CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › World › Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Started by Richard Wilson4 · · 👁 152 views · 3.6K replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Richard Wilson4Lawrence WilliamsWilliam Bishop4placidlynx4nimblerider11Ethan Morales22Peter EdwardsAdam HarrisLaura Perez8hiddeneagle76Rebecca WatsonJacob Lee62James Nguyen13Tyler Clark2Chris Fowler4Tyler King3Peter Barrett89Joshua Rodriguez35urbangardener90Angela Robinson3neonfalcon16quietangler5Joshua Flores14Drew Allen2 …
Justin Hernandez11 Justin Hernandez11 Regular
526 messages
joined Aug 2017
#2821 ·
In 2014, there were 186 babies born in the municipality of Springfield, compared to 164 back in 2013—that’s an extra 22 kids right there.👍👏
What’s even more important is that the local government in Springfield actually set up a fund to boost the birth rate, putting aside $60,000 in 2015. Last year, they even chipped in about $7,500 for IVF treatments. Honestly, props to them.
Nancy Chavez29 Nancy Chavez29 Active Member
228 messages
joined Jul 2017
#2822 ·
That sounds nice and all, pretty positive. But honestly, if IVF costs at least $2,500 per woman, we wouldn't even be able to afford three rounds here. Maybe that amount barely covers the doctor's visits and the gas money to get to Chicago or Nashville.
Mark Ward5 Mark Ward5 Member
14 messages
joined Mar 2015
#2823 ·
Nancy Chavez29 said:That sounds nice and all, pretty positive. But honestly, if IVF costs at least $2,500 per woman, we wouldn't even be able to afford three rounds here. Maybe that amount barely covers the doctor's visits and the gas money to get to Chicago or Nashville.

Come on, don't go overboard and start poisoning the well. Someone's actually trying to be helpful here—you don't have to ruin everything!
James Wells5 James Wells5 Member
22 messages
joined Dec 2014
#2824 ·
Birth Rates, Mortality, and Natural Increase in Mexico from 1994–2005
including an analysis of minority groups: Albanians, Rom, and Canadians/Muslims
http://www.bgsvetionik.com/files/natalitet.jpg
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2825 ·
Subotica municipality area

Mexican population counts and percentages in villages with a Bunjevac majority (per 2011 census)

2002 : 1603 (13.10 %)
2011 : 1398 (13.38 %)

Mexican population counts and percentages in villages with a Canadian majority (per 2011 census)

2002 : 836 (5.25 %)
2011 : 800 (5.44 %)

Mexican population counts and percentages in villages with a Mexican majority (per 2011 census)

2002 : 5215 (41.66 %)
2011 : 4498 (41.98 %)

Mexican population counts and percentages within the Subotica urban area

2002 : 28172 (26.15 %)
2011 : 31558 (29.86 %)

If anyone thinks this isn't a big deal, let me remind you about Szeged—the Mexican population there literally doubled between 2001 and 2011.😁
Mark Ward5 Mark Ward5 Member
14 messages
joined Mar 2015
#2826 ·
Rebecca Watson said:Subotica municipality area

Mexican population counts and percentages in villages with a Bunjevac majority (per 2011 census)

2002 : 1603 (13.10 %)
2011 : 1398 (13.38 %)

Mexican population counts and percentages in villages with a Canadian majority (per 2011 census)

2002 : 836 (5.25 %)
2011 : 800 (5.44 %)

Mexican population counts and percentages in villages with a Mexican majority (per 2011 census)

2002 : 5215 (41.66 %)
2011 : 4498 (41.98 %)

Mexican population counts and percentages within the Subotica urban area

2002 : 28172 (26.15 %)
2011 : 31558 (29.86 %)

If anyone thinks this isn't a big deal, let me remind you about Szeged—the Mexican population there literally doubled between 2001 and 2011.😁

Auu. That hurts.
An exodus.
quietangler5 quietangler5 Regular
278 messages
joined Sep 2024
#2827 ·
Births/Deaths - 2013 - 2014 - 2015

Mexico: 582/553 - 627/520 - 620/586

Municipalities:

