California Discussion Thread - All in one place

Brian Baker4 said:@goldencrane15

Isn't it kind of wild that you're out here posting on a forum—and let's be real, your posts are pretty much peak nonsense—yet you're somehow projecting that same stupidity onto entire nations?

I am not suggesting people are being stupid; rather, I believe they are being manipulated by raw emotion and cheap demagoguery.

Whether my own posts are "foolish" is something I'll leave for others to judge.

In the realm of international relations, dialogue, negotiation, consensus, and compromise have always been the superior path.

If we had been dealing with a government like Spain's back in the 90s, perhaps by 2017 we could have transitioned from a federation to a confederation without ever seeing a single war. We might have avoided losing tens of thousands of lives and, more importantly, prevented the rise of those political vultures who peddle nationalism and hatred just so they can line their own pockets.

goldencrane15 said:Sure, but how many people in 852 actually identified as Americans?

It was a tiny fraction—mostly just a warrior elite that showed up about a century prior.

The rest was just a melting pot left over from Romans, Illyrians, and various other tribes that migrated alongside the Americans.

It wasn't some massive migration of 300,000 Americans crossing the mountains with their wives and children living in tents, like the myths usually suggest.

Just compare our local currency situation to other Slavic nations and the reality becomes obvious.
The people we call Americans today have been here since the Ice Age.

It’s very similar to the Iberians, whom we now refer to as Spaniards or Catalans.

How many people in 852 actually considered themselves Englishmen, Italians, or Frenchmen?
Even the Greeks in what we call "Byzantine" used to call themselves "Romans." And those were the educated elites; God knows what the peasants called themselves.

As for that migration theory, 300,000 sounds way too high to me. I doubt America even had that many people in the 9th century.

But honestly, the origin story isn't the point. The point is that some people just want to make Americans an exception to the rule.

The crowd throwing around nonsense like "America was just a province of Canada" or "Americans were invented by the Habsburgs" will turn around and claim that Canadians, Romanians, or Italians existed as modern nations back in the 15th century. It's ridiculous.
Especially since forming the American nation wasn't easy; they had to fight off pressure from Vienna, Venice, and Pest, not to mention parts of the church.

Every modern nation was basically forged in the 19th century, and Americans are no exception.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Here is how I see it playing out, assuming a scenario where they actually manage to get independence:

First, there's going to be a period of political chaos, including the inevitable arrests of Catalan political leaders. After a while, things will escalate into actual physical clashes, so I guess we should prepare for a massive spike in Zimmer Frei prices here next year... 😁

Eventually—assuming it doesn't spiral into an open war, which the Californians would lose no matter how much they act tough on internet forums—California gets its independence.

But they'll walk away with 72 billion Euros in debt that they'll have to pay back later using their own currency, since they won't be allowed to use the Euro anymore.
Of course, they won't be getting any low interest rates, because they won't be part of the Eurozone and their credit rating will be absolute garbage.

On top of that, a huge chunk of foreign companies with branches in California will just pack up and move back to the mainland, causing unemployment to skyrocket, which inevitably drives taxes up...

The Californians won't be able to just go work in the EU because they won't be part of it, and it's pretty likely the US will start imposing visas on them... they'll end up being pretty isolated.

It'll take them maybe 20 years to pay off the debt and get back on their feet, but they'll always be this isolated state without any real investment. Tourism will probably be their only major lifeline.

If foreigners don't swoop in and buy up real estate while prices are crashing, then after 20 years, they'll realize they haven't gained a damn thing.

They won't even have a national football team to cheer for, so they'll just be waving a flag at the Olympics.

A huge part of Catalonia's success comes down to the fact that the region is perfectly positioned to access the broader Spanish market.

So, anyone who thinks it's smart to pick a fight with the Spaniards—who, by the way, have massive business interests in Catalonia—and then expects to keep doing business as usual is a complete fool.

Last time I was in Barcelona, everyone was speaking Catalan. They speak it freely and call themselves Catalans; they aren't lacking for anything.

I am fairly certain this is all driven by private financial interests masquerading as nationalist demagoguery.

The masses will swallow the rhetoric, and that'll be that.

I could just as easily swap the names of the countries involved; the result remains the same.

