Questions for our American friends

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Sorry, I meant toponymy. It seems to me that most cities, towns, villages, valleys etc. in California have Spanish names.

Spanish was spoken in California to some degree as early as 1520. It was not ceded to the US until 1848, at which time Spanish was by far the predominant language.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Mexican, yes.. especially south. They have to compete with the Asians up north. Spanish likely not so much. I know some Spaniards and they're not too keen on being mistaken for Mexicans.. nor are they here in such vast numbers.

Perhaps, if California splits into three separate pieces, one of them could be called "North Mexico".

California is not splitting up. Most of the population is the Los Angeles area. Most of the water is in Northern California and the Central Valley. LA started growing by diverting water from the Owens River.

The name was originally Alta California (Upper California" in contrast to lower "Baja" California) when initially colonized by the Spanish. Queen Califia ruled a mythical island nation of black Amazon (female) warriors in a popular Spanish novel published in 1500. The province passed to Mexico with the success of Mexican Independence and was part of the spoils of war that went to the United States in 1848 after the naked land grab called the Mexican War. American settlers completed the near extermination on the Indian populations already decimated by disease and the Spanish/Mexican mission movement.

Louisiana and St. Louis, Missouri were named after their king by French colonists who settled on the lower Mississippi. Thus the principal port city of New Orleans (cf Joan of Arc aka The Maid of Orleans,) Baton Rouge, parishes instead of counties, and a legal system derived from the Napoleonic code. Spain got control of the area when France ceded its North American colonies in 1763. The area also received an influx of refugees from the former French colonies in Canada at this time, the Acadians or "Cajuns." France reacquired the territory from Spain in 1800 and Napoleon sold it to the United States in 1803.

As far as I can tell, California has always been at least 25% Hispanic. The proportion is growing due to birth rate greater than that of whites and immigration. So far, Hispanics have mostly failed to exert proportionate political power, except when some stupid right wing politician pisses them off.

Really, Latin culture is by nature conservative, religious, and family oriented. Philosophically, they are a natural fit for the Republican party, except that the white racists in that party continue to demonize them. Democrats have supported Latino interests and brought them into the blue camp, but Hispanics have not seemed comfortable there nor rewarded the Dems with a loyal voting block. Native born and naturalized citizens are ambivalent about the immigrants. They don't have much sympathy for folks not jumping through the same hoops they have, but don't like the civil rights violations inflicted upon the legal residents by ICE enforcement. With a culture built around children and families, they are outraged by the current separation policies and outright child abuse by DHS.

https://apnews.com/8ee7bb417c964fa8ae3da657a1f83ed6

Something has gone seriously wrong with DHS hiring practices. Too many bad actors are on the payroll. We can send the kids back home without mistreating them.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

California is not splitting up.

Wouldn't it be better democratically for Californians and Democrats?

Smaller states are proportionately far better represented by the electoral college, senate and congress.

Could actually prevent a Trump's/Republican re-election which is why they won't let it happen.

If they say the popular vote doesn't matter then maybe you should play them at their own game. Maybe split up New York and Washington States also.

Though one person one vote has to be a better long-term solution than gerrymandering.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

California is not splitting up. Most of the population is the Los Angeles area. Most of the water is in Northern California and the Central Valley. LA started growing by diverting water from the Owens River.

.....

Where are based the pre-European Californian tribes today in reserves like in other States?

I read that you also was thinking to reintroduce the Grizzly bear who was totally eradicated in the past.
How would it be reintroduced? After a referendum or through administrative decision?

Today you get 37 millions inhabitants, when there only were 92'000 inhabitants in 1850 and already 7 millions in 1940. Does it create environmental problems?

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Queen Califia ruled a mythical island nation of black Amazon (female) warriors in a popular Spanish novel published in 1500.

I read this somewhere, too. California has the same etymological origin as the Arabic title caliph.

[Mal Hombre]

The Spanish got it from the Moors and brought it to the Americas,Like the Deguello..

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Where are based the pre-European Californian tribes today in reserves like in other States?

I read that you also was thinking to reintroduce the Grizzly bear who was totally eradicated in the past.
How would it be reintroduced? After a referendum or through administrative decision?

Today you get 37 millions inhabitants, when there only were 92'000 inhabitants in 1850 and already 7 millions in 1940. Does it create environmental problems?

There are some reservations for the remnant of the tribes that survived the European influx. The 92,000 was Hispanic and a few Anglo, Russian, and other European colonists plus the tiny percentage of Indians who had survived. It is likely that at least 95% of the native inhabitants had been wiped out during the Spanish & Mexican colonization.

There is talk of trying to clone the Golden Grizzly from DNA samples. The species was exterminated over 100 years ago. Large grizzly bears do not coexist well with civilization. For one thing, a primary food source for both the bears and the giant condors was the beached carcasses of dead whales. The whales are nearly extinct, too.

Do you think billions of tons of garbage, human shit, cow shit, dog shit, pesticide run off, air pollution, and various other toxic chemicals dumped into the soil and water constitutes a problem? Geez, what a silly question.

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Wouldn't it be better democratically for Californians and Democrats?

Not really. There would still be the same number of Representatives spread across the three states and the four new senators would cancel each other out.

Beginning next year, we will begin to see the insanity of the confluence of California voters opinion strains play out. In short, California voters want the state to provide a variety of high quality services, but do not want to pay taxes. This should all come crashing down sooner, rather than later. Jerry Brown has given us a grown up in charge during this iteration. At some point we will confront the reality of actually paying for the demanded services in addition to repaying all the bonds issued while we kicked the can down the road.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Sorry, I meant toponymy. It seems to me that most cities, towns, villages, valleys etc. in California have Spanish names.

Originally Posted by cginok

That's because it was a Spanish colony for most of it's "existence." Same way you get a lot of French names in Louisiana.

And just as there's plenty of French blood -- and language-- in Louisiana, there's plenty of Spanish in California.

Spanish California was always "Spanish by way of Mexico" -- the Spanish conquered central and South America long before spreading north.

Spain colonizes California with 21 missions -- mostly still cities today, some very big like Los Angeles and San Francisco, some smaller and more folkloric like San Juan Capistrano. The infrastructure, funding and administration of this effort all comes from Mexico, not from Spain directly-- and while California was Spanish, it was ruled from Mexico City, not Madrid or Seville.

Anglos don't tend to spend much time thinking about how Spain's Empire worked -- its not taught in schools. Because Mexico was so rich, it was the "Viceroyalty of New Spain", a status a bit like British India. Much of what is now the Western United States was the Comandancia y Capitanía General de las Provincias Internas, ruled by a "Captain General"

So making a distinction between "Mexicans" and "Spaniards" might make sense today, but that's not how California was colonized by Spain.

If you look at someone like the famous Fr Junipero Serra, who founded 9 of the 21 missions, he was born in Spain, Majorca specifically, and then joined the Franciscans and traveled to Mexico. Just as Brits moved around their Empire, Spaniards moved around theirs. There's a substantial migration between the Philippines and Mexico, for example-- including Pinoys brought as slaves, along with others who come as soldiers, priests and adventurers.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Spanish California was always "Spanish by way of Mexico" -- the Spanish conquered central and South America long before spreading north.

Spain colonizes California with 21 missions -- mostly still cities today, some very big like Los Angeles and San Francisco, some smaller and more folkloric like San Juan Capistrano. The infrastructure, funding and administration of this effort all comes from Mexico, not from Spain directly-- and while California was Spanish, it was ruled from Mexico City, not Madrid or Seville.

Thanks. There is a rather daunting desert in northwestern Mexico and southern California. Even San Diego and Los Angeles are natural desert areas.

The settlement moved up the coast in valleys of or east of the Coastal Range. The first mission was San Diego founded in 1769. The mission and presidio of San Francisco was founded in 1776. Mission San Jose was founded in the East Bay in 1797. Mission Santa Rosa was aborted in 1827. After the Mexican Revolution of 1821 settlement became secularized. The California missions never became self sufficient and had been subsidized by the Franciscan order in Spain.

The indigenous people of California were very primitive and slow to adapt to European culture. This adaptation was hindered by the plagues of European diseases that swept through the missions. For example, a quarter of the mission Indians died in a measles epidemic in 1806.

Ironically, the California Indians were so primitive because they were abundantly supported by the food resources available. Even the bow and arrow had been abandoned because game was so plentiful and easy to catch.

Spanish soldiers settled and started cattle ranches near the missions. When more settlers arrived it was discovered that the Mediterranean climate and virgin soils of California made for an agricultural paradise. North of the Tehachapi Mountains the soil is rich and there is plenty of water.

[Reclaimedwg]