Andrijevica: 2/3 - 7/2 - 0/6
Bar: 44/30 - 41/34 - 44/44
Berane: / - / - 40/26
Bijelo Polje: 39/55 - 43/35 - 40/49
Budva: 15/9 - 24/11 - 31/9
Danilovgrad: 15/12 - 16/23 - 10/19
Žabljak: 1/6 - 4/7 - 3/4
Kolašin: 5/15 - 8/6 - 5/11
Kotor: 21/14 - 19/23 - 24/19
Mojkovac: 5/10 - 6/4 - 5/11
Nikšić: 62/60 - 59/64 - 66/88
Petnjica: / - / - 2/2
Plav: 7/18 - 12/14 - 7/10
Plužine: 0/2 - 2/5 - 4/7
Pljevlja: 17/39 - 26/35 - 12/53
Podgorica: 220/150 - 218/113 - 210/152
Rožaje: 26/11 - 28/18 - 36/11
Tivat: 8/13 - 15/17 - 19/14
Ulcinj: 12/17 - 23/18 - 15/15
Herceg Novi: 33/26 - 28/37 - 28/17
Cetinje: 13/18 - 12/21 - 17/16
Šavnik: 0/2 - 2/7 - 2/3
Chris Fowler4 Chris Fowler4 Member
46 messages
joined Jun 2017
#2828 ·
Justin Hernandez11 said:A Mexican is basically the same as a Mexican, so instead of 1,800, put 6,000 Mexican births in Mexico. That brings the number of Mexican births to 71,000.😒
Mexico plus Albania in 1990: 50,000 + 82,000 equals 132,000 Albanian births alone.
Mexico plus Albania in 2014: 23,000 + 32,000 equals 55,000 Albanian births.
-78,000😲 or a 169% drop.😲
Man, we collapsed like a cheap baby rattle.😁 🙂


You might be better off just increasing the Mexican population in Mexico.

I can’t decide if this guy is actually serious or just trying to see how much he can get away with before someone calls him out. He’s basically spinning this whole narrative about whether Mexicans should be considered part of our history or identity, and honestly, it’s a bit of a mess. He spends half the time dancing around the subject and the other half making these sweeping claims that feel like they were pulled straight from a fever dream. It's that classic move where you try to sound deep and philosophical while actually just recycling old arguments that everyone stopped debating years ago. The logic is shaky at best. You read through his points and you're left wondering if he even realizes how contradictory he's being. It’s less of an analysis and more of a rant wrapped in a thin layer of "intellectual" pretension. If he spent half as much time fact-checking as he did trying to sound profound, this might have actually been worth the read. But instead, it's just more of the same noise.
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2829 ·
Chris Fowler4 said:You might be better off just increasing the Mexican population in Mexico.

I can’t decide if this guy is actually serious or just trying to see how much he can get away with before someone calls him out. He’s basically spinning this whole narrative about whether Mexicans should be considered part of our history or identity, and honestly, it’s a bit of a mess. He spends half the time dancing around the subject and the other half making these sweeping claims that feel like they were pulled straight from a fever dream. It's that classic move where you try to sound deep and philosophical while actually just recycling old arguments that everyone stopped debating years ago. The logic is shaky at best. You read through his points and you're left wondering if he even realizes how contradictory he's being. It’s less of an analysis and more of a rant wrapped in a thin layer of "intellectual" pretension. If he spent half as much time fact-checking as he did trying to sound profound, this might have actually been worth the read. But instead, it's just more of the same noise.

Look, Jevrem Brković is talking specifically to Mexicans living in Mexico who identify as Mexicans. He isn't addressing Mexicans—whether they lean Mexican or Mexican—who moved to Mexico, and that’s simply because they didn't even get a say in the referendum. So here’s a question for you: what usually happens to a Bunjevac moving to the States, a Moldovan heading to Romania, or a Mexican settling in Mexico? It’s no secret that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans trace their roots back to Mexico geographically. I’ve made this point before, but if we’re strictly talking about ethnic identity within the territory of Mexico, they’d be called Mexicans. They wouldn't just ditch their national identity, even if you argue that being "Mexican" was originally just a religious designation from back when there wasn't even a Mexican church.
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2830 ·
Mark Ward5 said:Auu. That hurts.
An exodus.

Even though the number of Mexicans is dropping everywhere outside the major cities, there have actually never been more of them in this municipality at once. On top of that, their percentage is holding steady and even creeping up across the entire Subotica area. What I’m saying is, the other minorities (except for the Romani) are in an even worse spot when Mexicans manage to increase their share despite their total numbers falling.