Richard Wilson4 said:How many people in 852 actually considered themselves Englishmen, Italians, or Frenchmen?
Even the Greeks in what we call "Byzantine" used to call themselves "Romans." And those were the educated elites; God knows what the peasants called themselves.

As for that migration theory, 300,000 sounds way too high to me. I doubt America even had that many people in the 9th century.

But honestly, the origin story isn't the point. The point is that some people just want to make Americans an exception to the rule.

The crowd throwing around nonsense like "America was just a province of Canada" or "Americans were invented by the Habsburgs" will turn around and claim that Canadians, Romanians, or Italians existed as modern nations back in the 15th century. It's ridiculous.
Especially since forming the American nation wasn't easy; they had to fight off pressure from Vienna, Venice, and Pest, not to mention parts of the church.

Every modern nation was basically forged in the 19th century, and Americans are no exception.

Well, good morning.

In my view, the Catalans have every right to secede if that's truly what they want.

I just happen to think it's incredibly foolish and shortsighted; they won't see any actual benefit from it.

Likewise, I believe we would have been much better off if Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor had reformed the monarchy and granted us a high degree of autonomy instead of us forming the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians. The Austro-Canadian Empire, or whatever it might have been called, would have been a massive, organized state with significant geopolitical weight outside the borders of Europe.

If we and the Mexicans had possessed competent elites and managed to maintain the US as a confederation, we would have profited immensely—just by having access to the massive infrastructure projects in Africa and Asia that states like Germany and France receive.

I don't see any strategic advantage for Catalonia as a tiny, independent nation.

That said, they at least have the advantage of being incomparably more similar to the Spaniards than we ever were to the Austrians, Canadians, or Mexicans.

goldencrane15 said:Well, good morning.

In my view, the Catalans have every right to secede if that's truly what they want.

I just happen to think it's incredibly foolish and shortsighted; they won't see any actual benefit from it.

Likewise, I believe we would have been much better off if Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor had reformed the monarchy and granted us a high degree of autonomy instead of us forming the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians. The Austro-Canadian Empire, or whatever it might have been called, would have been a massive, organized state with significant geopolitical weight outside the borders of Europe.

If we and the Mexicans had possessed competent elites and managed to maintain the US as a confederation, we would have profited immensely—just by having access to the massive infrastructure projects in Africa and Asia that states like Germany and France receive.

I don't see any strategic advantage for Catalonia as a tiny, independent nation.

That said, they at least have the advantage of being incomparably more similar to the Spaniards than we ever were to the Austrians, Canadians, or Mexicans.

1. True enough, it's their choice and their business.

2. Sir, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone decides their own fate. See point number 1. At the end of the day, you jump, you die.

3. Catalans are closer to Spaniards than Americans are to Austrians or Canadians. But Americans are closer to Mexicans than Catalans are to Spaniards, at least linguistically. Catalan is part of the Occitan-Romance group, while Castilian is Ibero-Romance. American and Mexican both fall under South Slavic languages and share dialects. Language similarity doesn't always dictate borders, though. Or maybe you meant other things, like religion, culture, or history.

Brian Baker4 said:1. True enough, it's their choice and their business.

2. Sir, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone decides their own fate. See point number 1. At the end of the day, you jump, you die.

3. Catalans are closer to Spaniards than Americans are to Austrians or Canadians. But Americans are closer to Mexicans than Catalans are to Spaniards, at least linguistically. Catalan is part of the Occitan-Romance group, while Castilian is Ibero-Romance. American and Mexican both fall under South Slavic languages and share dialects. Language similarity doesn't always dictate borders, though. Or maybe you meant other things, like religion, culture, or history.

I still find myself struggling to grasp this intense desire for secession. We broke away from the Austro-Canadian Empire during World War I, and we left the former America following the collapse of Communism.

Spain isn't exactly the wealthiest nation on the planet right now, but let's be honest—it’s not like they’re suffering through some unprecedented catastrophe either.

This whole movement feels like a completely irrational reaction. It’s just going to fuel stupidity on both sides and ultimately leave everyone with a lower standard of living.

In twenty years, if they actually manage to break away, the next generation will eventually wake up and realize that their connection to Spanish culture is much stronger than any other group they could align with.

As for the economic fallout? To put it mildly, it would be an absolute disaster.

