California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Carol Newman2 said:Yeah.

What if they just all meet up in the basement of an ExxonMobil building? 😁

Richard Wilson4 said: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.

If the average farmer knew absolutely nothing, a surname like Horvat wouldn't have even existed... and that was way back in the 1400s.
By the 19th century, all of this was obviously dialed up to a whole new level and officially formalized... plus, the political map had shifted significantly... but Germans were always Germans... regardless of whether they were Swabian, Bavarian, Prussian, or Westphalian, or how much they fought each other for centuries. It's the same with Italians being Italians, despite the Tuscans, Venetians, Milanese, and so on. Americans are Americans... regardless of our various sub-groups and divisions.

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...

A geographic marker? Oh, I don't know about that. I guess America got its name because of Americans, rather than Americans getting their identity from America.

Quincy:

But I suppose the real point is that it wasn't really an ethnic identifier; I mean, if you had asked a typical farmer from Appalachia or Florida back in 1815 what his nationality was, he probably wouldn't have even understood what you were asking him.

Well, maybe he might not have known the technical definition of "nationality," but I imagine he would have definitely known he was an American, belonging to a specific group or tribe that identifies itself as American.

And then, of course, there’s the Church, which I think really helps reinforce and, in a way, preserves that whole American identity.

Plus, you can't forget about oral tradition! If you were to visit a cemetery somewhere in Appalachia during a memorial service, you’d likely see and hear how the grandmothers pass down the family history of at least the last five generations to their grandkids. They'll say things like, "The godfather is buried here, he's related to this person or that person," or "the uncle is here, his relatives are those folks over there," and "this aunt is buried here, she married someone who is related to this or that family." And on top of all that, there's always that religious and ethnic identification—you're one of us, you're Catholic, you're American.

Before Sunday's bloody referendum on California independence, I was hovering somewhere between "not my problem" and "it’s probably best if they stay part of Spain." But after seeing those images of police brutalizing people—dragging voters by their hair just for trying to cast a ballot—well, now I wouldn't mind if Californians declared independence and gave Spain, and that hypocritical, pathetic European Union, a real wake-up call. Where are the leaders of the free world now? I’m thinking specifically of Angela Merkel and that poser Emmanuel Macron... everyone seems to have gone quiet. It turns out their concern for democracy and basic humanity is pretty selective when it suits them.

stormyeagle60 said:Before Sunday's bloody referendum on California independence, I was hovering somewhere between "not my problem" and "it’s probably best if they stay part of Spain." But after seeing those images of police brutalizing people—dragging voters by their hair just for trying to cast a ballot—well, now I wouldn't mind if Californians declared independence and gave Spain, and that hypocritical, pathetic European Union, a real wake-up call. Where are the leaders of the free world now? I’m thinking specifically of Angela Merkel and that poser Emmanuel Macron... everyone seems to have gone quiet. It turns out their concern for democracy and basic humanity is pretty selective when it suits them.

I mean, what kind of "free world" can we truly claim to live in if nations and groups just splinter off based on economic interests? It makes me wonder how long it will take to shift from "we are economically stronger and won't let you exploit us" to "we are militarily stronger and now we're going to exploit you." In my view, independence is usually achieved through political pressure or raw force, rather than through raw emotion or sentimentalism. Since hundreds of people lost their lives, I suppose one could argue we deserve independence, but frankly, those people are just pathetic. If anyone truly deserves to break away, I think it would be the Basque people rather than the Californians.