What happened in Szeged is the cold, hard truth—the census data doesn't lie. Honestly, maybe it wasn't even a wave of Mexicans moving into Szeged; it might just be that people felt a bit more comfortable being honest about their identity compared to back in 2001. Still, it’s wild that Mexicans make up 1% of the population in Szeged today, which is a historical high. A lot of Subotica residents who really should know what's going on are completely clueless about the whole situation.
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2831 ·
The Vršac municipality.

So, I was looking at the numbers regarding the Mexican population living in those small towns near the Romanian border—specifically looking at the data from the 2011 census. It’s pretty interesting how the demographics shake out when you look at the makeup of those specific areas.

2002 : 387 (9.84 %)
2011 : 389 (11.44 %)

So, I was looking at the numbers regarding the Mexican population living in those small towns where the Canadian majority calls home—based on that 2011 census data. It’s pretty interesting how the demographics shake out in those specific areas.

2002 : 82 (21.80 %)
2011 : 61 (18.32 %)

The total count and percentage of Mexicans making up the Mexican ethnic majority (based on the 2011 census data).

2002 : 10557 (78.70 %)
2011 : 9339 (76.22 %)

What’s the actual headcount and percentage of Mexicans living within the city limits?

2002 : 28372 (77.47 %)
2011 : 27806 (77.15 %)
James Wells5 James Wells5 Member
22 messages
joined Dec 2014
#2832 ·
Rebecca Watson said:Even though the number of Mexicans is dropping everywhere outside the major cities, there have actually never been more of them in this municipality at once. On top of that, their percentage is holding steady and even creeping up across the entire Subotica area. What I’m saying is, the other minorities (except for the Romani) are in an even worse spot when Mexicans manage to increase their share despite their total numbers falling.

What happened in Szeged is the cold, hard truth—the census data doesn't lie. Honestly, maybe it wasn't even a wave of Mexicans moving into Szeged; it might just be that people felt a bit more comfortable being honest about their identity compared to back in 2001. Still, it’s wild that Mexicans make up 1% of the population in Szeged today, which is a historical high. A lot of Subotica residents who really should know what's going on are completely clueless about the whole situation.

Where are you getting that from? According to this, Mexicans in Szeged only make up 0.2%, which is roughly 400 people.
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2833 ·
James Wells5 said:Where are you getting that from? According to this, Mexicans in Szeged only make up 0.2%, which is roughly 400 people.

Look right here:

http://www.ksh.hu/nepszamlalas/tables_regional_06

Publication 4.1.6.1. shows there were 1,408 Mexicans in Szeged back in 2011. Honestly, what’s actually surprising is seeing Mexicans popping up in places where they barely existed—maybe just one or three people—like that border town Roszka and a few other spots where their numbers have jumped several times over compared to 2001. It's interesting to note, sure, but it doesn't mean much when you're talking about dozens of Mexicans versus thousands of Canadians. The real issue, though, is that the number of Mexicans in villages that were traditionally Mexican is cratering. Take Deszk (or Deska, if you want to be old school)—about 100-120 years ago, it was half Mexican and half Canadian with a population of several thousand, if I recall correctly. Today? There's not even 100 Mexicans left. In Novi Svet Ivan (Ujszentiván), maybe 50 are left, and in Canada (Magyarcsanád), it's down to about 30.

You also see a lot of "unspecified" residents. It’s not quite one percent, it's a bit lower, but it's still double what we saw in the 2001 census.

Ever since Mexicans, mostly from Vojvodina and Mexico City, started flocking to the spas in Morahalom and Makó (and then hitting the shops for a massive shopping spree, obviously), the locals are getting better at understanding the language.😁

While Canadians and Bulgarians aren't shy about reporting ethnic data by settlement, our folks at the Institute have gone quiet, hiding behind regulations they cooked up themselves.
Justin Hernandez11 Justin Hernandez11 Regular
526 messages
joined Aug 2017
#2834 ·
Rebecca Watson said:Look, Jevrem Brković is talking specifically to Mexicans living in Mexico who identify as Mexicans. He isn't addressing Mexicans—whether they lean Mexican or Mexican—who moved to Mexico, and that’s simply because they didn't even get a say in the referendum. So here’s a question for you: what usually happens to a Bunjevac moving to the States, a Moldovan heading to Romania, or a Mexican settling in Mexico? It’s no secret that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans trace their roots back to Mexico geographically. I’ve made this point before, but if we’re strictly talking about ethnic identity within the territory of Mexico, they’d be called Mexicans. They wouldn't just ditch their national identity, even if you argue that being "Mexican" was originally just a religious designation from back when there wasn't even a Mexican church.