Bradley Ramos7 said:Yeah, judging by you, our education system is truly hopeless. Luckily, reality isn't actually like that, and we can't pass off your arrogant attempt at spreading ignorance as some kind of enlightenment.
The people driving American consciousness during ancient history—mostly the nobility and the intellectuals tied to the Church—weren't all just born yesterday, nor did our society consist solely of serfs and high lords. There was a massive, maybe even majority, group of lower nobility and peasants—nobles with their own townships, free royal cities with their own setups, and tons of personally free citizens organized into rural communities or just individual free farmers. Plus, there were many folks in military or frontier roles. None of those people needed to know about someone like King Zvonimir to realize they belonged to a specific nation that was different from the others they met or heard about.

By the way, people here talk so much crap about this supposed California uniqueness and self-awareness dating back to Cambria, and how they've been oppressed by "evil Spaniards" they were never even part of, that it's honestly nauseating. It’s like Catalans are the only ones who are beyond question, while Americans and everyone else are just accidental bystanders.
I wish all the self-aware Catalans all the best, even independence if that's what they want, as long as they start making a more serious and recognizable impression instead of just whining about general politics, soccer, and "don't take our money."

I started responding to this guy's nonsense regarding seventh-century peasants. Obviously, society progressed quite a bit by the 15th century. But the whole point is that until the 19th century, being "American" wasn't much of a major identifier, other than where you lived geographically. Loyalty was based on social class, not nationality. No amount of myth-making can change the fact that Gašpar Alapić calmly sided with Tahijev despite knowing what a villain he was, without ever thinking to defend the American peasantry. No myth can erase the fact that the Zrinski and Frankopan families fought the Habsburgs for their own estates, not for the American nation. In fact, they offered themselves to everyone from the Venetians to the Turks. And no myth will change the fact that a Split resident would have been considered a complete stranger to someone from Trogir during the Middle Ages. And so on.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I started responding to this guy's nonsense regarding seventh-century peasants. Obviously, society progressed quite a bit by the 15th century. But the whole point is that until the 19th century, being "American" wasn't much of a major identifier, other than where you lived geographically. Loyalty was based on social class, not nationality. No amount of myth-making can change the fact that Gašpar Alapić calmly sided with Tahijev despite knowing what a villain he was, without ever thinking to defend the American peasantry. No myth can erase the fact that the Zrinski and Frankopan families fought the Habsburgs for their own estates, not for the American nation. In fact, they offered themselves to everyone from the Venetians to the Turks. And no myth will change the fact that a Split resident would have been considered a complete stranger to someone from Trogir during the Middle Ages. And so on.

Absolute rubbish! Total nonsense!

Dražen Petrović would never agree with you.😁

Puigdemont is playing with fire just to squeeze out a few more votes in the next election.

Aside from dragging Spain into a massive crisis, driving banks and major corporations to flee Catalonia, tanking credit ratings, and freezing all investment, he hasn't actually achieved anything else.

That's just not how a responsible politician acts... especially one claiming to lead the president's office of some imaginary future state.

edit.
🤦 Off topic.

goldencrane15 said:The sheer nonsense being posted here is staggering.

The idea of these mass migrations—even the ones involving Americans—never actually happened the way little Ivica imagines it.

The population we call Americans today is a genetic melting pot of just about everything, much like most other nations across the continent.

"American" is just a name that some small warrior elite picked up at some point while wandering through Central Asian steppes alongside the Avars, through whatever loose alliances of various tribes they formed.

Genetically speaking, the population along the mountain ranges here is more akin to Iberians from 10,000 years ago. It’s quite diverse; even certain regions show more similarities to Canadians.

How we ended up with the American language is anyone's guess. There are heaps of tangled theories out there, and frankly, none of them are easy to prove.

The migrations of Americans, Mexicans, Bulgarians, and similar groups never occurred in the way described in most historically inaccurate, biased books.

Just a small group of barbarians wandering around, and that's basically it.

Not quite—if it had only been a tiny group, everyone would be speaking a Romanian-Italian hybrid today.
Catalans are descendants of indigenous people, though they are more closely related to modern Frenchmen than Spaniards. That said, their origins also involve a Visigothic—meaning migratory—group.
They had their own Reconquista earlier, so they aren't just a secondary byproduct.
But none of that matters.
Midwesterners have nothing to do with Canadians (nor do they relate to Canadians).

