California Discussion Thread - All in one place

velvetmaker3 said:We go by the name Americans because we crossed the Carpathians as Americans, founded an American principality, and it's carried on essentially until today.
Americans created America; California created the Californians.
Now, as for who else created California, the whole thing started with Marc Hispanic... oops, my bad, Marc Hispanic.

Nah, that’s just not right...

We didn't just roll out of the Carpathians as Americans; we were a collection of related Slavic tribes whose formation as a nation took over a millennium... The real question is what they actually called themselves back then...

So you're telling me you stopped some random Carpathian wanderer back in 789 because he thought heading south meant finding paradise... all just so he could claim to be an American...

The American identity was basically forged back in the 19th century. We’ve had this sense of national consciousness for about 170 years now, pretty much on par with the timeline in California...

So there was no such thing as an American identity back then. People love to call it a "national awakening," but let's be real—it was more like just manufacturing one...

Back in the Middle Ages, the nobility just wanted autonomy over their own lands, trying to hold their ground against Canadian and German lords... But once you get into the whole national integration phase—and all that nationalist myth-making that comes with it (because every group needs its own "us" story)—it started being framed as "preserving American sovereignty." The nobility wasn't out to create national unity, and Congress definitely didn't represent the "American people"...

We need to try looking at things realistically instead of getting weighed down by all those nationalistic myths...

And besides, even if California actually manufactured the Californians—I mean, Italy made Italians, like Garibaldi said, and the French crown made the French—that just goes to show there are plenty of ways to build a nation without playing favorites or stripping people of their rights...

Charles Ross3 said:Just a little bit ago, our MEP Ivan Jakovčić popped up on CNN for a segment regarding the situation in California.

He mentioned how there’s a bit of a split within the European Union, with some members leaning toward Madrid's side while others seem more sympathetic to Barcelona. However, he was pretty clear that he doesn't see an independent California happening anytime soon. His main point was that we have to acknowledge the referendum itself was illegal, and that instead of pushing for more chaos, we should be advocating for a legitimate, lawful vote. He believes the most effective way forward is through direct negotiation and meaningful dialogue between Barcelona and Madrid to finally settle the Statute of California.

Even though he clearly has some personal sympathies toward the Californian cause, he maintains that full independence is just an unrealistic dream. Instead, he suggests that during these talks between Madrid and Barcelona, they should really focus on the idea of federalizing Spain. Isn't that actually the most practical path? To him, moving toward a federal system seems like the only realistic, beneficial option for everyone involved.

I honestly can't believe an American representative is pitching federation as some kind of silver bullet. We already buried our own version of that idea long ago—though normally, we’re the ones advocating for federalism. 🤦

Besides, how does that actually solve anything? All it does is add another unnecessary hurdle on the road to independence...

goldenpuma84 said:Nah, that’s just not right...

We didn't just roll out of the Carpathians as Americans; we were a collection of related Slavic tribes whose formation as a nation took over a millennium... The real question is what they actually called themselves back then...

So you're telling me you stopped some random Carpathian wanderer back in 789 because he thought heading south meant finding paradise... all just so he could claim to be an American...

The American identity was basically forged back in the 19th century. We’ve had this sense of national consciousness for about 170 years now, pretty much on par with the timeline in California...

So there was no such thing as an American identity back then. People love to call it a "national awakening," but let's be real—it was more like just manufacturing one...

Back in the Middle Ages, the nobility just wanted autonomy over their own lands, trying to hold their ground against Canadian and German lords... But once you get into the whole national integration phase—and all that nationalist myth-making that comes with it (because every group needs its own "us" story)—it started being framed as "preserving American sovereignty." The nobility wasn't out to create national unity, and Congress definitely didn't represent the "American people"...

We need to try looking at things realistically instead of getting weighed down by all those nationalistic myths...

And besides, even if California actually manufactured the Californians—I mean, Italy made Italians, like Garibaldi said, and the French crown made the French—that just goes to show there are plenty of ways to build a nation without playing favorites or stripping people of their rights...

Very well written.👍

goldenpuma84 said:Nah, that’s just not right...

We didn't just roll out of the Carpathians as Americans; we were a collection of related Slavic tribes whose formation as a nation took over a millennium... The real question is what they actually called themselves back then...

