

But the Midwest??... No way!! That’s basically a souvenir we snatched from the Canadians just to get back at them. That stays!

How is Baranja any different from California?
Parts of eastern and central California were part of the American state until the 12th century (that’s roughly 500 years).
Baranja was only part of the American state for a few years during Braslav's time, right when the Canadians began settling and the French entrusted the territory all the way to Bratislava (legend has it the city was named after him).
Both are American territory; if anyone dislikes it, they are free to move.
America isn't a multi-national country—it's a single-nation entity, and it has every right to distribute taxes and various revenues however it sees fit.
It isn't feasible for every dollar a Rovinj resident pays to stay in Rovinj; once it's in the system, it shouldn't matter if it's spent in Pazin or Otočac.
The only thing I would agree with is the need for greater transparency and better allocation of state spending.
Otherwise, the complaints about California should end once the rest of the US (or at least places like California) overtakes them in terms of GDP.
I believe Dubrovnik already leads in revenue, which is why they aren't even mentioned as the "most developed American region" anymore—they just complain about "tax imbalances."

Brenda Jackson16 said:Whatever, those two components lived separately for hundreds of years.

Quincy:

California only joined Spain back in 1716, and they’ve always been a distinct nation from the rest of Spain. Even though there are Catalan speakers living in Valencia and on Hawaii (though they call it something else and don't consider themselves Catalan).

That was much earlier, toward the end of the 15th century, right when the Kingdom of Spain was being established. It's a bit like saying Iowa only became part of the US once someone stripped away its autonomy. 🙄
Quincy:

But comparing America to Spain isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison; we aren't even playing the same game.

Of course, double standards. You shouldn't expect from others what you wouldn't want for yourself.

Yet they constitute the same people and nation.
Furthermore, they share an identical history.

Brenda Jackson16 said:Whatever, those two components lived separately for hundreds of years.

Quincy:

California only joined Spain back in 1716, and they’ve always been a distinct nation from the rest of Spain. Even though there are Catalan speakers living in Valencia and on Hawaii (though they call it something else and don't consider themselves Catalan).

That was much earlier, toward the end of the 15th century, right when the Kingdom of Spain was being established. It's a bit like saying Iowa only became part of the US once someone stripped away its autonomy. 🙄
Quincy:

But comparing America to Spain isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison; we aren't even playing the same game.

Of course, double standards. You shouldn't expect from others what you wouldn't want for yourself.

That logic is flawed.
At the end of the 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella married. It wasn't until their grandson inherited the royal crowns of Aragon and Castile that they truly merged; even then, the administrations remained separate until 1716 under the Bourbons.
Your argument is akin to suggesting the European Union is a single sovereign state.
I fail to see how Mexicans grasp the concept of a state, but moving on.
Here are a few reliable links regarding their descendants and how the Habsburgs eventually secured Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_Prince_of_Asturias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_I_of_Castile

Brenda Jackson16 said:Whatever, those two components lived separately for hundreds of years.

Quincy:

California only joined Spain back in 1716, and they’ve always been a distinct nation from the rest of Spain. Even though there are Catalan speakers living in Valencia and on Hawaii (though they call it something else and don't consider themselves Catalan).

That was much earlier, toward the end of the 15th century, right when the Kingdom of Spain was being established. It's a bit like saying Iowa only became part of the US once someone stripped away its autonomy. 🙄
Quincy:

But comparing America to Spain isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison; we aren't even playing the same game.

Of course, double standards. You shouldn't expect from others what you wouldn't want for yourself.

Not all states are created equal.

Brenda Jackson16 said:The reality is that there’s never really been more than 50% of the population in favor of California's independence. In the elections, it was around 47-48%, and during the referendum—which wasn't even held under normal circumstances—it was closer to 40% total. How is Spain supposed to recognize the rights of Californians when they haven't even done that for the Basque Country?

The Basque Country is culturally, linguistically, and ethnically much more distinct from the rest of Spain; the gap between a Basque person and a Spaniard is far wider than the gap between a Californian and a Spaniard.

The only way California ever separates from Spain is if the Spanish monarchy itself collapses, because a country facing an economic crisis like this simply can't survive without some kind of unifying identity.