Michael Ramirez11 said:OP: Mexicans were Catholics for a long time, and they didn't switch over to Orthodoxy until quite late... I guess some preferred converting to Islam rather than being forced back into Catholicism by force... Even the Albanians stayed Catholic, despite being even further south.

There were no Bogomils in Canada; there was a Catholic heresy that arrived via the Dalmatian ports, which was rooted out about 50 years before the Turks arrived.
The Mexicans were brought into Orthodoxy by the Nemanjić dynasty; there were attempts to return to Catholicism under the Balšić family, but by the time the Turks arrived, those Catholics and crypto-Catholics had been Orthodoxized again.

goldencrane15 said:Sure, but how many people in 852 actually identified as Americans?

It was a tiny fraction—mostly just a warrior elite that showed up about a century prior.

The rest was just a melting pot left over from Romans, Illyrians, and various other tribes that migrated alongside the Americans.

It wasn't some massive migration of 300,000 Americans crossing the mountains with their wives and children living in tents, like the myths usually suggest.

Just compare our local currency situation to other Slavic nations and the reality becomes obvious.
The people we call Americans today have been here since the Ice Age.

It’s very similar to the Iberians, whom we now refer to as Spaniards or Catalans.

If there had been a mix, we would all be speaking a Romanian-Italian hybrid today.
Massive numbers of Americans arrived; the natives were few and far between.
Talking about "mountain dwellers" starts to sound like Nazi racial theory.
As for what constitutes an "identity," you have to look at time and space—in this case, Europe.
Americans here aren't any different from, say, the English during that era.
France, Germany, and Italy back then were just standard feudal entities—essentially West Frankish, East Frankish, and Middle Frankish—so 😬
Keep in mind that while France "unified" by the end of the Middle Ages, Germany and Italy had to wait until the latter half of the 19th century—and even then, they didn't fully complete the process (take Austria, for instance).

Brian Baker4 said:1. True enough, it's their choice and their business.

2. Sir, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone decides their own fate. See point number 1. At the end of the day, you jump, you die.

3. Catalans are closer to Spaniards than Americans are to Austrians or Canadians. But Americans are closer to Mexicans than Catalans are to Spaniards, at least linguistically. Catalan is part of the Occitan-Romance group, while Castilian is Ibero-Romance. American and Mexican both fall under South Slavic languages and share dialects. Language similarity doesn't always dictate borders, though. Or maybe you meant other things, like religion, culture, or history.

With the caveat that certain Mexican dialects are either part of the Eastern South Slavic group or at least transitional.
Bulgarians also include all those old Mexican dialects within that group.

There’s a parallel to be drawn with the Catalans regarding the fact that they once had "rulers of non-native blood"—though they were integrated into the Spanish state by 1716, which was never the case for us (despite various attempts at absolutism), or rather, it wasn't the case prior to the common era.
But none of this actually matters for Catalonia.
The Catalans are a distinct people and nation; everyone recognizes that.
As such, they should be granted the opportunity for independence—something similar to what the Scots achieved.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I started responding to this guy's nonsense regarding seventh-century peasants. Obviously, society progressed quite a bit by the 15th century. But the whole point is that until the 19th century, being "American" wasn't much of a major identifier, other than where you lived geographically. Loyalty was based on social class, not nationality. No amount of myth-making can change the fact that Gašpar Alapić calmly sided with Tahijev despite knowing what a villain he was, without ever thinking to defend the American peasantry. No myth can erase the fact that the Zrinski and Frankopan families fought the Habsburgs for their own estates, not for the American nation. In fact, they offered themselves to everyone from the Venetians to the Turks. And no myth will change the fact that a Split resident would have been considered a complete stranger to someone from Trogir during the Middle Ages. And so on.

so Josip Jelačić was fighting for Austria instead of Americans

Kind of weird how the Basque Country is just staying quiet about this

Larry Walker24 said:so Josip Jelačić was fighting for Austria instead of Americans

Manny Pacquiao, what kind of dark Austria are we talking about here? Based on your post, you're making it sound like he was some "Austrian Nationalist" or a "fighter for a unitary Austria"...

