Re: CHAT: national identity

John Cowan wrote:

> Tom Wier scripsit:
>
> > After all, there are only *two* states that can claim to have existed
> > in their own right as nation states before becoming part of the United States,
> > and only one of those was a democratic republic (Texas).
>
> Eh?  The flag of California says "California Republic" on it.
Right -- but just what nation was in de facto control of the place during
the Mexican war? US troops had, I believe, already occupied the place
before they declared their independence, or did so shortly thereafter.
By "claim to have existed", I mean honestly speaking here -- I think
Vermont also claims that it was a separate nation at one time, but does
anyone really buy that? No, of course not.

If one accepts California's claim that it was an independent republic,
then you cannot say, e.g., that Virginia is a State; officially speaking,
it's a Commonwealth. :)

Both Texas and Hawaii were recognized as independent states by a handful
of European nations and the US. The former embassy of (I think it was) Louis
Philippe is now a notable Austin landmark, only about two miles or so from where
I live near the University. It's not much, really; I don't think the King really
cared about his relationship with Texas, which is to be expected, since
Texas wasn't exactly a vast Gulf power to be contended with or anything ;-) .
In fact, the whole idea of Texas being an independent state is often quite
exaggerated by Texans, seeing as it was only for nine years we're talking about
here (the Texans expected to be immediately admitted as a state, but the US
was (a) afraid of war with Mexico if they did annex it, which came anyways,
and (b) it just looked bad to annex a country that had just overthrown another
country's rule without a few years' interval in between -- that way, you don't
feel so dirty about it)

(Come to think of it, Hawaii probably also had some semblance of a democratic
regime after the Dole pro-American planters got ticked off at Queen
Liliuokalani's nativizing policies and staged a coup in 1894 of '95, I think...
but they didn't have the whole drama of a Declaration of Independence, an
Alamo equivalent, an evil despot to be overthrown (she wasn't evil, and I think
she even had a constitution of some sort) or anything like that to my knowledge :-)

Anyways, I'm babbling now, and this thread has lost all connection with
conlanging, so if someone wants to talk about it, please do so in private email.