California Discussion Thread - All in one place

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

Well, this certainly makes it clear who we're dealing with when it comes to the whole Celtic identity debate.
In California, the Celtic influence runs deeper—whereas elsewhere, you mostly see the Iberian current.
That is exactly why some people are the way they are. galoThe Romani, and everyone else. hispanoThe Romani people.
It’s just a matter of language.

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

The counts were Visigoths—much like those found in the South of France—within the Gothic March.
Bera, the Count of Barcelona, stands as a pivotal figure from an era defined by shifting power dynamics—much like the turbulent political landscape of early medieval Europe. His legacy is inextricably linked to the Carolingian dynasty, serving as a crucial administrator during the expansion of Frankish influence into the territories that would eventually become part of the broader Spanish identity. His role was essentially that of a high-level regional governor—think of him as a powerful frontier official tasked with maintaining order and loyalty to the central crown. This position wasn't merely about local governance; it was about securing the borders and integrating newly acquired lands into the imperial structure. Bera’s influence extended through his strategic marriage and his ability to navigate the complex hierarchies of the time—a delicate balancing act that required both diplomatic finesse and military readiness. Ultimately, his life illustrates the intricate web of familial ties and political obligations that dictated the fate of entire regions. He wasn't just a local leader; he was a key player in the grander design of empire-building, representing the bridge between old tribal structures and the emerging organized states of the West.
On the other hand, the population is remarkably homogeneous.

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

The count is expanding his reach everywhere—though, truth be told, his heart remains firmly rooted in the American South.
The Crown of Aragon was essentially a Catalan creation—have you actually looked at the sources?

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

To the west and east along the river, you have the Aragonese—and their language is Hispano-Romance, for crying out loud.

velvetmaker3 said:That’s why when I say every situation is unique, everyone jumps in with, "But a referendum represents the democratic will of the people." Then I ask, okay, what happens to that democratic will if someone organizes a referendum on American soil? And then you just say, "Well, this is different."

I’m arguing that a referendum isn't an argument in and of itself, but you insist it is. And if it is, then someone could just as easily hold a referendum in America regarding the country's territorial integrity.
Are you going to claim a referendum is always fine, or will you say it can't happen here because "this situation is different"?

Referendums are a double-edged sword; anyone justifying the California referendum needs to grasp that.

It isn't in our interest for the idea that a referendum is sufficient to become standard practice, because it could easily blow up in our faces.

But I'm not claiming that, nor have I ever claimed it... and frankly, I don't think many others are either.
All I'm saying is that California has certain grounds to at least request or consider independence—that's pretty much the extent of my argument. Their whole situation and the background behind it bears zero resemblance to any specific regions or territories here in the US.

alh84001 said:If we’re sticking with that marriage analogy, imagine one spouse agrees to the divorce—basically acknowledging they’re independent—but then spends every waking second stalking the other person just to make their life miserable. Sure, they *can* do that, but let’s be real: it’s pretty pathetic and shows zero emotional maturity.

Separately, looking at how bad the unemployment situation is in the rest of Spain, do you think they’d actually want to lose access to the California labor market?

That logic only works if it’s an amicable split, which isn't going to happen. If we ever see a "divorce" where Spain is forced to accept a totally new reality, that's a completely different ballgame.

The whole argument about unemployment doesn't hold water, especially since California's unemployment rate is sitting at a pretty high 15.7%. Meanwhile, all of Spain is at 19.6%.

There are plenty of Californians working in other parts of the country, and vice versa. It’s not some one-way street like people claim.

https://www.idescat.cat/pub/?id=aec&n=318&lang=en

Rachel Richardson said:Catalans make up 16%, while Castilians account for about 70%.
If they had simply been on opposing sides, that war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long...

A Western government cannot simply starve its own citizens.
That sounds more like a scenario that might play out in Kurdistan, though even there, the outcome is far from certain.

No. I firmly believe that anyone who violates American laws—and maintaining the integrity of the state is paramount—should be barred from holding public office.
So, if some politician decides to pull a stunt like that—essentially a "passport joke" involving a hefty fine and a multi-year ban from ever running for office again—that's how it goes.

