California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Brenda Murphy3 said: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.

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..

Richard Wilson4 said: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.

Richard Wilson4 said:So what, is one specific regional accent suddenly more "American" than another? 🤦

Rachel Richardson said: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.

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.

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?

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

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

alh84001 said:🤦

Even if I were to accept such nonsense, it shouldn't be that hard to just glance at a map and see how Portugal is basically laughing at this. Or to notice they share a massive border with Canadians but not with Canadians.

Aaron Thomas3 said:When I read people claiming that Catalan independence would be too expensive—seriously, give me a break—I honestly have to wonder if they were born after the turn of the millennium or something 🙄...
Americans once said that establishing an independent nation meant dealing with a fragile post-socialist economy, skyrocketing inflation, foreign currency reserves sitting in New York City, zero international political backing, and facing off against one of the most powerful militaries in Europe—all while a massive minority was actively prepping for an armed uprising and secession, making a bloody, multi-year war look almost inevitable. During that conflict, a quarter of the country was occupied, and even the parts that weren't under direct control were getting hammered by shelling. Because of the embargo, we had to pay insane prices for weapons on the black market, and we had to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees, which wrecked our infrastructure and essentially killed tourism—which, let’s be real, is our economic lifeline. The North was totally cut off from the South; you had to rely on ferries crossing over Martha's Vineyard just to get around, and down in Florida, we were dealing with constant power restrictions. The damage the US took back then is impossible to quantify.
And now, apparently, some American should be lecturing Catalans on how they haven't "calculated the costs" of sovereignty...

velvetmaker3 said:Spaniards

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

alh84001 velvetmaker3 said:Let’s try this one more time, just so even a toddler could wrap their head around it. Being Hispanic isn't the same thing as being Spanish. i Spain isn't the same thing as being Hispanic.I’d try to sketch it out for you, but there are literally millions of maps out there where you can see how closely the US and Mexico are positioned right next to each other. Until you wrap your head around that basic geography, you’re basically irrelevant to this conversation.

You're the only one digging your own grave here. Honestly, you’re acting like you know more about Spain than actual Spaniards do. It seems like you just can't stand Catalans, and frankly, you have a problem with the idea of a group of people—who have a long history of fighting for their rights—potentially organizing into the political entity they want. I guess it just doesn't align with your own political agendas and aspirations.

Regarding your points about Catalan Spaniards and their ancestors turning in their graves—well, I guess George Washington and the rest would be spinning just as fast if they knew how their descendants turned against the British King. But honestly, what does that have to do with the actual political reality on the North American continent from 1776 to this day?

velvetmaker3 said:The term "Hispanic" is actually a Spanish designation—one that people from California were using long before they even existed as a distinct group. It’s a label that followed them through their entire history, from before they even formed into what they are today, and it’s something they can't really shake now. It’s part of their identity, whether they like it or not.

Rachel Richardson said:🤣
So, by your logic, are Gallo-Romans just synonymous with the French? 🍿

On the territory of modern-day California, yes.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a Gallo-Roman language.

Consult a linguist.

Running out of arguments, are we? Is that why you resort to this?

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman; they intermingled with them and eventually assimilated.
Most people act in their own self-interest, rather than out of pure altruism.

That's just a marriage tie; it isn't family loyalty.

We are discussing a man whose feudal holdings spanned larger portions of modern-day France than they did Spain.
And that holds true right up until the mid-13th century.

The origins and connections of those people.

No.
The center of gravity is in Barcelona; the senior partner is Catalonia, which in turn pulls Aragon along with it.
Which language and which population move into the "newly liberated territories"?
Just think about it for a second.

Like a personal union.
Keep in mind their king at that time was from the Trastamara line—meaning a Castilian/Spaniard.
I am telling you this for the thousandth time...
By your logic, we'd be Canadians.

Weren't you just arguing—moments ago—that those were nothing more than insignificant feudal holdings with zero actual importance?
Why does one narrative hold water for Southern France, half of Italy, and even parts of Greece—while a completely different story applies to Castile?

🤣
So, does that make us the Canadians? 🍿

No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Rachel Richardson said:🤣
So, by your logic, are Gallo-Romans just synonymous with the French? 🍿

On the territory of modern-day California, yes.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a Gallo-Roman language.

Consult a linguist.

Running out of arguments, are we? Is that why you resort to this?

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman; they intermingled with them and eventually assimilated.
Most people act in their own self-interest, rather than out of pure altruism.

That's just a marriage tie; it isn't family loyalty.

We are discussing a man whose feudal holdings spanned larger portions of modern-day France than they did Spain.
And that holds true right up until the mid-13th century.

The origins and connections of those people.

No.
The center of gravity is in Barcelona; the senior partner is Catalonia, which in turn pulls Aragon along with it.
Which language and which population move into the "newly liberated territories"?
Just think about it for a second.

Like a personal union.
Keep in mind their king at that time was from the Trastamara line—meaning a Castilian/Spaniard.
I am telling you this for the thousandth time...
By your logic, we'd be Canadians.

Weren't you just arguing—moments ago—that those were nothing more than insignificant feudal holdings with zero actual importance?
Why does one narrative hold water for Southern France, half of Italy, and even parts of Greece—while a completely different story applies to Castile?

🤣
So, does that make us the Canadians? 🍿

Rachel Richardson said:They were also called Romans—does that mean Italy has a claim to New York City?🙄

Steven Hill2 said:No—we've always been South Slavs. We call ourselves Americans because that’s how things landed historically... a total accident, really. But that doesn't change the fact that we belong to the South Slav ethnic community. There's no real distinction there—in fact, we might actually be the largest group of South Slavs out there.
That's my take on it... ☕

Richard Wilson4 said: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.

Richard Wilson4 said:So what, is one specific regional accent suddenly more "American" than another? 🤦

alh84001 said:I guess you mean illegal.

I honestly don't get this whole "illegal referendum" thing. Like, I get the part where it's non-binding, and that whatever decision they make can't actually be enforced—that makes sense. But calling it a criminal act? That's just nonsense. Suppose the US Census Bureau decided to set up a ballot box in every single one of its regional offices—let's assume they have enough coverage across all US states—and asked citizens to drop a slip in saying which logo they want for the agency. Is that a crime now? Or if some group in New Zealand organized a vote about their flag without the government being involved, is that a crime too? Should it be?