stormyeagle60 said:Before Sunday's bloody referendum on California independence, I was hovering somewhere between "not my problem" and "it’s probably best if they stay part of Spain." But after seeing those images of police brutalizing people—dragging voters by their hair just for trying to cast a ballot—well, now I wouldn't mind if Californians declared independence and gave Spain, and that hypocritical, pathetic European Union, a real wake-up call. Where are the leaders of the free world now? I’m thinking specifically of Angela Merkel and that poser Emmanuel Macron... everyone seems to have gone quiet. It turns out their concern for democracy and basic humanity is pretty selective when it suits them.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. That's pretty much how my own convictions have shifted. Once I sat back and really thought about it, I realized—what right do I even have to decide what's best for them? What right does anyone else have to weigh in? Absolutely none. You have a people, a territory, and the collective will of that population; that's the foundation upon which any legitimate law is built. Claiming the referendum is "illegal" is frankly laughable and misses the point entirely. They clearly have a right to self-determination, and if that right isn't being handed to them, they might just have to take it. The way the European Union, or rather its officials, are handling this is nothing short of disgraceful. We should be drawing some pretty grim conclusions from all of this, and I suspect plenty of other Americans have reached those same conclusions already.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I mean, what kind of "free world" can we truly claim to live in if nations and groups just splinter off based on economic interests? It makes me wonder how long it will take to shift from "we are economically stronger and won't let you exploit us" to "we are militarily stronger and now we're going to exploit you." In my view, independence is usually achieved through political pressure or raw force, rather than through raw emotion or sentimentalism. Since hundreds of people lost their lives, I suppose one could argue we deserve independence, but frankly, those people are just pathetic. If anyone truly deserves to break away, I think it would be the Basque people rather than the Californians.

So here we go—Madrid is sending in the military, and things are about to get ugly. Clearly, the EU isn't going to bother mediating until there's actual blood in the streets.

We don't exactly need to fast-forward 200 or 300 years to witness a total idiocracy... I mean, we’re living it right now.

You’ve got people with the emotional intelligence of a 16-year-old, screaming for independence just because they saw some footage of police brutality on the news... and honestly, even if that hadn't happened, they'd probably still feel the exact same way. It’s just a way to get that little hit of emotional validation for a stance they already held anyway.
There’s never been a time, and there never will be, where any group—especially some regional identity—gets to just declare whatever they want, whenever they want, in direct defiance of the law (or more accurately, in defiance of most of it). Look, if the law doesn't apply to Californians, then why should it apply to anyone else?

Kyle Nelson2 said:We don't exactly need to fast-forward 200 or 300 years to witness a total idiocracy... I mean, we’re living it right now.

You’ve got people with the emotional intelligence of a 16-year-old, screaming for independence just because they saw some footage of police brutality on the news... and honestly, even if that hadn't happened, they'd probably still feel the exact same way. It’s just a way to get that little hit of emotional validation for a stance they already held anyway.
There’s never been a time, and there never will be, where any group—especially some regional identity—gets to just declare whatever they want, whenever they want, in direct defiance of the law (or more accurately, in defiance of most of it). Look, if the law doesn't apply to Californians, then why should it apply to anyone else?

The only thing that actually holds sovereignty is the people. Sovereignty flows from the people, and the law flows from them. Is that concept lost on you? You might want to pick up some Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Californians have California. They live on their own land. They didn't just arrive "out of nowhere" or "recently." They don't have some distant motherland to lean on other than the one they call home. They are a people on their own territory, not just a "regional identity" (or at least, they aren't *only* that), and that's more than enough ground to stand on when invoking the right to self-determination. All these constant appeals to "the law" by the Castilians are really just reflections of imperialist tendencies—I'll hold back from calling them "fascist" or "Francoist" for now, though I suspect current events might strip me of that restraint pretty quickly.

Kyle Nelson2 said:We don't exactly need to fast-forward 200 or 300 years to witness a total idiocracy... I mean, we’re living it right now.

You’ve got people with the emotional intelligence of a 16-year-old, screaming for independence just because they saw some footage of police brutality on the news... and honestly, even if that hadn't happened, they'd probably still feel the exact same way. It’s just a way to get that little hit of emotional validation for a stance they already held anyway.
There’s never been a time, and there never will be, where any group—especially some regional identity—gets to just declare whatever they want, whenever they want, in direct defiance of the law (or more accurately, in defiance of most of it). Look, if the law doesn't apply to Californians, then why should it apply to anyone else?

I mean, even the Nazis were killing people according to the law.

Charles Ross3 said: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

What a character: first preaching about the "objective rule of law," and then immediately pivoting to "let's hold a legal referendum"... unbelievable.