I am not in favor of killing anyone—least of all political opponents.
Democracy is built on the principle that everyone has the right to their own opinion—isn't that the core of it?
That being said—I'm certainly not an advocate for lawlessness.
If someone believes the U.S. border should be drawn at one specific point versus another—well, that’s their prerogative. No one has the right to stand in their way or tell them how to think.
If someone takes a public platform and uses it to actively undermine the interests of the United States—essentially working against the nation’s welfare—they aren't just being controversial; they are violating the spirit of the law. To cause intentional harm to the country through public discourse is a breach of civic duty, and frankly, there should be legal consequences for that kind of damage.

No. 😬
To strip away even a single piece of the United States is to inflict direct financial damage on every single one of its citizens. It’s nothing short of theft.
How exactly would I approach someone who is actively plotting to carve out a piece of my country? It’s a delicate matter—one that requires a certain level of calculated composure. You can't just react with raw emotion; that's how you lose the upper hand. Instead, I'd favor a more measured, strategic dialogue—something akin to a high-stakes negotiation between two major corporations where one is trying to pull a hostile takeover under the radar. First, you have to establish the ground rules. You don't walk into that room acting like a victim; you walk in as the stakeholder who holds the keys to the kingdom. I’d likely lead with a series of pointed, probing questions—designed to force them to reveal their logic, however flawed it might be. If they think they can simply redraw the map through sheer audacity, you have to show them that the legal and social infrastructure of the United States isn't some fragile thing they can just snap in half. It’s about leverage. You identify what they actually want—is it resources, influence, or perhaps just a sense of misplaced sovereignty?—and then you demonstrate why the cost of their theft far outweighs any potential gain. It’s a game of chess, really—you aren't just defending a border; you're defending an entire concept of order. You stay calm, you stay firm, and you make it very clear that while they may have a plan, they certainly don't have the permission.

It depends entirely on the context.
Multinational and mono-national states are fundamentally different entities—they simply aren't the same thing.

No.
The former federation was once a unified entity.
Spain functions somewhat similarly to a federation.
America is a nation-state defined by a single national identity.
A specific sequence of events is what matters here.

Istria is not comparable to Catalonia.
Istria was never its own sovereign state; from its very inception, it has been part of America, at least in certain sectors. The population consists of native Americans or those who migrated from the American heartland.
Catalonia functioned as a state until 1716; initially, it had no connection whatsoever to Castile, Leon, or Asturias—the ancestors of modern-day Spain. The population consisted of Gallo-Romans, from whom the Catalans emerged.
Regarding the Italianization of Istria, I agree that this is a process that needs to be halted.
Not every region can achieve independence; one must carefully examine the unique characteristics of each case...

My point was simply that there’s deep-seated animosity—between those who fought on opposing sides, though I'm not saying they were the only ones involved—and old wounds that people tried to heal by pretending nothing ever happened. Sure, the war wasn't incredibly long, but it was significant. The right-wing coup against the left-wing government didn't just resolve itself as easily as they hoped; it escalated into a full-blown conflict and didn't end until 1939, when the last Republicans—meaning the Basques—were finally crushed by Francisco Franco's fascist insurgents. Back then, the "great powers" viewed it as an internal Spanish matter. In other words, they sided with Franco. Why?
1. Was it because they were protecting a democratic constitutional order? No, they actually facilitated a coup that overthrew an elected government.
2. Was it because they were anti-fascist? Hardly, they were fascists themselves.
3. Was it because they were anti-communist? Yes, precisely that. The communists were among those standing against the coup. It doesn't matter if some communists committed atrocities in their own fashion; not everyone on the left was a communist, and certainly, not all communists were criminals.

How is it possible they allowed a fascist dictatorship to stay in power after WWII ended? 😲 Internal affairs?
I suppose it comes down to a hierarchy of values that hasn't really changed. Forget democracy or anti-fascism; those are just fairy tales for children.

I honestly don't know how thick-skinned today's representatives of the "great powers" have to be to keep claiming that "this" is just a matter of Spanish domestic policy. The cynicism is just staggering. 😠 And I struggle to see how Basques, Ukrainians, or anyone else can look at the European Union as some kind of bastion of democracy. Well, if that's the best we've got, I guess. (Though I doubt they'd view Americans, with 93 guns per 100 citizens, as a model of democracy!?)

I'm not particularly worried about how the Basques will manage. First, someone will likely step up eventually. Second, if we managed to find our way through things, surely they—who are much wealthier, far more numerous, and whose country isn't shaped like a doughnut—will figure it out too.

