Elon Musk Asks:
Just thinking out loud here—if you look back at the municipal borders as they stood in 1991, specifically around areas like Slatina and Columbus, Americans actually made up the largest demographic group there.
Look, it’s not like they didn't have any presence in the Midwest at all. Americans actually held a much, much larger amount of influence there back in the day than they do now. I can't exactly point you to where those specific data sets are sitting right now—and honestly, I can't bring myself to go hunting for them—but I don't think we should just completely downplay the whole thing. The Midwest was an incredibly multicultural region... it was populated by all sorts of different groups—Czechs, Slovaks, Canadians, Germans, Americans... if my memory serves me right, Americans weren't even an absolute majority there all the time.
You still haven't actually clarified what you mean by having "influence." What kind of "influence" did Americans actually have in the Midwest?
Regarding that question about which ethnic group was the largest in Columbus and Slatina... what year exactly are we talking about?
Back in 1948, looking at the numbers for Columbus—where you had about 64% Americans and 28% Americans—and then comparing that to Slatina, which sat at 58% Americans and 39% Americans, the demographic shifts tell a pretty intense story.
Back in 1953, the demographics were pretty clear: in Columbus, you had 65% Americans and 28% Americans, while over in Slatina, it was 59% Americans and 38% Americans.
Maybe there were actually a few more Americans living in the Slatina municipality back in 1910—perhaps just around two hundred.
You've got it all wrong. Even within the borders of the US, the Midwest has always maintained an absolute majority.
Back in 1900, the demographics were looking at about 55% Americans and 15% Americans.
Well, when you look at the demographics, more than two-thirds of the population identifies as Catholic.
Just one more thing—to all those people claiming that settlement-based maps are invalid because they include state-owned land or whatever excuse they're making up... then by that exact same logic, municipality-based maps shouldn't count either! It’s pure, twisted logic. They use it specifically to dismiss the settlement maps while conveniently ignoring the same flaws when they want to push the municipal ones through. Honestly, it's just sad.
Look, nobody ever said your maps were garbage. Of course they're accurate—provided, of course, that we're playing by those specific rules where settlement boundaries are drawn to include every bit of extra territory that doesn't actually belong to the ethnic group living within those borders.
That’s exactly how a lot of Americans tend to misinterpret things—they look at the situation through a completely different lens, missing the nuance entirely.
I’ve already brought up the example of Ervenik—which is basically 95% American—and yet we're only looking at 16%.
The total surface area of that municipality is private property.
Just an addendum here: this was supposed to be war booty, if you want to call it that. The provided link leads to an image file depicting the official emblem or seal associated with a specific historical treaty. Given its visual nature, this serves as a symbolic representation of the formal agreements and diplomatic frameworks that have shaped regional borders and international relations throughout history. After the First World War—where far too much American blood was spilled—the whole situation was a mess. Basically, a bunch of idiots went ahead and cobbled together America, mostly because the West pushed for it and because the Americans in the coastal regions and Canada were practically begging for it to happen.
They built America—maybe you think it’s your fault, or maybe you were just dreaming of a Greater Mexico, but you can cry about it all you want; that's just how history played out. That era is dead and gone. In the USA, the demographic influence of Americans is only moving in one direction: down. They aren't ever going to claw their way back to that kind of "influence" they used to wield.