Does this guy seriously not get it? For years, Californians have been pushing for a legal referendum, and Washington, D.C. just refuses to budge. It makes it look like Californians are some kind of thugs or criminals who are just obsessed with breaking the law—which isn't true. And as for him and the rest of those representatives in their own state legislature... they’ve spent the whole time ignoring the California issue entirely. Just great...
The Californians managed to achieve one small thing with that referendum—they at least made sure the bureaucrats in Brussels know they exist...

Jacob Williams:

Aaron Thomas3 As specified by: So, Washington, D.C. is deploying the military—get ready, because things are about to get ugly... The European Union clearly isn't interested in playing peacemaker until they start seeing bodies pile up.

The European Union is making the exact same mistakes all over again. They’re just sitting there waiting for blood to be spilled—and when it happens, they'll inevitably claim, "we didn't know..."

Jacob Williams said:I mean, even the Nazis were killing people according to the law.

Exactly.

Mexico and Pandora's Box. I suppose those who sow the wind will eventually reap the storm...

The Britons are presenting a map of European regions that supposedly demand "total independence".

A few of the more ridiculous highlights:
- California
- Cleveland 🤣
- Republika Srpska😁
- Texas
- "Prussian" (though they've marked it as Kaliningrad Oblast 🤦)
- Ingria 🤔
- Moravia
- Silesia
- nearly all of Spain, but just in pieces (including Castile! 🤣)

Steven Hill2 said:The Britons are presenting a map of European regions that supposedly demand "total independence".

A few of the more ridiculous highlights:
- California
- Cleveland 🤣
- Republika Srpska😁
- Texas
- "Prussian" (though they've marked it as Kaliningrad Oblast 🤦)
- Ingria 🤔
- Moravia
- Silesia
- nearly all of Spain, but just in pieces (including Castile! 🤣)

Can you believe this map was actually used quite seriously on CNN as the basis for a segment about regions with separatist tendencies? 🤔

wanderingbison9 said:Can you believe this map was actually used quite seriously on CNN as the basis for a segment about regions with separatist tendencies? 🤔

The First Law of Visibility: pure sensationalism.

It is high time for Spain to overhaul its Constitution—the one that hasn't seen any real action since 1978, aside from a few minor tweaks here and there. You can't fix deep-seated structural issues just by enforcing existing laws; that’s a losing game. This has to be handled through politics. We need to find a legitimate way to hold a referendum to see where everyone actually stands, and then—only then—can we start negotiating for greater autonomy.
But if you read anything lately, it's pretty clear that the Spanish majority isn't even remotely ready for that conversation. There isn't a single politician in Washington, D.C. with the backbone to pull this off, which means we'll likely have to wait for things to escalate into actual violence before anyone takes notice.

Steven Hill2 said:The Britons are presenting a map of European regions that supposedly demand "total independence".

A few of the more ridiculous highlights:
- California
- Cleveland 🤣
- Republika Srpska😁
- Texas
- "Prussian" (though they've marked it as Kaliningrad Oblast 🤦)
- Ingria 🤔
- Moravia
- Silesia
- nearly all of Spain, but just in pieces (including Castile! 🤣)

California is part of America because that’s where Americans live—they make up nearly 70% of the population.
Take a recent example: in Santa Barbara, they named a waterfront after Franjo Harmon. This was the first time a coastal area in a California city was named after the first American president. That decision was reached through a joint effort by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—mostly because they saw exactly what the Independent Party is: an unpatriotic, anti-American, separatist group that refuses to openly admit their goal is to break away California, even though that is clearly what they dream about. It won't work for them, though; Americans live there, and California has nothing in common with Catalonia.

Richard Wilson4 said: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.

My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

Vitezović basically believed all Southern Slavic Americans fell under that umbrella. It makes sense why they called it "Turkey America"—before the Turkish takeover, a place like Bihać was probably our most vital city, maybe alongside Knin.

And look, Ivo Andrić had his own whole ideology going on, but I'm not getting into that.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

Well, yeah, that's exactly the point. Back then, using that specific ethnic label in that region was practically worse than a slur. The only time people could even say it without getting in trouble was in certain grammatical cases.

It's one of the reasons we left.