I strongly doubt your assertion that Spanish identities pre-19th centuries are somehow so loosely related that they would have little in common with one another so as to not form 'mostly' a generalized identity on the peninsula.
Politically, geographically, linguistically - the languages spoken in that region are more similar to one another than those in France and have been for much longer than 200 years -obviously some bit notwithstanding - as I indicated.
My point stands and is strongly validated even by linguistic continuity ... 'most' of the Spanish still speak a version of Latin, and the Germans do not.
2000 years later - the 'Greeks' still speak a variation of Greek and still live in the same area.
The degree of ethnic continuity fundamentally transcends politcal borders.
" Such regressive developments can only be pauses in an ongoing forward movement."
Trashy globalist arrogance.
The 'Germanics' have been around for a few thousand years, it's not an issue of 'nation state' - if they believe that all that they are is more than some Federalist, unelected Bureaucracy, then so be it.
Sweden is in many ways more successful than many US states - so then why do they need a Federation?
Why do certain people think that the tendency towards global governance and the abolition of states, ethnicity (i.e. actual diversity) is a good thing?
And how do they somehow make it a moral issue?
For about 1000 years the borders of Europe have bounced around but somehow they almost always end up roughly along ethnic lines.
How many wars were fought over Spanish succession? By French, Habsbourgs etc? And yet, 'Spain' is pretty much 'Spain' even to this day (yes, an amalgamation surely, but most of them roughly 'Spanish' at least considerably more so than they are 'German' or 'French').
It's also a crazy paradox that those usually virtue signalling 'diversity' in specific locales, are the same one's pushing for policies which tend to break up and delegitimize ethnic groups, thereby decreasing ethnicity in the world.
Doctors and Executives are not 'pyramid schemes' in any sense of the word, and profs at elite universities represent a very small economy.
'Management' is a skill, not a 'market manipulation' and a very difficult skill at that.
Most of these 1% work huge numbers of hours, typically had to work pretty hard through school, and are smart and talented people - even if there is shifty stuff here and there, and a lot of 'born in the right family luck'.
I don't know any successful people who are fools who just lucked out through life. They're all pretty amazing.
The irony is that while the words are stupid (“alignment”, “intentionality” and “end-state visions”) - this pretty good actually.
Most white collar jobs are full of 'waking sleep' - and if we focus on outcomes, and drive them forward with intentional work - we would be more productive.
"Bullshit jobs" - if you doing anything to move the ball forward - like working a checkout or pumping gas - your job may feel meaningless, but it's not BS by any means. Middle management tends to be the most BC. And many gov. jobs.
"US employee now spends 45% of their working day doing their real job. The other 55% is spent doing things such as wading through endless emails or attending pointless meetings."
This is part of the job. Communicating is work, and we can't be 100% efficient at all times.
I'm kind of saying spirituality is easy, less practical part. :)
The 'work' of spirituality is hard. It's often done through religion.
Crazy point: those who 'religious and attend services' are least likely to commit crimes, but those who are 'spiritual but not religious' commit the most! Sorry no reference. Point being, we are creatures of habit, and action speaks louder than words.
I guess there is a lot of theological debate about whether or not it's more important to 'have faith' which is a matter of spirituality, or to 'go to church and be a good person' ...
Spirituality and Religion are not quite the same thing.
Even hearing Angels is not necessarily very religious (and of course, we may hear a lot of things with chemical help ...).
Spirituality is a personal, intellectual, possibly experiential thing.
Religion often entails cultural overhead, community, and generally a lot of work: those who have had the opportunity to 'see angels' have the responsibility of then promoting their new understanding in the world, living as examples to others yada yada, i.e. it's mostly hard work and heavy cross-bearing, i.e. 1% inspiration (seeing angels) and 99% perspiration (being a good person, which is hard).
Yes, technically there were 'people who wrote music' but we wouldn't really call them composers, and we were not attributing anything to them.
And it wasn't a 'maslow' thing - it was that we had yet to develop proper instruments, scales, etc. etc.
FYI Music during about that time was mostly Gregorian chanting and what not - and for a time music was banned by the church, at other times it was only allowed to be made 'for God' type thing. Come to think of it there are I think some composers and attributions but minimal stuff. We don't 'remember them' because what they did was not remarkable like Beethoven.
But I'm coming to think they may go: Lincoln, Washington, Obama as the 'big 3' over time. Again, a 'Black leader of the free world' is historically massive, and it transcends USA issues.
Not saying I think that, just how academics will write it.
Musical theory only developed during the renaissance and was basically formalized by the baroques i.e. Bach - and Moazart/Beethoven mastered it.
Music as we understand it really didn't exist before that. No real way to write it down, no way to create complex arrangements.
Italians thought of it, Germans formalized it and then mastered it. Nobody has pushed it much further since.
---> Scientists ...
Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes - not Scientists, but I get what you are saying - again I'd suggest that these are 'fundamentalists'. Founders of rational thought.
Newton = foundations of classical physics.
There are 1000x more Scientists alive today than ever before, and the only one we're going to remember is from 300 years ago? Point being - maybe there are no easy/major discoveries to be made so nobody will be remembered. Who will be remembered for CERN? Probably nobody.
Obama was the 'First Black President' - this is, on a historical scale - massive. Just massive. Also, America is kind of a 'world leading' country, so 'leader of the free world' - meaning, a black man as 'leader of the free world' - only about 150 years after slavery. This is a big deal, historically. I think his story is just getting written. Academics love him and they will write the history books. In 50 years, I think Obama will be up there with the 'big ones' in terms of being a 'landmark president'.
A) It's the power centres that we remember, because they make the decisions - most notably, Royalty. The articles comments are off on this - maybe 80% of UK Royal heads of state are almost household names in the UK. Even around the world.
B) 'Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance.' - as we dive into selfish consumer materialism, and narrow minded scientific materialism, the better religious figures words are more important than ever now, I for one wish some legitimate leader would come along in this regard.
C) Musicians - Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are still household names.
The one's that will be around:
QE2, Hitler, possibly Obama - I think American academics will create a big historical thing around him and America is a 'big power' they have the ability to bend history. Think JFK but times 10, and more globally oriented. Mao especially due to his foundational status of the new Chinese state - and they are huge. Possibly Stalin. Gandhi - depending on how Indians decide to propagate his history. He has some really ugly spots that we overlook.
Possibly Marx and Adam Smith as 'founders' of economics.
Maybe another common thread is 'those who are the foundation of something' - because Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are taught in Music class as kind of the kings 'basic of music' (even though they were not there at the start). No matter how many music genres we go through, at music school the rudiments will likely still be interpreted with them in mind.
Any serious Monarch that lasts more than 30 years will get a spot in the textbooks at least.
As for Scientists - how many can the average person name past 'Einstein'? And FYI - Einstein had a marketing/branding campaign behind him that he was aware of and somewhat weary of. Niels Bohr? Oppenheimer? Walk down the street nobody knows who they are. Maybe if they get a particle or theory named after them ...
Athletes not really.
Actors - this is a new one - because we now have the ability to record performances for future generations. Maybe the early actors will be minted as 'the originals' and be studied for 1000 years ...
The kind of history we have post 1900 will be very different than before because now everything is recorded and written down. Imagine if we could just pull up Billy Shakespeare on YouTube ...
There can nary be such a thing as a 'housing crises'.
California does not have one, in general.
If California municipalities 'don't want to enable building' because their residents don't want it ... well ... then they will have fewer people, probably higher housing costs and that's their choice.
If the 'average bay policeman' or whatever can't afford to buy a home for 100 miles - then the citizens of Cali are going to have to pay their cops more, or, those cops will go elsewhere.
It's a fairly fluid and competitive landscape - more so than most places on earth.
There's a high demand for living in some parts of Cali and it's going to be like that for a long time, even with some building it won't change.
It's a choice Californians seem to be making, it's their choice.
If town councils are arbitrarily messing things up against the will of the people - who want to see high rises everywhere ... well that's another story.