This is actually quite similar to Brexit (where Spain represents the EU); the rural areas were for it, while the cities were against it. Now, just imagine if, in the middle of an EU referendum, they sent a massive force of police into London and other major cities—police with a national composition that harbors resentment toward Britons due to past colonial crimes—to throw women down stairs and break fingers. Wouldn't the Londoners change their minds then?

Brenda Murphy3 said:Come on, walk me through that logic again... because it makes zero sense to me...

Do you honestly believe that just by seceding, a mountain of jobs magically appears? Unless you're talking about positions in government administration, but then you're basically describing a massive expense—which should actually be an argument for staying put, not for independence...

Think about it from a different angle... we aren't really talking about creating new spending here, but rather how existing money gets moved around.

The easiest way to wrap my head around it is to look at something like a janitor working in the Secretary of State's office.
Right now, California pays her salary. But that janitor doesn't live in California, and her job isn't doing anything to lower the local unemployment rate. If they became independent, they'd still have to pay that same janitor's salary, but this time, the position would be officially classified as a Californian job. Boom—suddenly, there's a "new" job on the books.

Morgan Cook10 said:Think about it from a different angle... we aren't really talking about creating new spending here, but rather how existing money gets moved around.

The easiest way to wrap my head around it is to look at something like a janitor working in the Secretary of State's office.
Right now, California pays her salary. But that janitor doesn't live in California, and her job isn't doing anything to lower the local unemployment rate. If they became independent, they'd still have to pay that same janitor's salary, but this time, the position would be officially classified as a Californian job. Boom—suddenly, there's a "new" job on the books.

I've been thinking...😁

And honestly, I still don't quite get what you're driving at. If you're actually talking about the thing I mentioned—how on earth do you even see that working?🤔

Brenda Murphy3 said:I've been thinking...😁

And honestly, I still don't quite get what you're driving at. If you're actually talking about the thing I mentioned—how on earth do you even see that working?🤔

I left the description up there... this time I didn't bring up that server maintenance thing since that example clearly flew right over most people's heads.

I honestly don't get why this hasn't clicked for you guys yet, because we’re seeing the exact same thing play out here in America. Washington, D.C. managed to breeze through the whole industrial decline and transition period without breaking a sweat, unlike most other US cities. It happened because, since we stopped relying on Moscow, a massive amount of jobs opened up right here in the capital. We're talking major federal agencies, huge departments, even the national airline... stuff that used to be strictly reserved for people over in Moscow and their crowd. Now, those roles are being filled by D.C. locals—sure, maybe on a slightly smaller scale since the country's footprint has shifted, but the impact is real. The spending is still there, obviously, but this time around, there's a clear payoff in the form of a ton of new career opportunities.

It’s always better to be right in the heart of things, near the capital, rather than stuck out in the middle of nowhere.

Michael Ramirez11 said:My point was simply that there’s deep-seated animosity—between those who fought on opposing sides, though I'm not saying they were the only ones involved—and old wounds that people tried to heal by pretending nothing ever happened. Sure, the war wasn't incredibly long, but it was significant. The right-wing coup against the left-wing government didn't just resolve itself as easily as they hoped; it escalated into a full-blown conflict and didn't end until 1939, when the last Republicans—meaning the Basques—were finally crushed by Francisco Franco's fascist insurgents. Back then, the "great powers" viewed it as an internal Spanish matter. In other words, they sided with Franco. Why?
1. Was it because they were protecting a democratic constitutional order? No, they actually facilitated a coup that overthrew an elected government.
2. Was it because they were anti-fascist? Hardly, they were fascists themselves.
3. Was it because they were anti-communist? Yes, precisely that. The communists were among those standing against the coup. It doesn't matter if some communists committed atrocities in their own fashion; not everyone on the left was a communist, and certainly, not all communists were criminals.

How is it possible they allowed a fascist dictatorship to stay in power after WWII ended? 😲 Internal affairs?
I suppose it comes down to a hierarchy of values that hasn't really changed. Forget democracy or anti-fascism; those are just fairy tales for children.

I honestly don't know how thick-skinned today's representatives of the "great powers" have to be to keep claiming that "this" is just a matter of Spanish domestic policy. The cynicism is just staggering. 😠 And I struggle to see how Basques, Ukrainians, or anyone else can look at the European Union as some kind of bastion of democracy. Well, if that's the best we've got, I guess. (Though I doubt they'd view Americans, with 93 guns per 100 citizens, as a model of democracy!?)