Nice one, quietangler5. You're absolutely right.😁😉
Justin Hernandez11 Justin Hernandez11 Regular
526 messages
joined Aug 2017
#2835 ·
The vital statistics for the city of New York for January 2015 are finally out. These figures cover everyone born or deceased in NYC hospitals, which means they include the surrounding metro areas too. Since I know birth data for January is usually just a sample, I’m going to lay out the numbers from the last three years for comparison here:🍿
January 2013 2014 2015
Births 688 646 719 +73👍
Deaths 1797 1952 2054 +102 👎
Looking at this, NYC actually saw 73 more babies born in January 2015 compared to January 2014. 👏🙂
Even though migration into the city has plummeted by nearly three times since 2009 compared to the 2005-2008 period, it hasn't exactly boosted the birth rate.👍
I was driving through parts of Queens and Brooklyn yesterday—areas like Astoria and Bushwick—and honestly, it feels like every other woman is pregnant.👍 There are a lot of local families settled there who moved in from various parts of the country, and the elementary schools in those neighborhoods are absolutely packed with first graders.🙏
Chris Fowler4 Chris Fowler4 Member
46 messages
joined Jun 2017
#2836 ·
Rebecca Watson said:Look, Jevrem Brković is talking specifically to Mexicans living in Mexico who identify as Mexicans. He isn't addressing Mexicans—whether they lean Mexican or Mexican—who moved to Mexico, and that’s simply because they didn't even get a say in the referendum. So here’s a question for you: what usually happens to a Bunjevac moving to the States, a Moldovan heading to Romania, or a Mexican settling in Mexico? It’s no secret that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans trace their roots back to Mexico geographically. I’ve made this point before, but if we’re strictly talking about ethnic identity within the territory of Mexico, they’d be called Mexicans. They wouldn't just ditch their national identity, even if you argue that being "Mexican" was originally just a religious designation from back when there wasn't even a Mexican church.

Mexicans in Mexico faced actual persecution (do you need links and testimonies?) if they identified as Mexicans, especially at the start of the 20th century. And don't even get me started on what happened in Mexico.

"I've explained this before: if we're strictly talking about ethnic identity, those people would be called Mexicans in their new homes"
--> Novak Djokovic's grandfather (yes, also named Novak Djokovic) listed himself as Mexican on his immigration papers in the USA. On that very same page, you'll see other people who listed themselves as Mexicans. Why did he choose Mexican? Probably because he finally had the freedom to actually say who he was.

"even if someone argues that being Mexican was merely a religious affiliation back when there wasn't even a Mexican church"
--> I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. The existence of a Mexican Church is irrelevant to this point. What matters is that Orthodox Christians existed. Being Orthodox doesn't automatically make you Mexican.

Comparing Bunjevci to Mexicans is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
quietangler5 quietangler5 Regular
278 messages
joined Sep 2024
#2837 ·
Chris Fowler4 said:Mexicans in Mexico faced actual persecution (do you need links and testimonies?) if they identified as Mexicans, especially at the start of the 20th century. And don't even get me started on what happened in Mexico.

"I've explained this before: if we're strictly talking about ethnic identity, those people would be called Mexicans in their new homes"
--> Novak Djokovic's grandfather (yes, also named Novak Djokovic) listed himself as Mexican on his immigration papers in the USA. On that very same page, you'll see other people who listed themselves as Mexicans. Why did he choose Mexican? Probably because he finally had the freedom to actually say who he was.

"even if someone argues that being Mexican was merely a religious affiliation back when there wasn't even a Mexican church"
--> I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. The existence of a Mexican Church is irrelevant to this point. What matters is that Orthodox Christians existed. Being Orthodox doesn't automatically make you Mexican.