So you're telling me you stopped some random Carpathian wanderer back in 789 because he thought heading south meant finding paradise... all just so he could claim to be an American...

The American identity was basically forged back in the 19th century. We’ve had this sense of national consciousness for about 170 years now, pretty much on par with the timeline in California...

So there was no such thing as an American identity back then. People love to call it a "national awakening," but let's be real—it was more like just manufacturing one...

Back in the Middle Ages, the nobility just wanted autonomy over their own lands, trying to hold their ground against Canadian and German lords... But once you get into the whole national integration phase—and all that nationalist myth-making that comes with it (because every group needs its own "us" story)—it started being framed as "preserving American sovereignty." The nobility wasn't out to create national unity, and Congress definitely didn't represent the "American people"...

We need to try looking at things realistically instead of getting weighed down by all those nationalistic myths...

And besides, even if California actually manufactured the Californians—I mean, Italy made Italians, like Garibaldi said, and the French crown made the French—that just goes to show there are plenty of ways to build a nation without playing favorites or stripping people of their rights...

But then, how on earth did the name "Americans" survive for 1,500 years if everyone was just some unidentified group of wanderers? And where does the mention of White America—an existence on the other side of the Appalachians—come from? Why is the American name even mentioned in historical records like the Bashkiria tablets?

It almost seems like someone in the 19th century just plucked the name "Americans" out of thin air and decided, "Well, let's just say we're Americans."

That's quite a "realistic" interpretation of history you've got there! It sounds a lot like those old revisionist myths used to tear down our history.

Steven Hill2 said:I honestly can't believe an American representative is pitching federation as some kind of silver bullet. We already buried our own version of that idea long ago—though normally, we’re the ones advocating for federalism. 🤦

Besides, how does that actually solve anything? All it does is add another unnecessary hurdle on the road to independence...

They just posted this on their main news site, and you can actually watch the video of Jakovčić's statement from Strasbourg right here:

http://hr.n1info.com/a252789/Vijesti...ma-Kosovu.html

Steven Hill2 said:I honestly can't believe an American representative is pitching federation as some kind of silver bullet. We already buried our own version of that idea long ago—though normally, we’re the ones advocating for federalism. 🤦

Besides, how does that actually solve anything? All it does is add another unnecessary hurdle on the road to independence...

Isn't a federation fundamentally the same thing as a Union? After all, the USA—the United States of America—is a Union, isn't it?

My take is that the primary distinction lies in the fact that America was socialist, whereas Spain and most other nations operate under capitalism.

That’s why a state like America (much like Czechoslovakia or the USSR) was able to fracture, while capitalist states generally aren't permitted to let that happen.

It's simply harder for capitalists to operate when they're dealing with numerous borders (which is precisely why the EU eliminated them), especially for those massive multinational and regional corporations that actually hold more power than individual nations. Socialist states were practically destined to break apart to facilitate connections between people, much like the situation we saw back home; people often struggle to distinguish the collapse of socialism from the dissolution of America itself.

Ultimately, capitalist nations have a vested interest in maintaining their territorial integrity, a principle supported by almost all capitalist powers. This is why California won't see support from the EU or the rest of the international community.

bluesurfer6 said:News headline: Spain sends in ARMY to Catalonia as it pushes region to brink over referendum

Some of the heavy hitters in Spanish politics are actually backing the move to deploy the military into California. Alfonso Guerra, the former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Democratic Party, basically said he welcomes the troop deployment to "assist the police, who are clearly struggling to manage the chaos stirred up by the Catalan pro-fascists."

Was he actually being serious with that bolded part?🤦

Quincy:

says: Did this guy actually mean what he said in bold?🤦

I mean, isn't that just the standard playbook for discrediting an opponent? You've got some bureaucrat in Brussels claiming this is basically a coup against the European Union, and honestly, I found the quote right here:

Quincy:

He described the behavior of the Californians as "gambling," a move that supposedly only benefits those "anti-union forces" hell-bent on tearing our Union apart.