I'm not particularly worried about how the Basques will manage. First, someone will likely step up eventually. Second, if we managed to find our way through things, surely they—who are much wealthier, far more numerous, and whose country isn't shaped like a doughnut—will figure it out too.

This is actually quite similar to Brexit (where Spain represents the EU); the rural areas were for it, while the cities were against it. Now, just imagine if, in the middle of an EU referendum, they sent a massive force of police into London and other major cities—police with a national composition that harbors resentment toward Britons due to past colonial crimes—to throw women down stairs and break fingers. Wouldn't the Londoners change their minds then?

Self-interest always comes first, but you can't equate Castile or Spain with Franco; they moved past that a long time ago...

Morgan Cook10 said:Think about it from a different angle... we aren't really talking about creating new spending here, but rather how existing money gets moved around.

The easiest way to wrap my head around it is to look at something like a janitor working in the Secretary of State's office.
Right now, California pays her salary. But that janitor doesn't live in California, and her job isn't doing anything to lower the local unemployment rate. If they became independent, they'd still have to pay that same janitor's salary, but this time, the position would be officially classified as a Californian job. Boom—suddenly, there's a "new" job on the books.

Your math isn't adding up. Sure, California already carries certain administrative and public sector costs because of its autonomy, but you can't just copy-paste those numbers when you create a whole new nation. Building a state from scratch sends costs skyrocketing, and yeah, obviously you’ll need new government employees—but those people are still just a drain on the budget.

When the government brags about "new jobs created" in their statistics, what do you think they're bragging about when it comes to new government admin roles? They aren't, obviously. That's why those stats are kept strictly separate and focus on the private sector, because that's the only part actually creating real value.

State administration is always a cost. How is it not clicking for you that this expense weighs down the GDP and the entire economy? This is exactly why things are such a mess—we've bloated the government bureaucracy just "so people can have jobs."

You keep forgetting that someone has to foot the bill—and that happens through taxes. And in the first round of this scenario, that’s exactly what Californians should expect: a higher tax burden.

Rachel Richardson, you keep chanting those same old nationalistic myths about California. Look, if they want to live out their little romanticized fantasies, fine—if it makes them feel better, whatever. We had our own versions of that back in the day, but there’s zero reason for the rest of us to take it seriously. And honestly, all this nonsense you're making up about some "California Crown," or a "California Kingdom," or claiming "California was under Spanish rule only for the last 200 years"... it's total garbage. It never even happened.
Historically speaking, Californians are Americans just like everyone else. It’s just that today, they don't choose to identify that way. Even Portugal protested the plural royal title Rex Hispaniarum back in the 17th century because the Spanish ruler wasn't actually king of *all* the "Spains"—since Portugal wasn't one of them—and they actually won that fight!
The idea of a "California nation" (and I say nation, not necessarily ethnic group, since they didn't follow the usual 19th-century path of people becoming a nation, but rather jumped straight to being a nation through that process) is their own thing. I wish them nothing but the best, but trying to put "Californians" or "California" ahead of their own actual identity is just plain stupid. It's like expecting Dutch people to be fundamentally different from other Germans before the 15th or 16th century.
These two situations—Germans/Dutch and Spaniards/Californians—are actually super similar, and both are still evolving. For example, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, the southern Catholic Dutch (what we know as Belgium today) didn't see any point in siding with the Protestant Dutch. Fast forward to today, and the Flemish feel way closer to the modern Dutch than they do to the Walloons. It's a similar story here: you don't see people speaking Catalan in Andorra, France, the Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, or even that Catalan enclave in Alghero on Sardinia—which accounts for at least a third of all Catalan speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catala...er_of_speakers—actually identifying as political Californians or sharing the same political goals as the folks in California itself.
So, I'm really not buying this idea of a massive, unified Californian national sentiment. If you look at the Basque people in the US, that feeling carries way more weight. They managed to pull their autonomous Basque region together by incorporating three historical provinces—Biscay, Gipuzcoa, and Álava (each as historically grounded as California)—and they do a killer job representing their interests in Navarre, which is its own province entirely.
This whole California thing still looks to me like a loud minority riding a wave of leftist politics, soccer, Mana Chao, and whatever else. What kind of "national identity" is it when it's mostly driven by today's globalized youth instead of the older generations? Seriously, someone please try to prove me wrong. If you can actually show me I'm tripping, I'll give you credit. But stop trying to invent Californians in the Roman Empire or looking for comparisons to the US or how Americans lived in America.