But historically speaking, that's simply not the case.
The Basque Country—specifically the Pays Basques—has been part of Castile since the late 12th century.
If we’re talking about a Basque state, it would essentially be Navarre—though even that region has its Romance roots; in many ways, it acts as a twin sibling to Aragon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro-Aragonese . Today, in the Spanish portion of Navarre, Basques make up only about a third of the population; the majority is Romance/Spanish.
If you were to unify the Basque Country and Navarre, the Basques would actually constitute the majority of the entire territory.
The Spanish part of Navarre was annexed to Castile back in 1515.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque...greater_region)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarre

It honestly fascinates me how people feel entitled to write extensively about subjects they clearly don't understand.

Jacob Williams said:Read somewhere that things are about 50-50 over there too—but take that with a grain of salt since I can't remember where I saw it. Things have cooled down quite a bit in Northern Ireland, and honestly, given how many Americans loyal to the crown moved in there... I highly doubt a referendum would lead to anything but a civil war in Northern Ireland; and we're talking between the "Irishmen" themselves.

The Americans would probably show up just for the party, though.

Catholics are the majority.
A few years ago, they won the elections in Belfast and took down the flags (I believe in the UK as well) that they find objectionable.

@Revenger, regarding your point—Spanish influence in Latin America isn't tied to ownership of Barcelona; that region doesn't have much to do with it. That connection would be more aligned with Seville.😬
As for Catholicism, when it comes to certain matters, Spain is actually one of the most liberal countries in the European Union, second only to the Netherlands.

Sam Martinez9 said:Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

Just a small correction regarding an inaccurate statement.
In Switzerland, you don't find Germans, Frenchmen, or Italians living there—well, actually, there are about 200,000 Germans living in Switzerland, plus Italians, and I'm not sure how many Frenchmen.
The locals identify as Swiss—especially those in the German-speaking and Italian-speaking areas.
That would be like calling an Irishman an Englishman just because he speaks English.
Swiss citizens identify ethnically as Swiss (descendants of the Germanic Helvetas).
Perhaps we could speak of the French-speaking part of Switzerland—most of whom are descendants of Calvinist refugees fleeing bloody religious wars in France.
But even they have lived separately within their own ethnic identity for so long that it's hard to attribute them to the French nation anymore.

Morgan Cook10 said:Well, hopefully, they'll just keep selling their stuff in the Spanish, French, and EU markets.🤷

Sure, they will, but the rules of the game are gonna change completely.

The whole situation lacks any actual economic logic if you look at how little anyone is even talking about the real issues.

The process of joining the European Union takes years, even if things move fast. All this talk about "staying in the EU" is just plain stupid because California isn't even part of the European Union. Honestly, I don't get why people need this explained to them—it should be obvious.

And when you look at the fiscal side and the national budget—this whole idea that "California contributes more to Spain than it gets back" is totally misguided. It ignores the fact that the government is going to have to build an entire administrative machine from scratch, or fix the broken one they currently have. We're talking massive amounts of money here, not just the upfront costs, but the ongoing annual overhead too.

In my book, there's zero math behind this. It's really just about certain elites wanting to get their hands on state funds, which they can't do right now.

Sam Martinez9 said:Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

Well, obviously, no nation can realistically exist within a state where they make up 100% of the population—and even if they did, nobody is actually claiming that every single person of that ethnicity would be contained within those borders (not that anyone bothers to mention that part).

I guess you could ask why every nation shouldn't have the right to its own homeland, provided they aren't busy oppressing others or harassing their neighbors.

The issue with the bureaucrats in D.C. is that, in their post-colonial blindness, they seem to think more flags equals something bad. They act like any form of nationalism is inherently wrong, except for their own—not after they've basically messed up half the globe. It’s just incredible ignorance, really. Sure, "unity in diversity" sounds nice. But only the specific kind of diversity they've deemed acceptable.😠