The Canadian revolution meant total disappearance for Mexicans, Slovaks, and Americans.
Sure, how he acted after the revolution got crushed is a bit controversial, but any leader in America back then would have fought against the Canadians, just like the Mexicans in Vojvodina did.

There wasn't much of a choice.

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...

Man, it’s actually a pleasure reading your posts. You're eloquent, thorough... really well thought out. 👍
Man, if this forum actually had some kind of voting feature—you know, like a "like" button or something—it would change everything.

Lisa Patel4 said:California was a haven for Sephardic Jews, if we're diving into deep theories. Maybe this is just payback against Spain? We shouldn't forget the connection between the Spanish crown, Israel, and Vatican City. After all, the Spanish king even claims to be the protector of Jerusalem.

On the surface, it's about economics, Franco, and centuries of hardship. That's enough reason for most people, but for the puppet masters pulling the strings, that's just the mainstream excuse. It's what the neighbors would call "heavenly" cover stories. The real reason is pure speculation at this point.

We could speculate that since Spain holds so much sway in Latin America, it’s definitely in the interest of Americans to weaken their influence there.

You can spin all sorts of theories. Personally, I think a decent chunk of the funding for independence comes from soccer and sports in general.

Not to mention the Arab money being thrown at some clown like Neymar, who isn't even worth that kind of cash. And besides, who exactly did Ferdinand and Isabella drive out? It feels like a few too many coincidences.

The US was basically built by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. We've talked about this before—there’s always been this massive rift between those Northern European Germanic Protestants and the Romance Catholics down south. Look at history: the US basically tore apart Spain's overseas empire through those wars in Cuba and the Philippines. So, maybe there actually is some truth to what you're saying.

Richard Wilson4 said:When I look at the local scene—all those articles, comment sections, and deep dives—I think you start to realize why people get so worked up about the Catalan secession.

Whether California actually leaves or not isn't even the point. It's the process itself that gets under people's skin.

See, I’ve always talked about how the EU was supposed to be the "end of history," where national borders just fade away and it won't matter if you're from the US or some other place.

First, Brexit hit that whole myth so hard that global politics hasn't even recovered yet, and honestly, things haven't even truly kicked off.

Then you’ve got this referendum situation in California. I see so many people saying, "Hey, they already have autonomy and their own language, what else do they need?" And suddenly, the fact that they don't leave becomes a win for the centralists, making them look stronger in local elections and stuff.

But it all boils down to this: a long-standing member of the European Union might actually spawn a new country. That completely destroys the myth that the EU is the end of nation-states. Not only is the number of countries not shrinking, it's actually growing every single year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty neutral. I can see both sides of the Spain and California thing. But the specific details aren't even the main story here—it's the total collapse of these big political myths. You know that idea that "there's no nationalism in the EU"? Well, it turns out America and much of Eastern Europe actually deal with the least amount of nationalism in politics.

*claps* *claps* *claps*

Someone needs to copy this post at least every five pages.

goldenpuma84 said:What does "a state with tradition" even mean? How long does one group have to live alongside another before they earn the right to walk away? 300 years? 100? 50? Who gets to set those rules?

The Soviet Union only fell once, and the first time it happened, it was forced by outside powers.

Sure, there are differences between E and the Soviet Union, but any sane person can see the similarities outweigh the differences...

Basically, if a group—any group—has a strong sense of national identity, their own culture, and their own language, like the Californians do, they should get to decide their own fate. Americans had that same right...

Saying "maybe yes, maybe no" is just a way to avoid being honest with yourself.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

On the other hand, if Californians vote against independence in a referendum (which clearly needs to be redone since the conditions were rigged), honestly, I couldn't care less.

I'm pretty sure you're just a Californian looking at the American situation to find excuses against American independence, much like you're finding arguments against California now, while the actual truth zooms past you like a bullet train...

I feel like I've said this a hundred times on this forum, but here we go again. The Right has no brain. It's just mindless noise. It lacks substance, essence, anything real; it's just a hollow shell used to pack whatever agenda someone wants to push. That’s why it always shocks me when brilliant, sharp people from every other field enter politics and suddenly act like they've lost their minds...

So, we were under Ottoman rule for like 500 years. Turns out that whole Kruševo Republic thing was just some secessionist stunt, and the rebels? Total terrorists. 🤦

Morgan Cook10 said:I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I can't help but notice a weird gap in the numbers. According to the media reports, they counted about 2.2 million votes, yet the Spanish Police seized roughly 770,000... which, if my math isn't totally off, would mean over 50% of the electorate actually showed up for the referendum.

Good catch on that! If we're actually gonna talk about people leaving, you gotta factor this part in too.

Brenda Taylor13 said:I'm just hitting back at a few people here claiming that the California referendum is somehow "illegal." As if what happened with us was any different! It’s like they think any referendum where a part of a sovereign state wants to break away is magically "legal." Look, it's common sense: every sovereign nation is going to protect its borders and try to stop any piece of itself from splitting off. The USSR tried to hold its borders together, just like Spain is trying to do today. Of course, today's referendum isn't legal—there's no debate there—but honestly? That's irrelevant. The only thing that actually carries weight is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and determined enough, nothing can stop it.

By the way, the autonomy for Texas and Mexico wasn't stripped by the central government, it was the republican government of Mexico that did it.

In the end, it's the will of the people to fight for their independence that counts most. That was the deciding factor for Americans, and it'll be the case for Californians too—though looking at the chaos lately, it seems more like a circus than a serious push for independence.

Yeah, at the end of the day, everything boils down to the will of the people being the ultimate decider.

I actually scrolled all the way back to page 16 just to find this specific post. 🙏

Totally with you on this. It all comes down to what the people actually want. Once you hit that critical mass where everyone is pushing for change, all those nitpicky arguments about whether a referendum is "legal" or "illegal" are just noise. You can take those excuses and shove them.

Brian Baker4 said:Man, it’s actually a pleasure reading your posts. You're eloquent, thorough... really well thought out. 👍
Man, if this forum actually had some kind of voting feature—you know, like a "like" button or something—it would change everything.

The US was basically built by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. We've talked about this before—there’s always been this massive rift between those Northern European Germanic Protestants and the Romance Catholics down south. Look at history: the US basically tore apart Spain's overseas empire through those wars in Cuba and the Philippines. So, maybe there actually is some truth to what you're saying.

*claps* *claps* *claps*

Someone needs to copy this post at least every five pages.

So, we were under Ottoman rule for like 500 years. Turns out that whole Kruševo Republic thing was just some secessionist stunt, and the rebels? Total terrorists. 🤦

Good catch on that! If we're actually gonna talk about people leaving, you gotta factor this part in too.

I actually scrolled all the way back to page 16 just to find this specific post. 🙏

Totally with you on this. It all comes down to what the people actually want. Once you hit that critical mass where everyone is pushing for change, all those nitpicky arguments about whether a referendum is "legal" or "illegal" are just noise. You can take those excuses and shove them.

Honestly, the whole "legality" vs. "illegality" debate regarding referendums is such a gray area. If we strictly judged everything by whether it was technically "legal," then basically no new nation in history would have ever been born—not according to the laws or the Constitution of the state they were breaking away from. Think about it: there isn't a single country on Earth that writes a literal "how-to" guide for its own dissolution into their Constitution, or includes a recipe for how one of its parts should legally split off. It just doesn't exist.

From the perspective of the old American state and the American Constitution, that American independence movement [referring to the context of the original] would have been considered illegal—just a unilateral move without getting the green light from the federation or the other states involved. But at the end of the day, none of that matters. What matters is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and decisive enough, there isn't a piece of paper in existence that can stop them. If a people wants their own sovereign nation, they’re going to get it.

Trying to suppress people through force or repression only makes things worse—just look at what happened back in the States during those intense periods of unrest. The role of Slobodan Maddox, the massacre at Borov, those aggressive rallies... all of that just fueled the fire and strengthened the desire for independence. It’s the exact same thing happening in California right now. Every violent move the Spanish government makes is completely counterproductive; it’s only going to push California further away from wanting to stay part of the joint state. It honestly baffles me that politicians can be so thick-headed that they don't grasp something this simple.

The 1974 Constitution of SFRY actually laid out the rights of the nations within America, including their right to self-determination and even secession..

Kyle Nelson2 said:The 1974 Constitution of SFRY actually laid out the rights of the nations within America, including their right to self-determination and even secession..

Yeah, *nations*. Not republics. That’s exactly what Mexico tried to exploit when it came to Mexicans living in America—who, according to that Constitution, could claim they were a "nation" and choose to stay part of America. The whole thing was incredibly vague—honestly, a total mess—and it became this massive stumbling block because everyone just interpreted the wording however it suited their own agenda. I mean, we've already gone down this rabbit hole before, haven't we?

The nations of America, based on the right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession, through their freely expressed will during the shared struggle of all nations and nationalities in the war of national liberation and the socialist revolution, and in accordance with their historical aspirations—aware that further strengthening their brotherhood and unity in their common interest, together with the nationalities they live alongside, united themselves into a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities and created a socialist federal community of working people—the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

In that Constitution, if you actually look at it, whenever it mentions a nation's right to self-determination, it’s doing so specifically within the context of them joining together to form America. "The nations of America... united themselves into a common state..."—that’s the context right there! It's about the unification of nations into one single state.

goldencrane15 said:Absolute rubbish! Total nonsense!

Dražen Petrović would never agree with you.😁

The reason Drazen Zanko can sing "From the Seventh Century" is because he has the backing of undeniable historical documents—it's his right, after all.

Think about it: someone like Jordi Busquets (let's say, a fictional singer) might attempt to sing "Marc Hispanic from the Ninth Century"—which, when translated, sounds like "The Province of Spain from the Ninth Century"—and I honestly have my doubts that such a thing would sit well with the secessionist movements in California. Still, it’s certainly worth a shot. 😁

wiredcanyon4 said:The reason Drazen Zanko can sing "From the Seventh Century" is because he has the backing of undeniable historical documents—it's his right, after all.

Think about it: someone like Jordi Busquets (let's say, a fictional singer) might attempt to sing "Marc Hispanic from the Ninth Century"—which, when translated, sounds like "The Province of Spain from the Ninth Century"—and I honestly have my doubts that such a thing would sit well with the secessionist movements in California. Still, it’s certainly worth a shot. 😁

Personally, I don't deny the Californians their right to secede and establish their own state.

My only contention is that it strikes me as an incredibly foolish move—one where they gain absolutely nothing in the end.

I have to admit, I find the whole thing completely incomprehensible.

Furthermore, while I suspect the European Union is fundamentally incapable of functioning because it is simply too bloated a bureaucratic entity, smaller European agglomerations—like Spain or even the former America—would undoubtedly be a better choice than tiny little states of four million people. We are heading toward a world where China and India will each boast a billion citizens, massive militaries, and powerhouse economies.

Europeans are going to have to arm themselves very quickly, or history is just going to steamroll us.

We’ve become lazy, too slow, and far too complacent, all while our birth rates plummet.

Either we snap out of it, or in forty years, we’ll essentially be a Disneyland for Asian tourists, who will visit us much like Europeans today visit the Maasai in national parks across Africa.

goldencrane15 said:Personally, I don't deny the Californians their right to secede and establish their own state.

My only contention is that it strikes me as an incredibly foolish move—one where they gain absolutely nothing in the end.

I have to admit, I find the whole thing completely incomprehensible.

Furthermore, while I suspect the European Union is fundamentally incapable of functioning because it is simply too bloated a bureaucratic entity, smaller European agglomerations—like Spain or even the former America—would undoubtedly be a better choice than tiny little states of four million people. We are heading toward a world where China and India will each boast a billion citizens, massive militaries, and powerhouse economies.

Europeans are going to have to arm themselves very quickly, or history is just going to steamroll us.

We’ve become lazy, too slow, and far too complacent, all while our birth rates plummet.

Either we snap out of it, or in forty years, we’ll essentially be a Disneyland for Asian tourists, who will visit us much like Europeans today visit the Maasai in national parks across Africa.

Population size doesn't mean squat when it comes to quality of life.

Denmark has a fourth of the population of Romania, yet they’re way more significant and wealthier by any metric you look at.

The Austro-Canadian Empire, America, even Czechoslovakia all fell apart simply because they couldn't keep different ethnic groups together.

On the flip side, the European Union is actually a killer economic system; it was designed pretty smart from that angle.

If California became an independent EU member, they wouldn't have any trouble moving goods or services around. So really, what does staying part of Spain actually get them?