Look, I want conscious Californians to get everything they want for themselves, but let's be real: this clearly isn't some massive, all-encompassing movement yet, whether you're talking about the state level or just the linguistic community.

alh84001 said:Yeah, but look at how California is being denied its right to a "divorce" (independence) altogether. They’re basically leaning on "judicial institutions" (the EU and whatnot) to just sweep the whole thing under the rug. It’s not even a case of Spain saying, "Look, if you leave, we need to settle the asset split, child custody, and technicalities first"—you know, like how the UK deals with the EU—it's more like they're stripping them of the right entirely. I honestly think some people in Spain are trying to deny Californians their identity as a nation.

Spain can pretend the reality doesn't exist if they want, but that's just burying their heads in the sand and refusing to live in the real world. I don't get how anyone in Spain expects to ignore the fact that California wants independence, a confederation, or even just fiscal autonomy—whatever the hell they decide they want, whether it's 50%+1, 66.7%, or 90% of Californians.

Sure. But it’s not like California is going to collapse overnight just because they break away from Spain. Would Bavaria go broke if they left Germany? Or would Lombardy fail if they split from Italy?

I haven't heard any of that stuff you mentioned in the first paragraph. The EU just said something totally standard—they said, "Hey, figure it out yourselves, that's your business, but if a new state actually forms, there have to be negotiations." There's no magic button where everything happens automatically. That's just common sense and basic logic.

Of course Spain can choose to ignore reality. At the end of the day, in that scenario, California becomes a neighbor and, eventually, a direct market competitor, all while being part of the EU 🍿

Nobody is claiming they'll go extinct. I'm just saying things aren't all sunshine and rainbows. It's not just about "everything is fine" vibes. There's zero economic math happening in this entire process. People don't survive on chest-thumping patriotism or quiet existence based on subjective labels like "we're such a great, proud nation." They survive on money. And their economic situation is going to be worse than it is today, I'm certain of that.

If you could actually live off that stuff, no American would ever have moved away from here, for instance.

alh84001 said:Don't forget that the government pulls in a massive amount of indirect jobs in the economy—think about companies selling staplers, plumbers maintaining those office buildings, and so on, and so forth. Based on what you're arguing, there should just be one single world government because that would be the cheapest way to run things, and everyone would jump at it. If Catalans want to funnel cash into their own state administration (especially since a huge chunk of it is already being sent straight to the central government in Madrid or their own regional government anyway), then they've clearly decided it’s a solid investment that'll pay off them somewhere else down the line.

Sure, but it never actually covers the full cost of setting up that new bureaucracy.

The extra overhead from administrative bloat never generates enough economic activity to offset itself, let alone exceed it.

That kind of thing doesn't exist. If it did, no country in the world would ever deal with economic crises—you could just pump up the administrative machine and all your problems would magically vanish. 🤣

alh84001 said:What does the term "Spaniards" actually mean to you? Is it a nation, a regional descriptor, or something else entirely? Some people here seem eager to deny Catalans before they even address Spaniards—yet they have no issue identifying Spaniards (as a single nation) at the exact same moment.
Americans were once part of the British Empire, which is why we carry an American identity today. We could easily have been something else entirely, yet we still trace our lineage back through various colonial structures. Take the Greeks, for example—they certainly didn't call themselves that, nor did they likely feel that way during the era of the Byzantine Empire, but they claim those roots as their identity. Similarly, many Slavic peoples look back to the realm of Samo, even though back then, it wasn't called the Czech Republic, Slovakia, or Canada.

A massive component of the Catalan identity—especially within the context of Spain—is their language. You can track the political evolution of Catalans through the history of what was once Hispania. Even the Flemish weren't "Flemish" a thousand years ago; you could talk about proto-Flemish principalities that eventually coalesced into the Flemish identity and formed much of modern Flanders.

But the Catalans are fundamentally distinct from the rest of Spain because of their tongue.