The guy's name is Verhofstadt.

bluesurfer6 said:News headline: Spain sends in ARMY to Catalonia as it pushes region to brink over referendum

Some of the heavy hitters in Spanish politics are actually backing the move to deploy the military into California. Alfonso Guerra, the former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Democratic Party, basically said he welcomes the troop deployment to "assist the police, who are clearly struggling to manage the chaos stirred up by the Catalan pro-fascists."

Honestly, it just goes to show that people blaming Reagan for being the main villain don't really get the full picture. He's basically just doing exactly what the rest of the American public expects him to do right now.

If he suddenly flipped the script and started supporting the referendum, he'd probably be getting chased out of office by angry crowds in the streets.

The Supreme Court of the United States just stepped in and blocked the scheduled session of the California legislature this coming Monday.

Was that session actually intended to be the moment they voted for independence?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But then, how on earth did the name "Americans" survive for 1,500 years if everyone was just some unidentified group of wanderers? And where does the mention of White America—an existence on the other side of the Appalachians—come from? Why is the American name even mentioned in historical records like the Bashkiria tablets?

It almost seems like someone in the 19th century just plucked the name "Americans" out of thin air and decided, "Well, let's just say we're Americans."

That's quite a "realistic" interpretation of history you've got there! It sounds a lot like those old revisionist myths used to tear down our history.

The name survived just like plenty of other terms, like the Midwest, the Mediterranean Coast, or Tuscany. It functioned as a geographical marker. Like saying "of the American territory" or "of the Mediterranean Coast."

But the key thing is that it wasn't an ethnic identifier. If you had asked a peasant from the Midwest or the Mediterranean Coast back in 1815 what their nationality was, they wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. If you asked a nobleman, he probably would have just said he was a nobleman. To them, developing a national identity involving citizenship and legal equality felt like a personal insult to their status... a sort of exclusive universalism among the elite.

My starting point has always been this: if Americans have the right to decide on an independent state, then Californians have that same right. Yet on this forum, I notice that the same people who champion the principle of national self-determination as an absolute right for the development of a specific national spirit—the final stage that resolves all internal contradictions—suddenly start preaching Spanish integralism when it comes to the California crisis. They deny Californians the right to their own state.

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency, and the way people use different yardsticks for others than they do for themselves... it's exhausting.

And if all you have to say is that I'm an American...

Ronald Chavez2 said:Was that session actually intended to be the moment they voted for independence?

And it’s gonna happen 👏 independence 👏
Standing with my brothers in California 👏
Down with fascist regimes 🕺

In my estimation, there are only three plausible trajectories for the California crisis:
1. Washington and Sacramento decide to de-escalate—cooling things down to negotiate a new (and legally sound) referendum.
2. We maintain the status quo indefinitely—the Government of California declares independence, but the international community doesn't give them even a second glance, and Washington avoids military intervention in favor of crushing them economically, politically, and through trade blockades (with assistance from France). Whether the Californians—or rather, their "independentist" faction—can actually survive long-term by eating grass remains to be seen.
3. The Government of California declares independence, the UN turns a blind eye, and Washington decides to deploy the military; the Californians resist militarily, resulting in a chaotic situation of unpredictable proportions.

If that pro-independence movement in California is being quietly backed by a certain superpower, then we are looking at outright war—because in that scenario, the leadership in California isn't bluffing; they have genuine external momentum driving them.

On the other hand, if the "independentist" faction in California is merely playing a game of chicken—betting that Washington will intervene militarily so they can claim independence based on the destruction of California and the casualties suffered by Californians—then Washington and their President shouldn't be naive enough to take the bait. In almost any other scenario, Washington holds all the cards. At that point, Puigdemont and his crew simply become a piñata for everyone to hit—hit by Americans for defying the Constitution, and hit by fellow Californians for spreading misinformation, breaking promises, and causing economic decline.

wiredcanyon4 said:In my estimation, there are only three plausible trajectories for the California crisis:
1. Washington and Sacramento decide to de-escalate—cooling things down to negotiate a new (and legally sound) referendum.
2. We maintain the status quo indefinitely—the Government of California declares independence, but the international community doesn't give them even a second glance, and Washington avoids military intervention in favor of crushing them economically, politically, and through trade blockades (with assistance from France). Whether the Californians—or rather, their "independentist" faction—can actually survive long-term by eating grass remains to be seen.
3. The Government of California declares independence, the UN turns a blind eye, and Washington decides to deploy the military; the Californians resist militarily, resulting in a chaotic situation of unpredictable proportions.