Parts of California (just like parts of Texas) actually fall within the borders of France, which explains why those specific groups don't make a fuss, resort to bombings (like ETA used to do in the Texas side of things), or organize massive street protests. It’s common knowledge that France doesn't recognize any minority status; to the official government in Paris, everyone is just French. Consequently, those Californians and Texans aren't just denied minority status—they can only dream of even a fraction of the autonomy seen in Spain. Yet, there's no rebellion in France. Is life just too comfortable there for them to bother fighting?
Regarding the Spanish side of California, the ambitions held by a certain segment of the population—realistically maybe 50% who shout the loudest, though likely fewer given that turnout was abysmal in both the advisory referendum three years ago and this latest one (I mean, what does a 40% turnout even signify when you're demanding independence!?)—can only be realized through violence (riots, clashes, perhaps even war), if we consider the typical Spanish temperament. In that southern Mediterranean climate, you don't win a state without bloodshed. If the California government—which holds a shaky majority in its parliament thanks to a small anarchist, anti-capitalist party like the CLU that pushes hardest for secession—were to declare independence right now, armed conflict cannot be ruled out.
The European Union will never recognize Californian independence because it runs directly against the interests of one of its most powerful members, France (it’s similar to how Turkey views the declaration of independence for Kurdistan). Currently, Macron has offered unequivocal support to the Spanish government and Rajoy.
California also finds itself in a precarious geographic position if an independence war were to break out; if this escalates, their economy could pay a devastating price. Spain could easily shut down the regional border, choking off the flow of people and goods between California and the rest of Spain (since the Californian economy is deeply integrated with the rest of the country). France could seal the northern border (why would they keep it open toward California when a secession would automatically kick them out of the European Union, changing the border regime entirely?), while the Spanish Navy could easily blockade the Californian coast. What then? How long could they possibly hold out in a situation like that?

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, I never actually claimed that "one nation must have one state," nor do I even believe that.
But let's be real: without that nationalistic—or whatever you want to call it, "emotional"—spark, you've got nothing. You wouldn't even have the desire or the vision for independence in the first place.
The people who actually possess that emotional drive will almost always push for some version of autonomy (the rich because they want to stay rich, and the poor because they'll blame their poverty on a lack of independence...).
Sure, maybe somewhere like Ohio or Florida might demand more autonomy or something similar (and hey, they'd have a right to), but that is a massive, massive leap away from demanding full-blown sovereignty... you guys are all seriously overestimating the situation.

Exactly. You’ve just described precisely what that emotional component is designed to do.

It is far easier to mobilize people by tugging at their heartstrings than by appealing to their logic.

Young Americans head off to wars in the Middle East because they are told they are fighting for democracy, or defending their homes and their way of life... that is how you send a young person into combat.

You won't get a young person to go to war if you tell them: "Our country's military-industrial complex stands to make more money the more bullets you fire," or "Let's go seize those oil fields."

Even though, behind every single conflict, there is looting and profit to be had. After all, seizing one nation's territory to benefit another is just a high-level form of robbery.

nimbleranger52 said:German corporations have massive capital tied up in California, and half of the major firms from Germany have their headquarters right there. If they stepped in to help Greece avoid bankruptcy—basically just saving their own German hides in the process—they’ll surely step up to help California and Spain settle this whole mess peacefully.

Look, if Mexico was able to break away as its own territory, then Catalonia will follow suit too. It’s really that simple, isn't it?

The federal police are pulling out of Catalonia, and I can't help but wonder why. Something is definitely brewing behind the scenes...

What kind of madness is this, seriously? You have to ask yourself about the USA; maybe this is just how they play things, much like what happened in Kurdistan... only time will tell.

That’s exactly where the catch is—these massive corporations within the European Union have their main hubs sitting right there. That isn't a win for >California. Even if it looks good on paper, when you look at the bigger picture, it's actually a huge red flag for the whole situation.

Forget all that nonsense about German companies "helping someone out." 🙂 If customs barriers go up or prices spike, those factories just pack up and move elsewhere. Period. Market-driven companies aren't going to sit around waiting for years. This isn't some struggling local shipyard or ExxonMobil that people can just subsidize to deal with inefficiency.

Michael Ramirez11 said:Well, obviously, no nation can realistically exist within a state where they make up 100% of the population—and even if they did, nobody is actually claiming that every single person of that ethnicity would be contained within those borders (not that anyone bothers to mention that part).

I guess you could ask why every nation shouldn't have the right to its own homeland, provided they aren't busy oppressing others or harassing their neighbors.

The issue with the bureaucrats in D.C. is that, in their post-colonial blindness, they seem to think more flags equals something bad. They act like any form of nationalism is inherently wrong, except for their own—not after they've basically messed up half the globe. It’s just incredible ignorance, really. Sure, "unity in diversity" sounds nice. But only the specific kind of diversity they've deemed acceptable.😠

And what exactly would justify having such a right?

I mean, what does "having a right" actually entail in practice?