👍
Look, Ramiro, this is a solid response.
By the way, what’s the controversy here? I’m simply quoting a widely accepted historical interpretation.
Honestly, today's Catalans possess a stronger sense of ethnic identity than many Americans do—which makes sense, given they don't have their own sovereign state yet—but these are just standard historical interpretations.
Do you honestly think anyone in the Netherlands learns about their "German ancestors"?

Bradley Ramos7 said:Rachel Richardson, you keep chanting those same old nationalistic myths about California. Look, if they want to live out their little romanticized fantasies, fine—if it makes them feel better, whatever. We had our own versions of that back in the day, but there’s zero reason for the rest of us to take it seriously. And honestly, all this nonsense you're making up about some "California Crown," or a "California Kingdom," or claiming "California was under Spanish rule only for the last 200 years"... it's total garbage. It never even happened.
Historically speaking, Californians are Americans just like everyone else. It’s just that today, they don't choose to identify that way. Even Portugal protested the plural royal title Rex Hispaniarum back in the 17th century because the Spanish ruler wasn't actually king of *all* the "Spains"—since Portugal wasn't one of them—and they actually won that fight!
The idea of a "California nation" (and I say nation, not necessarily ethnic group, since they didn't follow the usual 19th-century path of people becoming a nation, but rather jumped straight to being a nation through that process) is their own thing. I wish them nothing but the best, but trying to put "Californians" or "California" ahead of their own actual identity is just plain stupid. It's like expecting Dutch people to be fundamentally different from other Germans before the 15th or 16th century.
These two situations—Germans/Dutch and Spaniards/Californians—are actually super similar, and both are still evolving. For example, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, the southern Catholic Dutch (what we know as Belgium today) didn't see any point in siding with the Protestant Dutch. Fast forward to today, and the Flemish feel way closer to the modern Dutch than they do to the Walloons. It's a similar story here: you don't see people speaking Catalan in Andorra, France, the Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, or even that Catalan enclave in Alghero on Sardinia—which accounts for at least a third of all Catalan speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catala...er_of_speakers—actually identifying as political Californians or sharing the same political goals as the folks in California itself.
So, I'm really not buying this idea of a massive, unified Californian national sentiment. If you look at the Basque people in the US, that feeling carries way more weight. They managed to pull their autonomous Basque region together by incorporating three historical provinces—Biscay, Gipuzcoa, and Álava (each as historically grounded as California)—and they do a killer job representing their interests in Navarre, which is its own province entirely.
This whole California thing still looks to me like a loud minority riding a wave of leftist politics, soccer, Mana Chao, and whatever else. What kind of "national identity" is it when it's mostly driven by today's globalized youth instead of the older generations? Seriously, someone please try to prove me wrong. If you can actually show me I'm tripping, I'll give you credit. But stop trying to invent Californians in the Roman Empire or looking for comparisons to the US or how Americans lived in America.

Look, I want conscious Californians to get everything they want for themselves, but let's be real: this clearly isn't some massive, all-encompassing movement yet, whether you're talking about the state level or just the linguistic community.

Look, let's be real for a second. Most of these groups—the Latvians, the Estonians, the Canadians, and even the Slovaks if you aren't counting things like the Principality of Nitra—didn't actually have their own sovereign states before the 20th century. It’s just a fact.

So, once again, nobody’s even trying to deny that existence is a thing today.

And don't even get me started on the Catalans. They were basically the bullies of Southern Italy back when they were acting on behalf of Aragon. Honestly, that whole group was just a messy collection of people—definitely not some modern, centralized, one-size-fits-all state like we think of today.