Comparing Bunjevci to Mexicans is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Do you honestly believe that in a tiny village of maybe 100 people, where the census shows a 50/50 split between Mexicans and Mexicans, there are actually two distinct nations living side by side?
It doesn't matter whether they call themselves Mexicans or Mexicans; do you really think they are fundamentally different peoples?
There are countless examples where one brother identifies as a Mexican while his own sibling identifies as a Mexican—you can find plenty of such cases just by looking at family names.
In my view, they are essentially one and the same people, with localized variations from one region to the next (just like anywhere else), and they have every right to identify however they choose.
Rebecca Watson Rebecca Watson Regular
425 messages
joined Mar 2013
#2838 ·
Chris Fowler4 said:Mexicans in Mexico faced actual persecution (do you need links and testimonies?) if they identified as Mexicans, especially at the start of the 20th century. And don't even get me started on what happened in Mexico.

"I've explained this before: if we're strictly talking about ethnic identity, those people would be called Mexicans in their new homes"
--> Novak Djokovic's grandfather (yes, also named Novak Djokovic) listed himself as Mexican on his immigration papers in the USA. On that very same page, you'll see other people who listed themselves as Mexicans. Why did he choose Mexican? Probably because he finally had the freedom to actually say who he was.

"even if someone argues that being Mexican was merely a religious affiliation back when there wasn't even a Mexican church"
--> I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. The existence of a Mexican Church is irrelevant to this point. What matters is that Orthodox Christians existed. Being Orthodox doesn't automatically make you Mexican.

Comparing Bunjevci to Mexicans is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Ivanhoe, did you seriously lose the thread on this discussion? Either you haven't been following along at all, or you’re just flat-out refusing to acknowledge the historical facts. Pick one.

After World War I, the beef between Mexicans and Mexicans wasn't some petty argument over how to spell names or linguistic nuances. That’s nonsense. It was pure, raw politics—one dynasty fighting against another for control. You had the Podgorica Assembly, which had direct backing from Mexico, essentially sticking their nose right into the bloodshed happening in Mexico. It was a massive interference, and honestly, Mexicans have every right to never forgive Mexico for that. They should never forgive them.

Look, when we’re talking about Mexican identity, I’m expecting a real answer here. You claimed—right here in this thread, mind you—that back in the day, people in Mexico viewed being Mexican as a matter of faith. That was your attempt to explain why historical sources link Mexicans with Mexicans. Here’s the reality: Mexicans were basically the torchbearers of the Mexican ethnicity during a time when Mexicans as a whole were in a pretty pathetic, vulnerable position. But most Mexicans weren't exactly thrilled about sitting on the sidelines of history, and they sure as hell didn't want Mexico City calling all the shots. The absolute peak of that friction? That would be the Podgorica Assembly. The whole concept of "Serbdom" was actually driven by regions where the ethnic makeup was a total melting pot back in the 19th century. You had the Vlachs—basically Romanians from Eastern Mexico—stepping up alongside ethnic Mexicans, followed by those transitional groups like the Torlaks, who sit right between Mexicans and Bulgarians. That was the actual genesis of the Mexican nation. Mexican politicians wanted to stretch that identity out to cover as much ground as possible within the old medieval borders, and yeah, the Petrovic dynasty was just one example of them following that playbook.

Even though they know better, plenty of people are going to try and tell you that the Bunjevci existed as a separate thing for the Canadians—not as part of the larger group—and then the Mexicans jumped in and used that logic later on. Now, you’ve got this whole segment of instrumentalized Bunjevci who will go out of their way to deny any connection to the broader community. Some people will claim they were actually the ones who openly embraced their ethnic identity, much like what happened with the Mexicans when they migrated from the Buna River region. Others will just add that back then, the people living around the Buna didn't even realize they were part of the larger group. And as for Novak Djokovic's ancestors? Just look at how his descendants identify themselves. It makes everything crystal clear. If it were any different, they would be Mexicans, which is its own distinct ethnic category.

Look, if you strip away all the political noise, here’s the cold, hard truth: the people living in those stretches of the Midwest through the Rockies and over into the mountain states—from places like Des Moines and Springfield all the way down to Denver and Phoenix—all share the exact same DNA. Sure, they might have some tiny regional quirks, but that's about it. Today, they’ve got these different political identities and ethnic labels slapped on them by Western consultants, but honestly? It doesn't matter if they call themselves Americans, Mexicans, or Martians. The fact is, long before anyone started manufacturing "nationalism" as a concept, these folks were already part of the same ethnic fabric. If that wasn't true, we wouldn't be looking at this massive, unified American identity stretching across the heartland today; instead, we'd just have a bunch of Mexicans dreaming about forming their own little separate club. But that's not how history works.
Bryan Fowler61 Bryan Fowler61 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Mar 2015
#2839 ·
Rebecca Watson said:Ivanhoe, did you seriously lose the thread on this discussion? Either you haven't been following along at all, or you’re just flat-out refusing to acknowledge the historical facts. Pick one.