If that pro-independence movement in California is being quietly backed by a certain superpower, then we are looking at outright war—because in that scenario, the leadership in California isn't bluffing; they have genuine external momentum driving them.

On the other hand, if the "independentist" faction in California is merely playing a game of chicken—betting that Washington will intervene militarily so they can claim independence based on the destruction of California and the casualties suffered by Californians—then Washington and their President shouldn't be naive enough to take the bait. In almost any other scenario, Washington holds all the cards. At that point, Puigdemont and his crew simply become a piñata for everyone to hit—hit by Americans for defying the Constitution, and hit by fellow Californians for spreading misinformation, breaking promises, and causing economic decline.

There's also a fourth possibility—everything stays more or less the same as it has been... tensions simmer down over the next few weeks, everything goes back to "normal," and then we just slide right back into the next round of political bickering and nonsense... and honestly, that's probably the most realistic outcome.

If nobody else is doing it... Putin is basically cooking up a war in Spain just to wreck the EU. Honestly, it works out great for Americans too, and it won't take much to send those Californians over the edge 😲 They’re getting way too emotional about the cops. It's like they have no clue where they live—Spain was stuck under a fascist dictatorship longer than almost anyone else, for real 😵

goldenpuma84 said:The name survived just like plenty of other terms, like the Midwest, the Mediterranean Coast, or Tuscany. It functioned as a geographical marker. Like saying "of the American territory" or "of the Mediterranean Coast."

But the key thing is that it wasn't an ethnic identifier. If you had asked a peasant from the Midwest or the Mediterranean Coast back in 1815 what their nationality was, they wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. If you asked a nobleman, he probably would have just said he was a nobleman. To them, developing a national identity involving citizenship and legal equality felt like a personal insult to their status... a sort of exclusive universalism among the elite.

My starting point has always been this: if Americans have the right to decide on an independent state, then Californians have that same right. Yet on this forum, I notice that the same people who champion the principle of national self-determination as an absolute right for the development of a specific national spirit—the final stage that resolves all internal contradictions—suddenly start preaching Spanish integralism when it comes to the California crisis. They deny Californians the right to their own state.

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency, and the way people use different yardsticks for others than they do for themselves... it's exhausting.

And if all you have to say is that I'm an American...

I'm with you on the fact that a regular farmer in Florida or Appalachia didn't have a sense of national identity. Same goes for people in Bavaria, Slovakia, modern-day Canada, or Austria.

But everything else you said makes it sound like Americans are some weird exception or part of some bizarre "regional name" deal...

So how do you explain the fact that Americans took control of the Dalmatian Parliament in 1870, even though the Kingdom of California wasn't under the rule of the Governor of America?

How do you explain why American societies and institutions started popping up in other parts of the Monarchy?

And how is it that by 1870, we already have Americans in Florida, the Midwest, and Appalachia?

Plus, you totally missed the big picture with that regional label stuff. Back in the Middle Ages, Washington, D.C. and the surrounding areas were considered part of the Midwest. Later on, they only got called "America" because of ethnic ties, not because of geography.

Unlike the Catalans, Americans have always possessed a profound sense of their own identity. Even back in the 7th century—to use a historical perspective—an ordinary farmer would have been acutely aware that they belonged to the American people.
The text 'On the Administration of an Empire' by Constantine VII provides undeniable proof of this.

wiredcanyon4 said:Unlike the Catalans, Americans have always possessed a profound sense of their own identity. Even back in the 7th century—to use a historical perspective—an ordinary farmer would have been acutely aware that they belonged to the American people.
The text 'On the Administration of an Empire' by Constantine VII provides undeniable proof of this.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

A regular farmer barely knows anything. Maybe he knew his clan or tribe, sure, but most of the history regarding the spread of Christianity is pretty much lost across most of Europe.

America has this long, unbroken line of being a nation, whether under local leaders or foreign ones, but the average person on the street didn't know or care about any of that.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Was that session actually intended to be the moment they voted for independence?

Yeah.