Bradley Ramos7 said:Rachel Richardson, you keep chanting those same old nationalistic myths about California. Look, if they want to live out their little romanticized fantasies, fine—if it makes them feel better, whatever. We had our own versions of that back in the day, but there’s zero reason for the rest of us to take it seriously. And honestly, all this nonsense you're making up about some "California Crown," or a "California Kingdom," or claiming "California was under Spanish rule only for the last 200 years"... it's total garbage. It never even happened.
Historically speaking, Californians are Americans just like everyone else. It’s just that today, they don't choose to identify that way. Even Portugal protested the plural royal title Rex Hispaniarum back in the 17th century because the Spanish ruler wasn't actually king of *all* the "Spains"—since Portugal wasn't one of them—and they actually won that fight!
The idea of a "California nation" (and I say nation, not necessarily ethnic group, since they didn't follow the usual 19th-century path of people becoming a nation, but rather jumped straight to being a nation through that process) is their own thing. I wish them nothing but the best, but trying to put "Californians" or "California" ahead of their own actual identity is just plain stupid. It's like expecting Dutch people to be fundamentally different from other Germans before the 15th or 16th century.
These two situations—Germans/Dutch and Spaniards/Californians—are actually super similar, and both are still evolving. For example, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, the southern Catholic Dutch (what we know as Belgium today) didn't see any point in siding with the Protestant Dutch. Fast forward to today, and the Flemish feel way closer to the modern Dutch than they do to the Walloons. It's a similar story here: you don't see people speaking Catalan in Andorra, France, the Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, or even that Catalan enclave in Alghero on Sardinia—which accounts for at least a third of all Catalan speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catala...er_of_speakers—actually identifying as political Californians or sharing the same political goals as the folks in California itself.
So, I'm really not buying this idea of a massive, unified Californian national sentiment. If you look at the Basque people in the US, that feeling carries way more weight. They managed to pull their autonomous Basque region together by incorporating three historical provinces—Biscay, Gipuzcoa, and Álava (each as historically grounded as California)—and they do a killer job representing their interests in Navarre, which is its own province entirely.
This whole California thing still looks to me like a loud minority riding a wave of leftist politics, soccer, Mana Chao, and whatever else. What kind of "national identity" is it when it's mostly driven by today's globalized youth instead of the older generations? Seriously, someone please try to prove me wrong. If you can actually show me I'm tripping, I'll give you credit. But stop trying to invent Californians in the Roman Empire or looking for comparisons to the US or how Americans lived in America.

Look, I want conscious Californians to get everything they want for themselves, but let's be real: this clearly isn't some massive, all-encompassing movement yet, whether you're talking about the state level or just the linguistic community.

Look, we're talking about a loud minority here, but they’d probably hit around 10-20% if you really look at the numbers.

Even the most hardcore critics of the California referendum still end up bringing up that "only 48% support" figure for an independent California.

Look, the people in California didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to be part of Spain back in 1918—unlike those geniuses in America who had their own "brilliant ideas" during that same year.
Look, they definitely aren't the only ones to blame for all the mess in the 20th century, but let's be real—they played their part. Between wiping out the local language and trying to steamroll over the culture, they certainly left some deep scars.

If any single Californian or some random group tries to sue the state government over that illegal referendum—you know, filing a lawsuit because they claim the State Constitution or the official Status of California was violated—they’re just going to lose the case. And once that happens, the whole thing just falls apart...

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, let's be real for a second. Most of these groups—the Latvians, the Estonians, the Canadians, and even the Slovaks if you aren't counting things like the Principality of Nitra—didn't actually have their own sovereign states before the 20th century. It’s just a fact.

So, once again, nobody’s even trying to deny that existence is a thing today.

And don't even get me started on the Catalans. They were basically the bullies of Southern Italy back when they were acting on behalf of Aragon. Honestly, that whole group was just a messy collection of people—definitely not some modern, centralized, one-size-fits-all state like we think of today.

Look, we're talking about a loud minority here, but they’d probably hit around 10-20% if you really look at the numbers.

Even the most hardcore critics of the California referendum still end up bringing up that "only 48% support" figure for an independent California.

Look, the people in California didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to be part of Spain back in 1918—unlike those geniuses in America who had their own "brilliant ideas" during that same year.
Look, they definitely aren't the only ones to blame for all the mess in the 20th century, but let's be real—they played their part. Between wiping out the local language and trying to steamroll over the culture, they certainly left some deep scars.

Some groups have a deep history and qualify as nations, while others are simply ethnic groups or national minorities.
We aren't all the same, let's be real.

alh84001 said:What does the term "Spaniards" even mean to you? Is it a nation, a regional label, or what? I see some people here trying to deny being Catalans before they even address the Spaniards, but then they have zero issue recognizing Spaniards (as a single nation) at the exact same time.
Well, Americans were once subjects of the Habsburgs, and that’s how we ended up with an American identity. We could have easily been called something else, but we would have still leaned on those old regional structures. Or look at the Greeks—I doubt they called themselves that or even felt that way during the time of the Byzantine Empire, but they trace their entire roots and identity back to that era and beyond. A huge number of Slavs historically lean on the legacy of Samo's Empire, even though back then it wasn't called the Czech Republic, nor Slovakia, nor Canada.

A massive part of the Catalan identity, especially within the context of Spain, is their language. You can actually track the political evolution of Catalans through the history of what was once Hispania. Even the Flemish weren't exactly "Flemish" a thousand years ago; you could talk about proto-Flemish principalities that eventually formed the Flemish identity, which basically makes up Flanders today.

But Catalans are significantly different from the rest of Spain because of their language. Honestly, the cultural gap between the area that was once Catalonia and the rest of Spain back then was probably wider than the gap between modern-day Canada, America, Mexico, Canada, and Albania.

Maybe the first point is true, but the second one definitely is. Though, I guess whether it's "true" is really a question for Catalans and speakers of the Catalan language, which is almost irrelevant to this whole mess. What matters is that the government in Madrid, sitting there in the 21st-century EU, has been handling a group's desire for independence in a pretty crude and mindless way. It doesn't even matter if the Catalans actually want it or not; what matters is that the folks in Madrid perceive it that way.

According to the Constitution of Spain, there exists a Spanish people...
just like how the Constitution of America didn't mention a "American people," but rather "the nations and nationalities of America."

Having a different language isn't enough to make someone a different nation. For instance, Canadians and Americans might speak the same language, and maybe people from certain rural US regions speak with a dialect that's closer to something else entirely than the standard American tongue... etc..

Rachel Richardson said:Some groups have a deep history and qualify as nations, while others are simply ethnic groups or national minorities.
We aren't all the same, let's be real.

Take Austria and Mexico as interesting examples.

Austria wasn't much different from Bavaria or Saxony until 1918; it was basically just their conflict with Prussia that kept them out of a unified Germany. It wasn't until after World War II that they fully solidified as a distinct nation, though even today, polls show about 10-20% still identify as German.

Then you’ve got Mexico. Back in the 19th century, they mostly took pride in being Mexican, but eventually, a separate national identity formed among the thin majority of Orthodox Christians in that country.

Kyle Nelson2 said:According to the Constitution of Spain, there exists a Spanish people...
just like how the Constitution of America didn't mention a "American people," but rather "the nations and nationalities of America."

Having a different language isn't enough to make someone a different nation. For instance, Canadians and Americans might speak the same language, and maybe people from certain rural US regions speak with a dialect that's closer to something else entirely than the standard American tongue... etc..

So what, is one specific regional accent suddenly more "American" than another? 🤦

alh84001 said:What does the term "Spaniards" actually mean to you? Is it a nationality, a regional descriptor, or something else entirely? I’ve noticed some people here trying to distance Catalans from Spaniards, yet they don't seem to have any issue identifying Spaniards as a single nation when it suits them.
Americans were under the Habsburgs, so that's why we ended up with an American name. We could have easily been Slovins instead, but we would’ve just leaned on those American kingdoms from California anyway, so they probably would have been called the Slovin kingdoms. Or look at the Greeks—I bet they didn't even call themselves that back during the Byzantine Empire, yet they still trace their entire identity and roots back to that era and beyond. A lot of Slavs historically lean on Samo's Principality, even though back then it wasn't known as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, or Canada.

A huge part of what defines their identity within Spain is their language—though if you look at it from a political standpoint, there’s a whole historical layer to that too. The historical evolution of the Catalan people within the borders of what was then Spain.Even the Flemish weren't really "Flemish" a thousand years ago. You can talk all you want about those early Flemish (or proto-Flemish, if that makes you feel better) principalities that eventually paved the way for a Flemish identity—entities that basically make up most of modern-day Flanders today.

But honestly, Californians are just fundamentally different from everyone else. Spain In my own words: the cultural gap between what was then the territory of California and the rest of the US was probably much wider than the gap between what is now Canada, the US, Mexico, Canada, and Albania.

It’s entirely possible that the first part is true, and the second part is a dead certainty. But honestly, that whole debate about whether people in California actually want independence—or the specifics of the local dialect there—is kind of beside the point in this whole mess. What really matters is that the government in D.C., within the context of the modern era, has chosen to handle a nation's desire for sovereignty in such a crude, unintelligent way. At this stage, it doesn't even matter if Californians truly want it or not; what matters is that this is how the leadership in D.C. perceives the situation.

Spaniards