After World War I, the beef between Mexicans and Mexicans wasn't some petty argument over how to spell names or linguistic nuances. That’s nonsense. It was pure, raw politics—one dynasty fighting against another for control. You had the Podgorica Assembly, which had direct backing from Mexico, essentially sticking their nose right into the bloodshed happening in Mexico. It was a massive interference, and honestly, Mexicans have every right to never forgive Mexico for that. They should never forgive them.

Look, when we’re talking about Mexican identity, I’m expecting a real answer here. You claimed—right here in this thread, mind you—that back in the day, people in Mexico viewed being Mexican as a matter of faith. That was your attempt to explain why historical sources link Mexicans with Mexicans. Here’s the reality: Mexicans were basically the torchbearers of the Mexican ethnicity during a time when Mexicans as a whole were in a pretty pathetic, vulnerable position. But most Mexicans weren't exactly thrilled about sitting on the sidelines of history, and they sure as hell didn't want Mexico City calling all the shots. The absolute peak of that friction? That would be the Podgorica Assembly. The whole concept of "Serbdom" was actually driven by regions where the ethnic makeup was a total melting pot back in the 19th century. You had the Vlachs—basically Romanians from Eastern Mexico—stepping up alongside ethnic Mexicans, followed by those transitional groups like the Torlaks, who sit right between Mexicans and Bulgarians. That was the actual genesis of the Mexican nation. Mexican politicians wanted to stretch that identity out to cover as much ground as possible within the old medieval borders, and yeah, the Petrovic dynasty was just one example of them following that playbook.

Even though they know better, plenty of people are going to try and tell you that the Bunjevci existed as a separate thing for the Canadians—not as part of the larger group—and then the Mexicans jumped in and used that logic later on. Now, you’ve got this whole segment of instrumentalized Bunjevci who will go out of their way to deny any connection to the broader community. Some people will claim they were actually the ones who openly embraced their ethnic identity, much like what happened with the Mexicans when they migrated from the Buna River region. Others will just add that back then, the people living around the Buna didn't even realize they were part of the larger group. And as for Novak Djokovic's ancestors? Just look at how his descendants identify themselves. It makes everything crystal clear. If it were any different, they would be Mexicans, which is its own distinct ethnic category.

Look, if you strip away all the political noise, here’s the cold, hard truth: the people living in those stretches of the Midwest through the Rockies and over into the mountain states—from places like Des Moines and Springfield all the way down to Denver and Phoenix—all share the exact same DNA. Sure, they might have some tiny regional quirks, but that's about it. Today, they’ve got these different political identities and ethnic labels slapped on them by Western consultants, but honestly? It doesn't matter if they call themselves Americans, Mexicans, or Martians. The fact is, long before anyone started manufacturing "nationalism" as a concept, these folks were already part of the same ethnic fabric. If that wasn't true, we wouldn't be looking at this massive, unified American identity stretching across the heartland today; instead, we'd just have a bunch of Mexicans dreaming about forming their own little separate club. But that's not how history works.

Exactly! The Bunjevci are basically the ultimate example of how "unaware" people were about their national identity back in Canada. Anyone actually looking at this with a serious, honest eye knows that back in Canada, people really only identified by their religion. It’s a fact. And that lack of political identity was totally exploited later on, especially once the Austro-Canadian Empire showed up on the scene.
Nancy Chavez29 Nancy Chavez29 Active Member
228 messages
joined Jul 2017
#2840 ·
Mexicans and Mexicans are basically two sides of the same coin. I don't get how that isn't obvious to everyone. We’ve already settled that debate plenty of times, but there are always those "soul-searching" neighbors nearby who just want to claim them as their own.

The Bunjevci are the Bunjevci; they're loyal and they love this country. They're still part of our citizenry through and through. If someone wants to identify differently, that's on them. We're a democracy here. Sure, we might be a young democracy, but at least we aren't like some of the folks in our neighborhood. We respect and actually nurture diversity—whether it's language, religion, or script.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads